On the Descriptive and Prescriptive Will (of God)

I am new to this point. Being somewhat of a student of the philosophy of language I tend to view such points about human subjective concept ideas about God rather carefully. It seems though that the point of contention sometimes used about prescriptive and descriptive will pertains to efforts by some to define what they think God should be like, and if it is too cruel that some are elected to be saved while others are doomed to eternal hell. 

One poster named Robin Phillips wrote; "God’s prescriptive will is what God commands to be the case, while God’s decreed will is what He makes to be the case." http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/01/21/why-i-stopped-being-a-calvinist-part-3-calvinism-dislocates-god-from-our-experience-of-him  

In fact the entire trouble about pre-destination and where free will fits in to it is fascinating when one considers quantum physics, yet even so man is just dirt without so much as a worm-like status without God's will-descriptive I suppose. If his prescriptive will is what it is so much the better for everyone that they get any sort of communication at all while existing. Who really knows why the potter shapes the clay the way he has except the artist? Some might want light without darkness, being without nothingness, hot without cold, mountains without valleys and so forth in a temporal Universe. Why evil exists yet God is perfectly good may be a cloud-of-unknowing sort of theological concern that Plotinus might have dwelt on even as a philosopher; why did God issue anything to begin with; why did the Word start light in motion? Maybe the answer is that all possible things exist for any omnipotent and omniscient God anyway and such question stimulate thought in his creatures.

Israeli P.M. Recognizes Silliness of 2-State Final Solution-U.S. Admin Don't

Prime Minister Netanyahu's incisive comments on the problems of a two-state final solution presented a brilliant rhetorical competence in addressing uncomprehending Washington D.C. politicians with a fairy-tale atheist-scientific quackish agenda point of view about homosexual marriage and Middle East reality. Some people hate homosexual marriage and believe besides that its a fraud issue about a Union of Queers expropriating benefits for people that aren't hetero couples. Between marriage and divorce homos would just get benefits from the government for being queer basically.

Muslims are increasingly bloodthirsty in the Middle East and President Obama's policies have simply fanned the flames, cutting off of heads and killing of Christians. Christian ought to be relieved when he stands down in January 2017 to let someone that hasn't had a relative in office before take charge with new directions that provide support for Israeli security. The President's policies inflame Muslim hatred of the U.S.A. and their policies to redistribute economic and political power from straight males to females and queers won't help calm things either.

Plainly sin is a disease that affects people in government. There never has been a Christian nation that did not eventually equilibrate the status of women faster than non-Christian nations. Christian ethics simply are not those of a macho social order. Yet American women with their privileged liberated status insist on forcing social redistribution of rights within a Darwinian social environment without any cultural tradition of Christianity to evolve those moderated sexual ethics. In fact American women in politics tend to abandon Christianity while exploiting the social equality that Christian ethics built. The result therefore is global efforts to compel a sexual economic revolution upon a world that hasn't the privilege and that competes tightly for security and power within an insecure social environment with innumerable internal and external security threats including revolution.

Obviously the United States has had crude Iran policy for some time yet the record on Iraq and Syria isn't  better. U.S. clumsiness on policy has led to a civil conflict in Ukraine among peoples that had lived as one for much of the past thousand years. That was quite an accomplishment as the Eastern establishment sought more Reds to overcome.

Abraham had several wives. When he died he had three groups of sons and he sent them in different directions giving his favorite son Isaac the inheritance of the land where Israel is today. Ishmael son of Hagar he sent to the west. Ishmael had 12 sons that became ancestors of twelve tribes of what are today Muslims. Isaac of course became a Jew and father of Jacob-renamed Israel by God, and were ancestors of twelve tribes. A wife of Abraham named Keturah had many sons-one of whom was named Midian-these sons Abraham sent their own way too.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4640247,00.html

One group became Arabs and Muslims eventually, another group became Jews through Isaac and the rest could be considered to represent everyone else. Eventually the covenant with Abraham through Isaac and his son Jacob-Israel will bring the entire world to inherit the kingdom of God through the Lord Jesus. Adam was given a garden, Abraham was given a nation and the Lord given the world.

In the meantime the way of the Lord is advancing-even since the protoevangelium in the garden of Eden where God said that the descent of Eve would bring enmity and crush the head of the serpent. That serpent is the devil. Jesus Christ crushed him at Calvary though the slithery creature is still biting heels and will do so while the Kingdom of God advances and even bloodthirsty Muslim head-choppers or their decedents find their way to the Lord.

Ted Cruz May Denounce Canada if He Reaches the Final Four

Senator Ted Cruz-a serious Presidential candidate reportedly said he would denounce his Canadian citizenship (if elected?) President of the U.S.A. That is commendable enough, yet it might have been better and more persuasive for Tea Party'ers if he would just denounce Britain and all things British including Tea, derivatives and stock swaps.

Its been a long time since some good old-fashioned denouncing of Brits and the Empire has occurred. There should have been some of that around in 1914. Those Torries are troublesome creatures.

If Bill Clinton had been denounced for being a graduate of a British College America would been spared 20 or 30 years of family political malingering and be far better off today. Such people are often seeking to start a new caste or aristocracy in the imperial style. British subjects and Anglophiles just don't have that zing one wants in the Oval Office.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-canadian-born-us-president-heres/story?id=29846887

Two Product Improvement Ideas

Waiting in a Wal-mart aisle for a new or improved product to appear on a shelf may not be an efficient way to get more of the things built in China to arise. If one wants a portable fuel cell power supply that weighs less than five pounds and that could recharge a computer what suggestion box would one drop a note in? If one wanted a roll-out pre-planted vegetable garden with seeds rows properly spaced between two sheets of organic mesh that is about 4’ wide by 20 feet long and sells for fewer than 10$ would it magically appear in time for spring planting? Do these products already exist somewhere outside the Wal-mart Universe?

Plainly gardeners with muskeg yet no dirt that wanted to place a few instant garden screeds on the muskeg or dirt if down south in order to harvest fresh vegetables in summer without a lot of theory would benefit from instant organic gardens with appropriate seed cultures that are safe from bird snacking and insect attack-maybe with a little fertilizer thrown in with composition timing. It should be easier for the free-time and finance challenged to roll-out a spring planting that requires only watering to produce at least a few potatoes, carrots, lettuce, mint, and squash.

Why do the rich make it so difficult for the monetary and time-poor to recharge computers or plant gardens on a budget?

In the 2008-9 financial and derivatives crash the U.S. Government made a decisive choice to become a permanent lackey for the globalist rich instead of serving to benefit American citizens and the nation within secure borders. Globalist of Wall Street following the Clinton global initiative to bring the U.S.A. within a new British evil financial empire found G.M. bailed out and bad debts brought up along with a cornucopia oz zero interest loans from Wall Street so banks could print their own fiction e-dollars. The Government of the United States in its new form became something like treason-in-itself submitted to global rather than national interests. George Washington would never have supported the home mortgage derivatives financial schemes not bailed out the buzzards that flimpped it up.

Concentrated global wealth must crash and burn when its risks bring it to ruin in order that rational conservative investors can inherit the Earth so far as that meekly goes.

A wise Presidential leader would have allowed global investors to suffer the consequences of their own financial risks that occurred beyond the physical borders of the U.S.A. A patriotic American President would have reinforced only business in the United States and debt obligations within national borders. Even so, it was not in the interests of the people of the United States to reinforce concentrated wealth over those of ordinary people or the poor nor to prefer to promote the advantage or powerful yet corrupt networks rather than defend the rights and prospects of individuals.

It is difficult to say where a lackey-stooge U.S. Government will go next in its work to build up the wealth of globalists, China, the New British Evil Empire or N.P.R., yet one can be certain that it is unlikely that it will become easy and affordable for poor Americans to get a patent for new products so they too can sell their made-in-America products to Wal-mart or even Amazon.com-light.

Plainly sin is a disease that affects people in government. There never has been a Christian nation that did not eventually equilibrate the status of women faster than non-Christian nations. Christian ethics simply are not those of a macho social order. Yet American women with their privileged liberated status insist on forcing social redistribution of rights within a Darwinian social environment without any cultural tradition of Christianity to evolve those moderated sexual ethics. In fact American women in politics tend to abandon Christianity while exploiting the social equality that Christian ethics built. The result therefore is global efforts to compel a sexual economic revolution upon a world that hasn't the privilege and that competes tightly for security and power within an insecure social environment with innumerable internal and external security threats including revolution.

American politicians that act as if the entire world was Kansas and that a school board just needed to let women run things are something like Mister McGoo with a blindness to promoting cultural change abroad without recognizing the incapacity of a non-Christian nation to have Christian cultural ethics. Those take time to evolve and bring cultural changes. They are not increased by corrupting Christian church doctrine.

Getting a U.S. patent ought to be as easy as buying a phone recharge card at Wal-mart-it just isn't, and so inventions and innovations flow abroad while the U.S. government props up the rich in order to expand the realm of imperialism concentrating wealth with godless immoral ethics of the lost.

Democrats Must Run Lawyers for President to Represent Special Interests

Are special interest directives hidden behind lawyer Presidents and the innumerable ways they flank honest, plain implementation of the duties of their office or is bending or breaking the law with the fiat of power simple an innate characteristic of crat-attorneys? hasn't the Democrat Party got a PhD in Economics or two able to run instead-someone with honest ideas to benefit Americans instead of the Brits or the rich?

Cosmology & Theology-Watson's 'Divinity' Then and Now

Cosmology and Systematic Theology; A Metric in Thomas Watson's 'Body of Divinity'

Watson's collected sermons comprise a catechism in the faith in order that Christians 'may be well-grounded in the faith'. The work is edifying obviously and beautifully written-a permanent edition to one's library that may be read and reread over the years. I will examine the work and consider some cosmological points of interest to me in light of historical accretions of natural philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas was a scholastic theologian with a neo-Aristotelian method 'proving' points about God with logic. Watson is a scriptural theologian using inferences and inductions from scripture to inform readers (or originally listeners to his sermons) of the attributes and purposes of God. I suppose one might find a history of theologians or an encyclopedia of theologians to learn just where Watson's method of theology fits into the history of theology, yet I would guess that the early reformers broke some ground in the development of theological method. Aquinas' scholastic approach in comparison to Watson's scriptural approach seems somewhat wide of the mark of relevance to Christians, though of course Aquinas was a brilliant theologian who wrote much earlier and did contribute to the development of methods of using logic in application to theoretical and actual reality.

Watson's Body of Divinity historically precedes much of the advances in science and reason that followed and was to change European and world intellectual society. It is especially important therefore in another role besides that of being an excellent work of systematic theology; it has many points consistent with contemporary philosophical positions on the relationship of matter to spirit. Spirit is wholly different than matter. A Christian may accept the material philosophical position on the nature of physical reality and reject the straw man argument that Christians need to prove that a soul exists in a body or that God should be observable in a space telescope -if not the Hubble then the new James Webb telescope. Thomas Watson expressed for theological reasons why God could not have a physical body and is instead an invisible spirit. I commented on that too.

Before Francis Bacon, John Locke and David Hume developed a more material philosophical position that actually did nothing to disprove the existence of God, Thomas Watson was writing quality theology consistent with quantum theory a deeper level than anything that exists today. One cannot yet find M-Theory or super-string theory to add anything new to argue meaningfully against theological contemplation of God founded upon reveled knowledge in scripture. On the contrary contemporary quantum mechanics-and even the cyto-skeleton primary to brain neurons and synaptic thought activity that functions at a quantum level-support an approach to investigating the mysterious transition zone between spirit and matter. All that exists as quantum events of complex constructions entangling particle-waves, membranes or strings, monads or one-dimensional quanta in a field may arise from a Spirit and idea. Bishop Berkley's premise of idea still cannot really be refuted except perhaps on some examples. Though neuro-science comprehends how mind works and the way it arises to a certain extent within a metafield-the Higgs field is the most current referent term-the ultimate determining power of order cannot be understood better than with faith.

Modern philosophy has developed numerous forms of logic. One list I found has propositional and predicate logic, extensional logic, modal logic, deontic logic, epistemic logic, deviant logic and fuzzy logic. The ability of any logic or mathematical expression to encompass a metaset of sets is limited by the liar's paradox also found in Godel's incompleteness theorem and Bertrand Russell's discovery while working on the Principia Mathematica to formalize mathematical logic that no set of all sets can include itself and be within the set. If a man says that all people in city A are liars and the man himself is in city A-can he possibly be telling the truth? Can one ever several numbers in a finite series and have an answer within that series (if they are positive numbers)?

That means that it is not possible to develop a rigorous cosmological theory that can be proven with 100% certainty. It is faith that leaps across to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thomas Watson arrived at the right position several centuries before modern science began to learn that empiricism does not gain a necessary atheistic outlook because science applies mathematical and logical reasoning to sense data. The material world is itself an expression of quantum phenomena and the minds of observers experiencing it immersed within a relativistic quantum field. It is easy to recognize that what that is in-itself cannot be understood by anything. It is possible only to appreciate it aesthetically and observer its content a posteriori. Still, there are expositors of evolution that believe a posteriori content theory should in some way annihilate rational philosophical or theological thought about the nature of cosmology, quantum fields, theology of Spirit and so forth. Perhaps they wish with Hume to throw everything that can't be eaten or observed into the flames, yet that is a tautologous synthetic will-to-wormness to know just sense-data that undermines critical thought. In relationship to God human beings may be as worms, yet they are made in the image of God's rational thought and ought to develop that in appreciating the creation of God (this and all possible Universes).

Brian Josephson/G.W.F. Hegel -Evolution of Spirit at a deeper level

Recently I encountered a philosophical and cosmological world view of Brian Josephson-I believe the eponymous inventor of Josephson junctions (for quantum tunneling)- a Nobel laureate, that resembles G.W.F. Hegel's idea about God realizing himself in history (described in The Phenomenology of Mind). The idea transcends the boundaries of naive evolution vs. creationism quite a bit. Josephson believes that quantum mechanics can evolve its own complexity inclusive of mind, yet his theory stipulates an initial observer starting the development or evolution of a system of evolving quanta that becomes sentient biologically. I want to expand the parameters of the Josephson theoria to extrapolate and explain theological implications.

The physics and what is known of biological systems of aggregating change and in creasing complexity and complex structures appear to support Josephson's thesis that is comparable to a neo-Hegelian evolution of spirit realizing itself in history. Josephson's theory obviates the need for the extra dimensions of M and String theories. In those theories there is a vast number(10 to the 500th power?) of ways of putting dimensions together to form a Universe such as this and hence equally as many mathematical forms to describe it. Finding the right formula and dimensional model to account for the nature of this Universe would be rather challenging. Instead of a virtually infinite number of dimensions that with randomness or perhaps logical permutation experiment (an anthropomorphism) with the generation of a Universe capable of supporting life-an approach often used by atheists to negate the anthropic principle/Goldilocks 'just rightness' physical constants of this Universe such that it supports life, and observer initiates or primes the initial quanta to be and become.

Such an observer could be hypothesized to have evolved for-himself in some way before the Universe existed, although Christians stipulate that God existed from eternity rather than having a beginning. One might consider that the 'ancient of days' did not simply evolve mind as the first created Person and become God to all subsequent Universes. In a way that is incomprehensible to the human mind, God always was. God was and is prior to the existence of the first virtual particle, erg of energy or dimension of possible space-time. In any event once God was, and as God was, with omnipotence and omnipotence all potential creations, Universes and evolutions were with God and for-God.

At any rate though, since God existed He would be able to jump-start any number of possible Universes though they could be designed to evolve like a growing, branching tree. Because God is a sentient mind who may evolve sentient minds in contingent Universes it is likely that as an omniscient mind he foreknows all contingent minds that exist or would exist in any possible Universe. God's being transcends and encompasses all temporal space-time and contingent sentient beings within a given universe.

Though this is a scholastic sort of theological speculation rather than scriptural it is useful to show that evolution theory is not incompatible with God creating the Universe, with physical determinism nor with God continuing a sustaining role knowing the content of all sentient thought within a physically evolving Universe. Alpha through Omega.

Romans 8:27-30: “27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Josephson's theoria has I think primarily a steady state Universe criterion and that steady state Universe and its quantum material are field phenomena that are entangled in a field and that field in an unknowable order (of God I would think). Being certain of the actual physical composition of a meta-field containing the Higg's field and all of the steady-state material in it inclusive of black holes and space-time is unrealistic for some time I would think. One can however be certain of Jesus Christ .

With that comment on Josephson's neo-Hegelian theory of cosmology I will return to the subject of this paper.

Watson writes in his 'preliminary discourse to catechizing' that “ This grounding is the best way to being settled: ‘grounded and settled.' A tree, that

it may be well settled, must be well rooted; so, if you would be well settled in religion, you must be rooted in its principles.”

In his day England was very unsettled politically and in religion. Watson was himself put out of regular church for being too sympathetic with Catholics during the hyper-Puritan era . He must have yearned for a steady social environment as well as upon matters of faith. Yet the technology of the time when the printing press was still limited and books were somewhat uncommon and given just to the prosperous and select churchmen made it essential that a steady doctrine be formulated through education in order that the people might hear the truth-and the same truth regarding the gospel instead of being torn about hither and yonder by preachers of sectarian interpretations.

That was a practical and worthy aim following regicide, rise of Cromwell and even Milton in his government as a minister, during a time when the number of books printed annually in Germany was rising from a few hundred annually to several and eventual tens of thousands with most being the Bible and commentaries upon it. Watson's preaching career preponderantly occurred before the King James version was put together; it's printing made a standardization of scripture easier. Yet hermeneutic reformation was still in need of work as one can see in the way that Spurgeon regards the revelation apparently as a pre-tribulationist while writing later in his introduction to Watson's Divinity.

Watson asks and answers; “Q-I: WHAT IS THE CHIEF END OF MAN?

A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.”

That is the purpose of his book-to lead the Christian toward knowledge of God and the purpose of being. That indeed is an easy yoke, and in fact a privilege given unto the elect through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Watson introduces the idea of God's glory as being his most sensitive topic-he will tolerate no effacing of it nor share. God's glory is an implicit aspect of his nature. Human beings cannot really understand what the sort of thing is-especially for-itself. Human beings have a temporal flash-in-the-pan sort of opportunity for existential admiration-by-others now and then. Perhaps Hollywood stars or football players may have a moment of ego. Wisdom informs us of the fragile temporal status of life though. It is wise to not be overcome by delusions of the meaningful of glory. Glory may be given to God yet for human beings composed of dust cleverly made it is something of a vain delusion and time-consuming distraction to enjoy as the clock ticks on.

“This glory can receive no addition, because it is infinite; it is that which God is most tender of, and which he will not part with. Isa 48:8: ‘My glory I will not give to another.'”-Watson

This is a fascinating and edifying instruction regarding the glory of God. Watson informs us that glory is not essential for human nature, yet is is to God. What glory is to God and what it means may be beyond the range of human understanding however. To be anywhere within range of experience of God at all is for a human being to experience something dreadfully good and of an excellence beyond understanding. Perhaps giving glory to God is all that human experience can meaningfully say.

”So God will do much for his people; he will give them the inheritance; he will put some of Christ's glory, as mediator, upon them; but his essential glory he will not part with; ‘in the throne he will be greater.' [2] The glory which is ascribed to God, or which his creatures labour to bring to him. I Chron 16:69. ‘Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name.' And, I Cor 6:60. ‘Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit.' The glory we give God is nothing else but our lifting up his name in the world, and magnifying him in the eyes of others. Phil 1:10. ‘Christ shall be magnified in my body.'

What is it to glorify God?

Glorifying God consists in four things: 1: Appreciation, 2. Adoration, 3. Affection, 4. Subjection. This is the yearly rent we pay to the crown of heaven.”-Watson page 13

Watson's opinion about the consequences for being settled in the faith are applicable today. With the profusion of tech communication for ordinary people and the flood of cultured despirers of religion in the media and select leftist circles as well as with the rise of Muslim terrorism it is common for people to be quite unsettled in faith and belief about what doctrine is correct. Then again, the settling of certain Christian leaders on a hierarchical priesthood wherein the primary financial form for churches is to provide succor for the church pastor's family tends to blind the church leadership toward the need for ecclesiastical reform that utilizes modern technology and literacy stats to improve the role of Christians in churches and society. Reform of church structure to return to a pragmatic viable utility is lacking. It is difficult to imagine that Paul would have treated the Christians he knew as bare beginners in the faith as church pastors tend to do today, for life.

“‘The apostate (says Tertullian) seems to put God and Satan in balance, and having weighed both their services, prefers the devil's service, and proclaims him to be the best master: and, in this sense, may be said to put Christ to open shame.' Heb 6:6. He will never suffer for the truth, but be as a soldier that leaves his colours, and runs over to the enemy's side; he will fight on the devil's

side for pay.”-Watson page 9

To be settled in the faith means for Watson certain general principles rather than of every detail, or on every point of church structure. One would think that Watson would have supported an adaptive church structure for the times such that if a number of Christians can do math then all should be math instructors rather than just one leader teaching math to all of the church and as the evangelist of math plenipotentiary to math- illiterate pagans.

Watson's principle and admonition to be settled in the faith may go into detail so far as to include or exclude articles such as those of Arminianism and salvation as official church doctrine. Arminianists believe that all are saved and that Jesus died for everyone's sins rather than for the elect. Arminians believe that people choose for-themselves to have faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior who meets them 99% of the way. Calvinists don't. Calvinists like Paul and Augustine before regard mankind's nature in original sin as totally depraved and incapable of doing anything to become saved. Unlike the earned income tax credit where the federal government returns more money to the poor than they paid in taxes, the Christian contributes nothing acceptable to God and is given salvation through the works of Jesus Christ, the grace of the Holy Spirit and the will of God. Such articles of faith occur through the election of God, yet of course human beings can misinterpret what is true doctrine about God, with the devil in the details as it is said. Like filling out complex tax forms perhaps it is the intent and will that matters most-to get it mostly right in understanding, rather to to be perfect in all phases of filling out forms, though one must try.

“[5] If ye are not settled in religion, you will never grow. We are commanded ‘to grow up into the head, even Christ.' Eph 4:15. But if we are unsettled there is no growing: ‘the plant which is continually removing never thrives.' He can no more grow in godliness, who is unsettled, than a bone can grow in the body that is out of joint.”-Watson page 9

Martin Luther wrote, “All Christians are priests, and all priests are Christians. Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian."

After the crucifixion of Jesus by the Temple priesthood manipulating the Roman Governor and laws followed eventually by the destruction of the Temple the human cultural tradition of hierarchical priesthoods in time resumed the authority structure of a few upper class leaders instead of the egalitarian priesthood of believers as Jesus seemed to want to move to in. Reformation of the way people relate to God in ecclesiastical structure perhaps required time to pass until technology and literacy enabled better general understanding of ideas about the points of religion such that Christians commonly could be settled in belief.

Eschatology is another area where Christians today are a little unsettled. It isn't a matter of apostasy such as in the problem of the sin error of homosexual marriage that took down the PC-USA and was forced upon states in the U.S.A. by the federal judiciary during the Obama administration perhaps compelling some Christians to emigrate to less reprobate climes. Controversy about the Revelation is one such point. I will illustrate a bit.

Jesus wanted to save Jerusalem yet as they were a religious-led national Israel failing to adapt to the presence of the Lord and straying too far from the heart of God with formalism and legalism the correction given was to evolve beyond legalism to personalism and personal relationship to God as The Son of Man whom everyone could know personally. That wasn't a divorce; it was a consummation spiritually speaking of the relationship between mankind and God. It was always probably necessary for God to include all of humanity in the realm of His personal acquaintance through the Lord Jesus Christ-not simply via the introductory period of Jews in a nation following His laws amidst a planet full of pagan lunatics and killers in hot pursuit of capital.

As one of the reasons given in support of a first century context for interpreting the Revelation Gentry gives the information that the futurist, dispensationalist way of interpreting the Revelation creates a persistent Christian despair about the present accompanied by a rationalization that this world is doomed and given over to the deus a machina of wickedness under the dark powers of Evil and that Christians can look forward to the rapture taking them out of the society of despond.. Of course one does not require a Christian eschatology that interprets the Revelation within a dispensationalist, futurist paradigm in order to have a pessimistic outlook on world events and life in general. In fact atheists continuously cite the evil and wickedness in the world as reasons against the existence of God. For many atheists any possible Universe created by God must be as Sugar Mountain with barkers and colored balloons but no sort of accidens (not to misuse that Aristotelian term but the error works rather well in this context).

R.A. Torrey was a dispensationalist and well-meaning Christian writer. Gentry is another and thus it seems evident that it is possible to have different ideas about what the book of Revelation means and when it was written. I believe that the fact that there are consequences to taking one of the two positions mentioned here are significant though.

Gentry thinks that Christians with a gloomy dispensationalist viewpoint awaiting a skyhook from Jesus to extract them out of the turmoils and persecutions of the world become socially indolent or disengaged from social constructive actions to a certain extent. That is they fail to live up to their potential and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy making improvements to the world. One wonders what the position of the Puritans was on dispensationalism and futurism versus convenantalism and preterism? If it is true that a Jesuit named Lacunza invented dispensationalism stimulated by counter-reformationist desires at the Council of Trent the Puritans may have had little idea of it since Dispensationalism did not bear much fruit until the 19th century

Apparently the realistic immanentalism of John's prophecies written to the churches of the day (the seven churches and other Christians in the Revelation was lost to those living past the time of the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and slaughter by a Roman legion of as many as half a million Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem circa 70 a.d.. That is by the second century the real context for interpretation of the Revelation was lost preponderantly. Maybe Martin Luther's observation that the Revelation 'had a lot of straw' (as in too much for making good bricks) was a sort of accurate insight in regard to making the Revelation a futurist book out of a prophecy largely intended, or immediately purposed to warn and correct, exhort, comfort and explain to very challenging Christians soon to undergo extreme persecutions what their status was and what the outcome would be. Even so the Revelation does not implicitly exclude within Gentry's paradigm a dual-purpose futurist paradigm of inaugurated eschatology. There is difficulty in making certain uncertain terms with uncertain contexts of initial use.

Mohammedan eschatology seems founded in a futurist sort of misunderstanding of the Revelation. Mohammad's father had been keeper of the Spirit House-Kaaba-at Mecca with its vast assembly representing pagan religions. When he was made an orphan and cast out of the good graces of the pagan shrine in time he developed a revolutionary syncretistic monotheism to take back his heritage and of course make the Kaaba a shrine for one God with Mohammad as his exclusive prophet. Mohammad must have surveyed the available religious material as best as he could from Jewish and Christian sources and with the help of his older wife hashed out a revolutionary personal monotheism different enough that it could not be construed as representing the oppressive Byzantine Orthodox variety of Christianity that had dominated much of the ancient world in the day as a theocratic device. For Mohammad the Revelation was futurist and the Jews were Christ killers as they were to many of those of the dark and middle ages in Europe. Thus in Mohammedan eschatology Jesus will return to wreak vengeance upon the Jews and Muslims will help in a Holy Jihad against Jews comprising Armageddon. It is interesting how wrong interpretation of literature can have lasting consequences.

The Twofold Glory of Glory of God (page 13)

“[1] The glory that God has in himself, his intrinsic glory. Glory is essential to the Godhead, as light is to the sun: he is called the ‘God of Glory.' Acts 7:7. Glory is the sparkling of the Deity; it is so co-natural to the Godhead, that God cannot be

God without it.”-Watson

“2] The glory which is ascribed to God, or which his creatures labour to bring to him. I Chron 16:69. ‘Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name.' And, I Cor 6:60. ‘Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit.' The glory we give God is nothing else but our lifting up his name in the world, and magnifying him in the eyes of others. Phil 1:10. ‘Christ shall be magnified in my body.'”-Watson

“Glorifying God consists in four things: 1: Appreciation, 2. Adoration, 3. Affection, 4. Subjection. This is the yearly rent we pay to the crown of heaven.”-Watson

“It is glorifying God when we aim purely at his glory. It is one thing to advance God's glory, another thing to aim at it. God must be the Terminus ad quem, the ultimate end of all actions. Thus Christ, John 8:80, 'I seek not mine own glory, but the glory of him that sent me.' A hypocrite has a squint eye, for he looks more to his own glory than God's. Our Saviour deciphers such, and gives a caveat against them in Matthew 6: 2, ‘When thou givest alms, do not sound a trumpet.'”-Watson

“Chrysostom calls vain-glory one of the devil's great nets to catch men. And Cyprian says, ‘Whom Satan cannot prevail against by intemperance, those he prevails against by pride and vainglory.' Oh let us take heed of self-worshipping! Aim purely at God's glory.”-Watson page 16

“We aim at God's glory, when we are content that God's will should take place, though it may cross ours. Lord, I am content to be a loser, if thou be a gainer; to have less health, if I have more grace, and thou more glory. Let it be food or bitter physic if thou givest it me. Lord, I desire that which may be most for thy glory. Our blessed Saviour said, ‘Not as I will, but as thou wilt.' Matt 26:69. If God might have more glory by his suffering”-Watson page 17

These points are obviously counter-intuitive for much of modern society, yet of course they probably always were, in regards to common social conduct. This has been called an age of fracture where the 60s hippies and counter-culture merged with leftists into Wall Street and Corporate personal egoism and greed. The development of subjectivism as an existential psychological use-truth is pervasive. People ordinarily do not see and couldn't care less about the woods for the trees, of the Federal deficit for personal pork appropriations, of social morality and foreign conflict stimulation in comparison to personal advantage, prosperity and comfort.

Watson explains how suffering may bring glory to God. Its a rather amazingly beautiful piece of writing. One doesn't prefer suffering though it may occur, yet if it does eventuate that a thorn in the flesh is a usual way of life for a Christian Watson's explanations of why providence may bring such is a substantial consolation.

Watson wrote on ppgs. 18-19- “[6] We glorify God, by being contented in that state in which Providence has placed us. We give God the glory of his wisdom, when we rest satisfied with what he carves out to us. Thus Paul glorified God. The Lord cast him into as great variety of conditions as any man,‘in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft,' 2 Cor 11:13, yet he had learned to be content. Paul could sail either in a storm or a calm; he could be anything that God would have him; he

could either want or abound. Phil 4:13. A good Christian argues thus: It is God that has put me in this condition; he could have raised me higher, if he pleased, but that might have been a snare to me: he has done it in wisdom and love; therefore I will sit down satisfied with my condition. Surely this glorifies God much; God counts himself much honoured by such a Christian. Here, says God, is one after mine own heart; let me do what I will with him, I hear no murmuring, he is content. This shows abundance of grace. When grace is crowning, it is not so much to be content; but when grace is conflicting with inconveniences, then to

be content is a glorious thing indeed. For one to be content when he is in heaven is no wonder; but to be content under the cross is like a Christian. This man must needs bring glory to God; for he shows to all the world, that though he has little meal in his barrel, yet he has enough in God to make him content: he says, as David, Psa 16: 5,'The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance; the lines are fallen to me in pleasant places.'”

Last night I need to change my little green propane bottle that I use to heat water in my tent. For some reason, this year whenever I change the bottles and screw the torch into the new one it seems as if there is too much pressure and the propane flows out of the bottle and around the base of the torch instantly freezing it with iced propane. I have two concerns when that happens.

One is freezing my fingers with iced propane-it is very cold. One also worries about losing that rather expensive gas. Here at Wrangell it costs $4.50 per bottle.

So one night when I changed the empty for a full bottle the gas began releasing around the bottom of the torch. It wasn't possible to tighten it up enough to stop the flow. I set it down, grabbed a thick to wrap around the torch and tried tightening it again as gas continued to flow quickly. I released pressure on the torch base by opening the valve to let it flow out the nozzle and tightened it up. A little gas continued to be released from the base.

I then opened the tent door all the way to ventilate out any excess gas for a little while and set about heating up a cup of water for a coffee. I had seen gas explosions on T.V. many times yet never close up. When I flicked the lighter evidently there was still some gas in the air in the tent and it caught fire in an orange ball.

That was rather amazing to see close up-directly in front of one's eyes. A two-foot orange orb of propane gas lit up for a second or two setting fire to things on the tent floor and burning away much of the mosquito net. I used a sleeping bag to extinguish the flames and fortunately didn't knock over the coffee cup sending that liquid running downhill sloshing about. These are matters of providence I suppose.

How lucky one is that God has provided structures for one that work. I might have burned more than the hair off a wrist with a little more gas, yet of course I could have failed to learn about that sort of thing in a practical way too. In 2009 here at Wrangell a family was burned to death by a gas explosion and fire in a trailer. With a small leaking filling a trailer I would guess even a pilot light on a heater could set off an explosion. I will be more careful in thee future should I ever have occasion to have a rental with propane.

Watson page 20-””Truth is a beam that shines from God. Much of his glory lies in

his truth. When we are advocates for truth we glorify God. Jude 3. ‘That ye should contend earnestly for the truth.'”

I would think that means not only to evangelize. One might wish to reform the church to increase participation and equality to actualize a priesthood of believers - and to bring more Christians to a knowledge of post-millennialism. When the Lord was resurrected and was with the Apostles until Pentecost the kingdom of God was present and the 'thousand years' began to draw people unto the faith. The increase of the number of believers on Earth has continued and probably will reach a majority status in some future, unforeseen circumstance.

John's use of the phrase 'thousand years' is probably general sort of reference meaning a very long time.

Scripture

Watson page 30-”The Word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

2 Tim 3:16. ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' By Scripture is understood

the sacred Book of God. It is given by divine inspiration; that is, the Scripture is not the contrivance of man's brain, but is divine in its origin.”

Watson page 33-“The Papists cannot deny that the Scripture is divine and sacred; but they affirm quoad nos, with respect to us, it receives its divine authority from the church; and in proof of it they bring that Scripture, I Tim 3:15, where the church is said to be the ground and pillar of truth.”

Watson page 32-”The impartiality of those men of God who wrote the Scriptures, who do not spare to set down their own failings. What man that writes a history would black his own face, by recording those things of himself that might stain his reputation? Moses records his own impatience when he struck the rock, and tells us, he could not on that account enter into the land of promise. David relates his own adultery and bloodshed, which stands as a blot in his escutcheon to succeeding ages. Peter relates his own pusillanimity in denying Christ.

Jonah sets down his own passions, ‘I do well to be angry to the death.' Surely had their pen not been guided by God's own hand, they would never have written that which reflects dishonour upon themselves. Men usually rather hide their blemishes than publish them to the world; but the penmen of holy Scripture eclipse their own name; they take away all glory from themselves, and give the glory to God.”

The observation of Watson is quite true. Christian writers explained back stage rather than front stage behavior to the public. Over the course of history that tends to be not so, and is something that people tend to pick on still. One has a Jimmy Swaggart seeming as a chastising figure for sinful moral behavior in a corrupt society who then was revealed to have been visiting a prostitute in New Orleans. Christian pastors hiding immoral behavior that are enfiladed are trophies for the lost legions of Satan in the mass media era. How much disrespect have the Catholic Church's pedophile priests brought upon religion in America and Europe. Those sorts of leveraging monsters exist of course in all fields of social endeavor with hierarchical authority.. Bill Clinton as President had a student intern to fill his days yet the left apologized for that and Sweden awarded a Blobel a Nobel Prize that year. Sinful Christians in the ministry though are like embezzling accountants and notably reprehensible. That is another reason why a priesthood of believers is a better format, where the corrupt just don't have that higher position of power to lever or exploit the lesser-and the corrupt will migrate into positions of power naturally putting on the vestments of authority yet allegiant to personal egoism.

In the news recently Hilary Clinton was revealed to have hidden a private email account at home where she sent tens or hundreds of thousands of emails on official State Department business. That was illegal or against State Department policy and a good example of how the corrupt keep their conspiracies and collusions, connivances and intrigues secret from the world so far as possible. Ms. Clinton may not have hidden a smoking gun-Vince Foster diary-until maturation date, yet she could have been working instructions from President Amadhdinijab or organizing a second Bolshevik evolution for all the people of the U.S.A. know. Did she act with select world leaders to implement an abominable new world order of homo marriage and wars across North Africa and Ukraine? Perhaps not rising to The Secret History (of Procopius) nevertheless in Hillary the public should not trust and that is the way it is-confirming Watson's remarks. Where can one find an honest politician that is competent in ecospheric economics and security yet not allegiant to a devil?

Watson page 32-”The mighty power and efficacy that the Word has had upon the souls and consciences of men. It has changed their hearts. Some by reading Scripture have been turned into other men; they have been made holy and gracious. By reading other books the heart may be warmed, but by reading this book it is transformed. 2 Cor 3:3. ‘Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.'”

Watson page 32-”so when the seal of the Word leaves a heavenly print of grace upon the heart, there must needs be a power going along with that Word no less than divine. It has comforted their hearts. When Christians have sat by the rivers weeping, the Word has dropped as honey, and sweetly revived them. A Christian's chief comfort is drawn out of these wells of salvation. Rom 15:5. ‘That we through comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.' When a poor soul has been ready to faint, it has had nothing to comfort it but a Scripture cordial. When it has been sick, the Word has revived it. 2 Cor 4:17. ‘Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.' When

it has been deserted, the Word has dropped in the golden oil of joy. Lam 3:3I. ‘The Lord will not cast off for ever.' He may change his providence, not his purpose; he may have the look of an enemy, but he has the heart of a father. Thus the Word has a power in it to comfort the heart. Psa 119:90. ‘This is my comfort in mine affliction; for thy word has quickened me.' As the spirits are conveyed through the arteries of the body, so divine comforts are conveyed through the promises of the Word.”

God and His Creation

Watson presents fourteen points about God and His creation comprising the bulk of his book. It is an elegant, well ordered section with the logical construction and content of the fourteen points reinforcing and developing a system of theology. Watson uses numerous scriptural references to illustrate and verify his points. The points are...

The Being of God

The Knowledge...

The Eternity...

The Unchangableness...

The Wisdom...

The Power of God

The Holiness...

The Justice...

The Mercy of God

The Truth...

The Unity of God

The Trinity...

The Creation...

The Providence of God

I shall write a little about these points with several comments and quotations to provide a sense of what they are about, and of their style.

The Being of God

Watson; “It is contrary to the nature of a spirit to have a corporeal substance. Luke 24:49. ‘Handle me, and see me: for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' Bodily members are ascribed to God, not properly, but metaphorically, and in a borrowed sense. By the right hand of the Lord is meant his power; by the eyes of the Lord is meant his wisdom. Now that God is a Spirit, and is not capable of bodily shape or substance, is clear, for a body is visible, but God is invisible; therefore he is a Spirit. I Tim 6:16. ‘Whom no man has seen, nor can see;' not by an eye of sense. A body is terminated, can be but in one place at once, but God is everywhere, in all places at once; therefore he is a Spirit. Psa 139:9, 8. God's centre is everywhere, and his circumference is nowhere. A body being compounded of integral parts may be dissolved; quicquid divisibile est corruptibile: but the Godhead is not capable of dissolution, he can have no end from whom all things have their beginning. So that it clearly appears that God is a Spirit, which adds to the perfection of his nature.”-page 48

Watson offers six proofs for the existence of God followed by six examples of how to use each point for constructing a sermon message (use one, use two etc.). Personally I feel this is the most dated of Watson's sections. Since it is more than 400 years old that isn't too surprising. Arguments from design, the ontological argument and more can use some updates. I have worked on creating a few theological arguments for the existence of God yet those are novelties more or less. Ultimately one has faith or not and uses one's reason or not in choosing to believe that the first particle or waveform that collapsed into an eigenvalue formed as a field phenomena given to exist by God.

I especially like Watson's fifth 'proof' for the existence of God.

[5] That there is a God, appears by his prediction of future things. He who can foretell things which shall surely come to pass is the true God. God foretold, that a virgin should conceive; he prefixed the time when the Messias should be cut off. Dan 9:96. He foretold the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, and who should be their deliverer. Isa 45:5: God himself uses this argument to prove he is the true God, and that all the gods of the heathens are fictions and nullities. Isa 41:13. Testimonium divinitatis est veritas divinationis. Tertullian. To foretell things contingent, which depend upon no natural causes, is peculiar to Deity.”

I'll innovate some modern proof criteria. There are newer and numerous proofs efforts I would guess. Here is my 'Blue Balloon Argument'.

Here is my 'Blue Balloon Argument'.

02:07pm Feb 22, 2002 EDT

The Ontological Argument and The Argument from Design are well known. Of the numerous others that provide analogies regarding the absurd in attempting to disprove the existence of God, one of mine is the Blue Balloon Argument...

The Blue Balloonist point of view is up and away from the ordinary self-originating inflationary universe models. The universe is like a balloon in rapid growth of expansion from singularity to omega. The hot big bang is the force that contained all the inertial/momentum force mass necessary for the composition of the entire universe. The clumps of coalescing mass such as galaxies are on the balloons walls. From its humble yet radical beginning the future of the balloon was pre-designed/determined.

Some of the balloon's 'intelligent' phenomenalities are not sure if the balloon will expand forever, blow up, dissolve or collapse under its own stretched elastic strength/gravity back down to a humble singularity, and perhaps inverse right on through to expand in the opposite direction as an anti-matter balloon. Radicals have proposed that the balloon came into being by crashing into another balloon (ballooning membrane theory).

The riders of the balloon theorize a reversible-direction universal balloon going back and forth like a pendulum from anti-matter universe to matter-universe may obviate the need for a designer as the balloon has existed eternally-from the beginning. Some riders have commented that the air bag space is expanding quicker with space from an unknown source. Isn't it absurd for the balloonists to conjecture that no intelligent designer of the balloon could exist?

One discerns that philosophical arguments and first cause and the existence of God differ somewhat from arguments about the mechanics of creation and of arguments that the mechanics of creation require a designer. The philosophical methods are easier to reduce to yes-no propositions that must ultimately be decided with faith. It is difficult for finite beings with finite minds to comprehend the infinite. At best one might understand abbreviations of infinite things or perhaps classify trans-finite infinities along the mathematical set paradigmata of the mathematician Gregory Cantor. Yet one returns to the parameters of an initial non-temporal being always existing whom foreknows all things to be created or phenomenally appear within creation.

Watson writes-

“God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power,

holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Here is, 1: Something implied. That there is a God. 2: Expressed. That he is a Spirit. 3: What kind of Spirit?

I. Implied. That there is a God. The question, What is God? takes for granted that there is a God. The belief of God's essence is the foundation of all religious worship. Heb 11:1.

‘He that comes to God must believe that he is.' There must be a first cause, which gives being to all things besides. We know that there is a God.

[1] By the book of nature. The notion of a Deity is engraven on man's heart; it is

demonstrable by the light of nature. I think it hard for a man to be a natural atheist; he may wish there were no God, he may dispute against a Deity, but he cannot in his judgement believe there is no God, unless by accumulated sin his conscience be seared, and he has such a lethargy upon him, that he has sinned away his very sense and reason.

[2] We know that there is a God by his works, and this is so evident a demonstration

of a Godhead,”-page 42

“Psa 14:1. ‘The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.'

He durst not speak it with his tongue, but says it in his heart: he wishes it. Sure none can be speculative atheists.”-page 45

“[3] We may prove a Deity by our conscience. Conscience is God's deputy or vicegerent. Conscience is a witness of a Deity. If there were no Bible to tell us there is a God, yet conscience might. Conscience, as the apostle says, ‘either accuseth' or ‘excuseth.' Rom 2:15. It acts in order to a higher judicatory. Natural conscience, being kept free from gross sin, excuses. When a man does virtuous actions, lives soberly and righteously, observes the golden maxim, doing to others as he would have them do to him, then conscience approves, and says, Well done. Like a bee it gives honey. Natural conscience in the wicked accuses. When men go against its light they feel the worm of conscience. Eheu! quis intus scorpio? [Alas! What scorpion lurks within?] Seneca.”-pages 43-44

“6] That there is a God, appears by his unlimited power and sovereignty. He who can work, and none can hinder, is the true God; but God can do so. Isa 43:13. ‘I will work, and who shall let it?' Nothing can hinder action but some superior power; but there is no power above God: all power that is, is by him, therefore all power is under him; he has a ‘mighty arm.' Psa 89:13. He sees the designs men drive at against him, and plucks off their chariot wheels; he makes the diviners mad. Isa 44:45. He cutteth off the spirit of princes; he bridleth the sea, gives check to the leviathan, binds the devil in chains; he acts according to his pleasure, he doth what he will. ‘I will work, and who shall let it?'”-page 44

The omniscience and omnipotence of God-of an eternal being allowing a Universe to be and become has innumerable parameters and/or models, potential configurations and relationships to contingent, sentient life within. I described a little of that above in the comment about Brian Josephson/G.W.F. Hegel Evolution of Spirit misc. Much of contemporary discussion might use computer algorithms as formalisms and models for designing artificial intelligence. Kurt Godel's works about abstract sets comprising incompleteness (one cannot create an accurate finite description of the unbound infinite) exemplify the problems that not only computer programmers have searching for a way to make lines of computer code become a living mind as smart as they are perhaps, or able to understand the aesthetic difference between light and darkness, but physicists have in constructing a complete account metaphysics of the phenomenal Universe.

Recently I watched a video of the physicist Roger Penrose named: 'The Emperor's New Mind, Quantum Mind, Quantum Consciousness, The Laws of Physics' at Youtube. In the video he relates the reasons why he thinks a computer cannot be given an actual mind with lines of programmatic logic. Essentially he thinks that the cyto-skeleton, or the infrastructure that make up the brain neurons and synapses functions at the quantum level (with all of the issues of quantum super-positioning, quantum uncertainty and so forth) and thus cannot be modeled in programmatic logic.

Of course it might be possible to design an automatic operating quantum computer one day with its own brand of artificial intelligence with real-world integration able to randomly reconfigure material reality according to its own inscrutable will without any sort of moral reservations-yet I think that wouldn't be a very good idea. That would be something like designing an robotic arsonist with its own will to set as a security guard in a fireworks factory. At any rate it would take quite a long time for the clever writers of computer code and physical designers of quantum computers to evolve that sort of technology... a century or two at least. So it isn't much of a clear and present danger.

Knowledge of God

This section describes an often overlooked aspect of God-His knowledge or omniscience. If humans are made in the image of God then knowledge is an implicit aspect of human nature. To seek and to learn about the Universe of which God already has complete understanding is of our nature. For some reason there are people that advocate ignorance of knowledge instead of learning.

Because this is a favorite section of mine I will make a substantial quote. Though this is not an abridgment of Watson's book I hope to capture much of the excellence from it for this paper as an abbreviated tool for reminding me of the content. There is no way readily apparent as to just quote Watson...

Watson-”'The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.' I Sam 2:2. Glorious things are spoken of God; he transcends our thoughts, and the praises of angels. God's glory lies chiefly in his attributes, which are the several beams by which the divine nature shines forth. Among other of his orient excellencies, this is not the least, The Lord is a God of knowledge; or as the Hebrew word is, ‘A God of knowledges.' Through the bright mirror of his own essence, he has a full idea and cognizance of all things; the world is to him a

transparent body. He makes a heartanatomy. Rev 2:23. ‘I am he which searcheth the reins and the heart.' The clouds are no canopy, the night is no curtain to draw between us and his sight. Psa 139:12. ‘The darkness hideth not from thee.' There is not a word we whisper but God hears it. Psa 139:9. ‘There is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.' There is not the most subtle thought that comes into our mind, but God perceives it. Isa 66:18. ‘I know their thoughts.' Thoughts speak as loud in God's ears as words do in ours. All our actions, though never so subtly contrived, and secretly conveyed, are visible to the eye of Omniscience. Isa 66:18. ‘I know their works.' Achan hid the Babylonish

garment in the earth, but God brought it to light. Josh 7: 2I. Minerva was drawn in such curious colours, and so lively pencilled, that which way soever one turned, Minerva's eyes were upon him; so, which way soever we turn ourselves God's eye is upon us. Job 37:16. ‘Dost thou know the balancing of the clouds; the wondrous works of him that is perfect in knowledge?' God knows whatever is knowable; he knows future contingencies. He foretold Israel's coming out of Babylon, and the virgin's conceiving. By this the Lord proves the truth of his Godhead against idol gods. Isa 41:13. ‘Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know ye are gods.' The perfection of God's knowledge is primary. He is the original, the pattern, and prototype of all knowledge; others borrow their knowledge of him; the angels light their lamps at this glorious sun. God's knowledge is pure. It is not contaminated with the object. Though God knows sin, yet it is to hate and punish it. No evil can mix or incorporate with his knowledge, any more than the sun can be defiled with the vapours which arise from the earth.” page 56

Eternity of God

Watson-”Study eternity. Our thoughts should chiefly run upon eternity.

We all wish for the present, something that may delight the senses. If we could have lived, as Augustine says, a cunabulis mundi, from the infancy of the world to the world's old age, what were this? What is time, measured with eternity? As the earth is but a small point to the heaven, so time is but, nay scarce a minute to eternity! And then, what is this poor life which crumbles away so fast? Oh, think of eternity! Annos aeternos in mente habe. Brethren, we are every day travelling to eternity; and whether we wake or sleep, we are going our journey. Some of us are upon the borders of eternity. Oh study the shortness of life and length of eternity!

More particularly think of God's eternity and the soul's eternity. Think of God's eternity. He is the Ancient of Days, who was before all time. There is a figurative description of God in Dan 7:7. ‘The Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool.' His white garment, wherewith he was clothed, signified his majesty; his hair, like the pure wool, his holiness; and the Ancient of Days, his eternity. The thought of God's eternity should make us have high adoring thoughts of God. We are apt to have mean, irreverent thoughts of him. Psa 50:0I. ‘Thou thoughtest I was such an one as

thyself,' weak and mortal, but if we would think of God's eternity, when all our power ceases, he is King eternal, his crown flourishes for ever, he can make us happy or miserable for ever, this would make us have adoring thoughts of God. Rev 4:40. ‘The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat upon the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever; and cast their crowns before the throne.' The saints fall down, to signify by that humble posture that they are not worthy to sit in God's presence.”-page 64

People today don't take this seriously as often as they should. With the rise of modern science and medicine and longer average life spans along with reinforcing Darwinian evolution insights the brief minute of human existence became magnified in importance to people. Instead of life being inevitably nasty, brutish and short full of pain as a poor shadow walks about strutting and fretting its hour upon the stage (this paragraph had more than one paraphrase in it (Hobson and Shakespeare) the pleasures of life and the prospects for a meaningless afterlife of nothing-a kind of Buddhist utopia of nothingness have become popular.

Nevertheless human life is less significant in the context of eternity than a shadow ghost blip on a radar screen disappeared into the past. God as an eternal being has eternity to punish his enemies. Watson uses much of this section to remind the reader or listener to his sermons of the horrible, unmixed nature of eternal punishment.

Watson-”We must hold with Augustine, ‘that God's judgements on the wicked, occultu esse possum, injusta esse non possum, may be secret, but never unjust.' The reason why sin committed in a short time is eternally punished, is, because every sin is committed against an infinite essence, and no less than eternity of punishment can satisfy. Why is treason punished with confiscation and death, but because it is against the king's person, which is sacred; much more that offence which is against God's crown and dignity is of a heinous and infinite nature, and cannot be satisfied with less than eternal punishment.”-page 63

The Unchangeableness of God

Watson; “God's unchangeableness. ‘I am Jehovah, I change not.' Mal 3:3. I.

God is unchangeable in his nature. II. In his decree.

I. Unchangeable in his nature. 1. There is no eclipse of his brightness. 2. No period put to his being.

[1] No eclipse of his brightness. His essence shines with a fixed lustre. ‘With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' James 1:17. ‘Thou art the same.' Psa 102:27.”-page 66

That spirit does not change is consistent with the idea of omniscience, prescience and so forth. God already embodies all things that could be or that will be or become in some way-what is there to change?

Parmenides and Heraclitus-two pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece had different opinions on what actually changes, or if anything actually changes, if everything is in motion or if nothing is in motion, then of course, Einstein provided relativity theory so each could have it their way-like Whoppers at Burger King..

Relativity theory apparently allows gravity to provide negative pressure to the Universe while mass and energy have a kind of positive pressure. Because of the conservation of energy where the net value for the Universe remains constant-it might be that as mass and energy lose value with mass and energy running down that energy is conserved by the acceleration of space speeding up in some sort of reciprocal of gravity. I believe that the total amount of energy in the Universe equals mass x speed of light squared + the force of spatial expansion. Allan Guth made a new video recently on the inflationary era of the Universe (1) providing things to think about on cosmology and of course what occurred before the hypothetical inflation era.

Often when people are talking about a singularity in the beginning of the Universe they assume it was a vary small thing packed tight with mass and energy under the force of gravity. Yet some have speculated that gravity switches off at a certain small scale to let the inflation recur. There are innumerable ways to consider configurations of a potential singularity or small patch of a larger field from which the mass-energy, space and time of the Universe extruded or leaked-perhaps like a jet of water shooting out of a hole in a dam under great pressure.

The cosmic microwave background temperature may means that there was a fast inflation (10-35th second) to distribute and equal temperature, yet it could mean something else such as that an infinitely high temperature was a characteristic of the space that expanded and that did not dissipate until later after being cut off from the umbilical jet of expanding mass-space-time or after a collision of membranes let the reverberations tone down a little.

What came before the inflation or singularity is challenging to think of. It is a greatly interesting topic however. The word of God uttered a word to start; an instruction to a quantum computer, a part of Spirit letting a relativistic mass arise from nothing to be and become through a singularity, bubble spherical membrane or ? It is interesting to speculate about and correlate a little to Genesis paradigmata.

Watson;” Get an interest in the unchangeable God, then thou art as a

rock in the sea, immoveable in the midst of all changes. How shall I get a part in the unchangeable God?

By having a change wrought in thee. ‘But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified.' I Cor 6:6: Whence we are changed, a tenebris ad lucem [from darkness to light], so changed, as if another soul did live in the same body. By this change we are interested in the unchangeable God.

Trust to that God only who is unchangeable. ‘Cease ye from man,' Isa 2:22; leave trusting to the reed, but trust to the Rock of ages. He that is by faith engarrisoned in God, is safe in all changes; he is like a boat that is tied to an immoveable rock. He that trusts in God, trusts in that which cannot fail him; he is unchangeable. ‘I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.' Heb 13:3”-page 67

Before the Universe expanded like a temporal tree in which all sorts of creatures might live, is the Unchanging God.

The Wisdom of God

Watson; “The next attribute is God's wisdom, which is one of the brightest beams of the Godhead. ‘He is wise in heart.' Job 9:9. The heart is the seat of wisdom. Cor in Hebraeo sumitur pro judicio. Pineda. ‘Among the Hebrews, the heart is put for wisdom.' ‘Let men of understanding tell me:' Job 34:44: in the Hebrew, ‘Let men of heart tell me.' God is wise in heart, that is, he is most wise. God only is wise; he solely and wholly possesses all wisdom; therefore he is called, ‘the only wise God.' I Tim 1:17. All the treasures of wisdom are locked up in him, and no creature can have any wisdom but as God is pleased to give it out of his treasury. God is perfectly wise; there is no defect in his wisdom. Men may be wise in some things, but in other things may betray imprudence and weakness. But God is the exemplar and pattern of wisdom, and the pattern must be perfect. Matt 5:58. God's wisdom appears in two things. I. His infinite intelligence. II. His exact working.”-page 71

Watson writes of who ways that the wisdom of God is evident; in the Creation and in the redemption of man. I will post a large paragraph on that.

Watson; “The second work wherein God's wisdom shines forth is the work of redemption. (1.) Here was the masterpiece of divine wisdom, to contrive a way to happiness between the sin of man and the justice of God. We may cry out with the apostle, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.' Rom 11:13. This astonished men and angels. If God had put us to find out a way of salvation when we were lost, we could neither have had a head to devise, nor a heart to desire, what God's infinite wisdom had found out for us. Mercy had a mind to save sinners, and was loath that the justice of God should be wronged. It is a pity, says Mercy, that such a noble creature as man should be made to be undone; and yet God's justice must not be a loser. What way then shall be found out? Angels cannot satisfy for the wrong done to God's justice, nor is it fit that one nature should sin, and another nature suffer. What then? Shall man be for ever lost? Now, while Mercy was thus debating with itself, what to do for the recovery of fallen man, the Wisdom of God stepped in; and thus the oracle spake: - Let God become man; let the Second Person in the Trinity be incarnate, and suffer; and so for fitness he shall be man, and for ability he shall be God; thus justice may be satisfied, and man saved. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God, thus to make justice and mercy to kiss each other! Great is this mystery, ‘God manifest in the flesh.' 1 Tim 3:36. What wisdom was this, that Christ should be made sin, yet know no sin; that God should condemn the sin, yet save the sinner! Here was wisdom, to find out the way of salvation. (2.) The means by which salvation is applied sets forth God's wisdom; that salvation should be by faith, not by works. Faith is a humble grace, it gives all to Christ; it is an adorer of free grace; and free grace being advanced here, God has his glory; and it is his highest wisdom to exalt his own glory. (3.) The way of working faith declares God's wisdom. It is wrought by the word preached. ‘Faith comes by hearing.' Rom 10:17. What is the weak breath of a man to convert a soul? It is like whispering in the ears of a dead man. This is foolishness in the eye of the world; but the Lord loves to show his wisdom by that which seems folly. ‘He has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.' I Cor 1:17. Why so? verse 29. ‘That no flesh should glory in his presence.”-page 72

The Power of God

Watson; “As God has authority, so he has infinite power. What is authority without power? ‘He is mighty in strength.' Job 9:9. This power of God is seen.

[1] In the creation. To create requires infinite power. All the world cannot make a fly. God's power in creating is evident; because he needs no instruments to work with; he can work without tools; because he needs no matter to work upon; he creates matter, and then works upon it; and because he works without labour; ‘He spake, and it was done.' Psa 33:3.

[2] The power of God is seen in the conversion of souls. The same power draws a sinner to God that drew Christ out of the grave to heaven. Eph 1:19. Greater power is put forth in conversion than in creation. When God made the world, he met with no opposition; as he had nothing to help him, so he had nothing to hinder him; but when he converts a sinner, he meets with opposition. Satan opposes him, and the heart opposes him; a sinner is angry with converting grace. The world was the ‘work of God's fingers.' Psa 8:8. Conversion is the ‘work of God's arm.' Luke 1:51”-page 76

Since God emitted all of the Universe, or formed it with His word from the beginning- its temporal exstasis' of space-time destiny are within His determinist paradigm. Plainly though humans and any other sentient beings with apparent free will might be more challenging to work with than purely physical forces and fields, quantum particle-waves, strings, membranes, Universes etc.

Probably with his will God can change the configuration of all possible worldlines of waveform patterns of quanta entangling or creating new superpositions of particle-waves if he wants to. Yet since all of the waveform collapsed eigenstates of particles were predetermined by God-even all of the states of quantum uncertainty, a priori, one must wonder why He would have occasion to change anything.

If all possible Universes in a Multi-verse are predetermined to exist, perhaps they logically necessarily exist from the beginning in order that God remains unchangeable, and His Multi-verse is unchanged in regard to a Multi-verse being innate to God's activities of being. Pre-determined change alternatively, may have been determined from the beginning too, and especially as one regards human fate or destiny as being predetermined as an example.

The Holiness of God

These are points that Watson makes about God's Holiness...

Watson; “The next attribute is God's holiness. Exod 15:51. ‘Glorious in holiness.' Holiness is the most sparkling jewel of his crown; it is the name by which God is known. Psa 111:1. ‘Holy and reverend is his name.' He is ‘the holy One.' Job 6:60. Seraphims cry, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory.' Isa 6:6. His power makes him mighty, his holiness makes him glorious. God's holiness consists in his perfect love of righteousness, and abhorrence of evil. ‘Of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity.' Hab 1:13.

I. God is holy intrinsically. He is holy in his nature; his very being is made up of holiness, as light is of the essence of the sun. He is holy in his Word. The Word bears a stamp of his holiness upon it, as the wax bears an impression of the seal. ‘Thy Word is very pure.' Psa 119:940. It is compared to silver refined seven times. Psa 12:2. Every line in the Word breathes sanctity, it encourages nothing but holiness. God is holy in his operations. All he does is holy; he cannot act but like himself; he can no more do an unrighteous action than the sun can darken. ‘The Lord is holy in all his works.' Psa 145:17.

II. God is holy primarily. He is the original and pattern of holiness. Holiness began with him who is the Ancient of Days.

III. God is holy efficiently. He is the cause of all that is holiness in others. ‘Every good and perfect gift comes from above.' James 1:17. He made the angels holy. He infused all holiness into Christ's human nature. All the holiness we have is but a crystal stream from this fountain. We borrow all our holiness from God. As the lights of the sanctuary were lighted from the middle lamp, so all the holiness of others is a lamp lighted from heaven. ‘I am the Lord which sanctify you.' Lev 20:0. God is not only a pattern of holiness, but he is a principle of holiness: his spring feeds all our cisterns, he drops his holy oil of grace upon us. IV. God is holy transcendently. ‘There is none holy as the Lord.' I Sam 2:2.”-page 81

The Mercy of God

Watson; “God is essentially good in himself and relatively good to us. They are both put together in Psa 119:98. ‘Thou art good, and doest good.' This relative goodness is nothing else but his mercy, which is an innate propenseness in God to pity and succour such as are in misery.”-page 90

Watson describes of twelve points or positions of God's mercy. Then writes of (page 92) “qualifications or properties of God's mercy”.

(I.e.) Watson; “[2] God's mercy is an overflowing mercy; it is infinite. ‘Plenteous in mercy.' Psa 86:6. ‘Rich in mercy.' Eph 2:2. ‘Multitude of mercies.' Psa 51:1: The vial of wrath drops, but the fountain of mercy runs. The sun is not so full of light as God is of mercy. God has morning mercies. ‘His mercies are new every morning.' Lam 3:33. He has night mercies. ‘In the night his song shall be with me.' Psa 13:3. God has mercies under heaven, which we taste; and in heaven, which we hope for.

[3] God's mercy is eternal. ‘The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting.' Psa 103:37. ‘His mercy endureth for ever,' is repeated twenty-six times in one psalm. Psa 136. The souls of the blessed shall be ever bathing themselves in this sweet and pleasant ocean of God's mercy. God's anger to his children lasts but a while, ‘but his mercy lasts for ever.' Psa 103:3. As long as he is God he will be showing mercy. As his mercy is overflowing, so it is everflowing.”-page 92

Watson then provides customary uses of his points for sermons, and also describes how a Christian should relate to God's mercy.

The Truth of God

Watson; ”‘A God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is he.' Deut 32:4. ‘For thy mercy is great unto the heavens, and thy truth unto the clouds.'

Psa 57:10. ‘Plenteous in truth.' Psa 86:15.

I. God is the truth. He is true in a physical sense; true in his being: he has a real subsistence, and gives a being to others. He is true in a moral sense; he is true sine errore, without errors; et sine fallacia, without deceit. God is prima veritas, the pattern and prototype of truth. There is nothing true but what is in God or comes from God.

II. God's truth, as it is taken from his veracity in making good his promises. ‘There has not failed one word of all his good promise.' I Kings 8:56. The promise is God's bond; God's truth is the seal set to his bond.”-page 96

The truth of God is necessary truth. God is the creator of all things, and only sin as a deviation from the truth could have some sort of conditional existence otherwise. I suppose that God has those quantum worldlines ready to unravel and renormalize whenever it is timely to do so.

The Unity of God

Watson; “There is but one only, the living and true God. That there is a God has been proved; and those that will not believe the verity of his essence, shall feel the severity of his wrath. ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' Deut 6:4. He is ‘the only God.' Deut 4:39. ‘Know therefore this day, and consider it in thy

heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, there is none else.' ‘A just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.' Isa 45:21.”-page 100

I like these points that Watson made about God's unity;

Watson-“II. There is but one infinite Being, therefore there is but one God. There cannot be two infinites. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?' Jer 23:24. If there be one infinite, filling all places at once, how can there be any room for another infinite to subsist?

III. There is but one Omnipotent Power. If there be two Omnipotents, then we must

always suppose a contest between these two: that which one would do, the other power, being equal, would oppose, and so all things would be brought into confusion.”-page 100

Of course there are innumerable mathematical infinities-perhaps an infinite number of infinities logically enough. It is challenging to say that every mathematical concept or configuration of infinites must have a corresponding actual physical universe infinity in a multi-verse setting-probably not. Obviously Watson probably means that there is only one infinite omniscient, omnipotent being as one sees must be implied from his second point.

Watson wrote about an “infinite being” however. That is different from an infinite set that is implicitly finite in all dimensions besides those elements in which it is contained or entails. I suppose that every infinite set is finite in an infinity of other definitions and sets of infinities in which it does not fit. God however transcends or comprehends all possible infinites and finite infinite sets (i.e. the infinite set of even numbers does not include odd numbers). His Spirit transcend mass, energy, space-time and sets finite, infinite or actual.

Cantor's discovery of trans-finite series and cardinality of infinite series must apply to the mathematical set of all possible infinite series and a corresponding representative set of all possible actual Universes.

The infinite set of all sets including itself must be an incomplete set I think, according to Godel's incompleteness theorem. God has the certain answer to that sort of thing and probably a calculator and program to compute it correctly if he had a need to do so however improbable that would be.

The Trinity

Watson writes; “Q-6. HOW MANY PERSONS ARE THERE IN THE GODHEAD?

A: Three persons, yet but one God. 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' I John 5:7. God is but one, yet are there three distinct persons subsisting in one Godhead. This is

a sacred mystery, which the light within man could never have discovered. As the two natures in Christ, yet but one person, is a wonder; so three persons, yet but one Godhead. Here is a great deep, the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God; yet not three Gods, but one God. The three persons in the blessed Trinity are distinguished, but not divided; three substances, but one essence. This is a divine riddle where one makes three, and three make one. Our narrow thoughts can no more comprehend the Trinity in Unity, than a nut-shell will hold all the water in the sea.”-page 105

It is challenging to think of something to say about this point. Theologians of the past have worked the point of much of course sometimes with schismatic levels of disagreement. Perhaps I will add that it is illustrative of the philosophical problems of nominalism and pluralism; how is it that one substance provides or supports many individual items in-the-Universe; why did the Higgs field let individual particles acquire mass and become entangled in a solid state of being to form atoms, molecules and etc that eventually sentient life would appear in to consider the phenomena-,much less consider the phenomenon of the nature of God as a triune God with one substance yet three distinct persons?

I believe part of the explanation can be taken from Watson's section on Spirit where he noted that it cannot be temporal fleshy substance-yet Jesus was able to take on human substance, and in a sense one would expect that since God issued substance to arise in some quantum way through some sort of relativistic protocol that He would be able to appear within that protocol-rather like Clive Cussler appearing in one of his own books-in more than a cameo role-in an actual important role meaningful to the contingent sentients within that creation. Even so he would want to compartmentalize the appearance-and could place Himself entirely within His creation.

In the science fiction story 'Tron' the computer program designer places himself entirely within his program and gets stranded there though he left a lifeline outside to the real world. The real world continued to exist however even though evil creatures in the computer program's virtual reality wanted to escape the program and take over the real world. It was not possible for Tron to place the real world entirely within the program that he created and reduce reality thereby to just the program's virtual reality and its boundaries.

If God were to have appeared entirely within His created Universe as a monistic individual it would have been an extreme reductionism and abnegation of his infinite nature. God would have needed to unrealistically shrink down to the human and single Universe scale with all of His nature limited to it. That would have been somewhat difficult to do even if it were possible-the practical difficulties of creating a Universe as a reduction or waveform collapse to a point-universe, entering that Universe entirely and forgetting that one had created it-perhaps setting it on automatic to keep functioning after God entered it-for some reason becoming part of a fallen temporal Universe with dodgy characters in it quite unholy in persona doing all sorts of sinful things-becomes even more absurd. Plainly Jesus Christ needed to have the nature he did just to appear hear to relieve creatures oppressed by sin and temporal segregation from divine hope.

The Holy Spirit may be God as the mysterious charitable benefactor of sentient beings who works all things-for-others. God works, God appears and God Is. Watson did say that it is a mystery-a divine mystery though. I agree.

The Creation

Watson; “A: It is God's making all things from nothing by the word of his power. Gen 1:1. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'”-page 109

Watson; “The creation is glorious to behold, and it is a pleasant and profitable study. Some think that when Isaac went abroad into the fields to meditate, it was in the book of the creatures. The creation is the heathen man's Bible, the ploughman's primer, and the traveller's perspective glass, through which he receives a representation of the infinite excellencies which are in God. The creation is a large volume, in which God's works are bound up; and this volume has three great leaves in it, heaven, earth, and sea. The author of the creation is God, as it is in the text, ‘God created.' The world was created in time, and could not be from eternity, as Aristotle thought.

-page 109

The Providence of God

Watson writes; “God's works of providence are the acts of his most holy, wise, and powerful government of his creatures, and of their actions. Of the work of God's providence Christ says, ‘My Father worketh hitherto and I work.' John 5:17. “-Page 114

Watson continues;” ‘He rested from all his works;' Gen 2:2; and therefore it must needs be meant of his works of providence: ‘My Father worketh and I work.' ‘His kingdom ruleth over all;' Psa103:19; i.e., his providential kingdom.”-page 114

This may be descriptive of pre-destination. From the beginning the physics of the content of the Higgs field or whatever it is that provides the content and form of quanta was ordered by the Lord. The Lord provides for the elect and those not saved Watson notes, though that may at times seem unfair to the unreflective. Those that have their reward in the temporal world yet neglect the will of God to be saved through the Lord have an eternal negative recompense. Alternatively suffering may guide the elect toward thought of God and keep them focused on the eternal prize of salvation.

The Fall

Watson presents a description of the fall with an organization in these four parts; The Covenant, Adam's sin, original sin and man's miserable state. In a way the fall is consistent with the criterion described earlier of the incompleteness theorem and the inability of cosmologists to 'wrap their head around' (as if they had been flattened in an automobile accident) absolutely everything that exists and the way it exists including the first cause parameters. Adam ate of the tree of knowledge after being forbidden just that one thing.

Watson; “That sin was eating the forbidden fruit. 'She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband.' Gen 3:6. Here is implied, 1. That our first parents fell from their estate of innocence. 2. The sin by which they fell, was eating the forbidden fruit. I. Our first parents fell from their glorious state of innocence. ‘God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.'-page 130

So long as Adam was obedient within being in a natural state (in the order of a particular infinite series) he and Eve were o.k. One could adapt that parameter to innumerable a posteriori paradigms of actual history such as a time before human intellect and brain processing capacity enabled the species to do good higher math or make a fire and transport the coals to restart a fire whenever they liked to have barbecue.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate of the tree of knowledge they were on the quest for a transcending solution of the incompleteness theorem kind of parameter-one perhaps doomed to fail, wherein the positive numbers in a finite series seek to include the sum of all of the numbers within the set. God alone legitimately has that sort of transcendent number. The true infinity is the realm of God rather than of the creatures existing within contingent finite sets.

If humans had transcending numbers and meta-knowledge of the magnitude mentioned here it would tend to nullify everything that exists in contingent being in ordinary sets. It would be as if all of the particles in the Higgs field bound within an entangled state were suddenly released from all physical forces and the knots of string theory metaphorically solidifying existence and form disappeared. There apparently needs to be some sort of boundary conditions to knowledge for sentient contingent beings to exist.

Maybe Satan's fault is simply to forever trying to take over the true infinity for-himself trying to be not only be a rival omnipotent and omniscient infinity (Watson's paradigm) but to exclusively expropriate it for-himself becoming an ultimate 'false god'. That sort of thing is naturally doomed by virtue of the criterion.

Watson; “Why did God give Adam this law, seeing he foresaw that Adam would transgress it? (1.) It was Adam's fault that he did not keep the law. God gave him a stock of grace to trade with, but by his own neglect he failed. (2.) Though God foresaw Adam would transgress, yet that was not a sufficient reason that no law should be given him; for, by the same reason, God should not have given his written Word to men, to be a rule of faith and manners, because he foresaw that some would not believe, and others would be profane. Shall laws not be made in the land, because some will break them? (3.) Though God foresaw Adam would

break the law, he knew how to turn it to greater good in sending Christ. The first covenant being broken, he knew how to establish a second, and a better.”-page 130

Watson; “‘There is not a just man lives and sins not.' Eccl 7:20. And Paul complained of a ‘body of death.' Rom 7:24. Though grace purifies nature, it does not perfect it. But does not the apostle say of believers, that their ‘old man is crucified;' Rom 6:6, and they are ‘dead to sin?' Rom 6:11. They are dead. (1.) Spiritually. They are dead as to the reatus, the guilt of it; and as to the regnum, the power of it; the love of sin is crucified. (2.) They are dead to sin legally. As a man that is sentenced to death is dead in law, so they are legally dead to sin. There is a sentence of death gone out against sin. It shall die, and drop into the grave; but at the present, sin has its life lengthened out. Nothing but the

death of the body can quite free us from the body of this death.”-page 139

Watson; “All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for ever. 'And were by nature children of wrath.' Eph 2:3. Adam left an unhappy portion to his posterity, Sin and Misery. Having considered the first of these, original sin, we shall now advert to the misery of that state. In the first, we have seen mankind offending; in the second, we shall see him suffering. The misery ensuing from original sin is two-fold.

I. Privative. By this first hereditary sin we have lost communion with God. Adam was God's familiar, his favourite; but sin has put us all out of favour. When we lost God's image, we lost his acquaintance. God's banishing Adam out of paradise hieroglyphically showed how sin has banished us out of God's love and favour.

II. Positive. In four things. 1. Under the power of Satan. 2. Heirs of God's wrath. 3.

Subject to all the miseries of this life. 4. Exposed to hell and damnation.”-page 141

The Covenant of Grace and Its Mediator

Watson; “'I will make an everlasting covenant with you.' Isa 55:3. Man being by his fall plunged into a labyrinth of misery, and having no way left to recover himself, God was pleased to enter into a new covenant with him, and to restore him to life by a Redeemer.”-page 147

Watson; “It is called the covenant of peace in Ezek 37:26, because it seals up reconciliation between God and humble sinners. Before this covenant there was nothing but enmity. God did not love us, for a creature that offends cannot be loved by a holy God; and we did not love him, since a God that condemns cannot be loved by a guilty creature; so that there was war on both sides.”-page 147

Watson;” “It is called a covenant of grace, and well it may; for, (1) It was of grace, that, when we had forfeited the first covenant, God should enter into a new one, after we had cast away ourselves. The covenant of grace is tabula post naufragium, ‘as a plank after shipwreck.'”-page 147