I've just spent 3 months working through 2 Peter. Here's what I found in each section:

God's grace and peace are what characterize the Christian life.
(2 Peter 1:1–4)

#Bible

Work hard to keep yourself from being ineffective or unfruitful.
(2 Peter 1:5–12)

#Bible

Strive to teach well, because time is short.
(2 Peter 1:13–15)
#Bible

It is more based to trust God's word than our own experiences.

(2 Peter 1:16–23)

#Bible

False teachers who give the truth a bad name through sensuality will be judged.

(2 Peter 2:1–3)

#Bible

God rescues the righteous but punishes those who promote lust and disrespect authority.

(2 Peter 2:4–10a)
#Bible

People want permission to indulge in sensuality, but false teachers who lead that way will be destroyed.

(2 Peter 2:10b–16)
#Biblical

Some think that "authenticity" equates to freedom, but those who use it as an excuse to promote sin are useless... and will be short-lived.

(2 Peter 3:1–4)

#Biblical

Remember Christ’s future coming, and expect the “intellectual” cultural gatekeepers to mock it.

(2 Peter 3:5–7)

#Biblical

Man wants to create his own reality and ignore God’s judgment, but God remains both Creator and Judge.

(2 Peter 3:8–9)
#Bible

We overvalue gains in the world here and now, but on the Day of the Lord, the present world will be destroyed.

(2 Peter 3:10)
#Bible

We debate and divide over the End Times, but true eschatology makes us holy, godly and hopeful.

(2 Peter 3:11–13)
#Bible

Instead of getting impatient with God’s “slowness” to right all wrongs, work hard to be found peaceful and pure for the day when He does.

(2 Peter 3:14–16).
#Bible

Guard your own stability, as you grow in Christ.

(2 Peter 3:17–18).
#Bible

Lessons from 2 Peter

5 Scripture Passages about Teaching Your Kids to Defend Their Faith. What would you add to the list?

(🧵THREAD👇)

1. Deuteronomy 6:6–7: “...You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” 

(This command is echoed in the NT).

#apologetics

2. Psalm 145:4 (NASB95): “One generation shall praise Your works to another, And shall declare Your mighty acts.” 

(Our children should hear us declaring the glorious deeds of God!)

#apologetics

3. Proverbs 22:6 (CSB): “Start a youth out on his way; even when he grows old he will not depart from it.” 

(Raising children who can defend their faith begins in childhood.)

#apologetics

4. Ephesians 6:4 (ESV): “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” 

(Fathers and parents are to teach their children the ways of God.)

#apologetics

5. 1 Peter 3:15–16: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” 

(“Anyone who asks” includes our children!)

#apologetics

Want to learn more about how to teach your kids to defend their faith? Listen to episode #17 of the Worldview Legacy Podcast. 

Coming THIS WEEK. 

https://thethink.institute/podcast

#apologetics
#ChristianPodcast

6 reasons we know logic is not merely a man-made convention. Pay special attention to reason no. 2.

1.  A world where logic wasn’t real would be an incoherent world.

If someone wants to say that logic is a human convention, then he'll have to defend that claim. 

He'll have to present a worldview with a metaphysic that isn't fundamentally logical and where the laws of logic aren't universal and objective (so in that imaginary world A can equal not-A, no excluded middle, a thing is not itself).

2.  Laws of logic that are merely “conventions” are actually false. 

Our skeptical friend would have to explain how and why, in a world that is not inherently logic—where the laws of logic aren’t real and didn’t exist without humans...

—humans suddenly came along and developed laws of logic, “conventions” which, in that kind of universe actually fly in the face of reality. 

These “conventions” would not only inadequately describe reality, they would functionally lie about reality. After all, in this hypothetical world, logic isn’t actual. 

And since human conventions say they are, they are false. (Of course, in a non-logical world, what’s false can be true in the same sense at the same time, so the “conventional” laws of logic could be lies and true, and, well you get it. It’s a great big incoherent mess.)

3.  Laws of logic that are merely conventional aren’t really “laws” at all—they have no teeth. Why would anyone be obligated to follow a standard (these hypothetically man-made laws of logic) that go against reality? 

Remember, in a non-logical world, laws of logic lie about the way things are. So in this hypothetical scenario, those who “violate logic” through contradictions are actually acting in agreement with the way really are. 

In this world, being logical is going against reality, and following logic is following falsehoods. Violating logic is tantamount to refusing to follow lies. Is the skeptic really going to get mad at people who don’t follow lies? 

If not, then he can’t get mad at people who don’t follow logic. After all, according to him, logic is merely a convention. That’s not how the world really is.

If our skeptic says logic is manmade and not objective, you could simply reply, "So it isn't manmade and objective." He couldn't argue. After all, the two of you are clearly operating by different conventions. 

And he couldn’t appeal to his conventional laws of logic in any kind of objective way to prove you wrong. (Side note: in our transgressive culture, the avant-garde take pride in smashing conventions, and they’re often rewarded for it. 

If logic were purely conventional, one of the “best things” someone could do, culturally speaking, might be to make a career out of being illogical and contradictory. And our skeptical friend couldn’t say boo about it).

4.  By proposing the argument, the skeptic is showing he doesn’t really believe it. He wants to be understood logically. All the while the conversation is happening, he'll be expecting you to understand him logically, as if the laws of logic are real. 

This undermines his claim that logic is merely conventional; it is rather the behavior of someone who believes logic is universal and objective, and applies to both you and him (and, one assumes, anyone else who overhears the conversation or anyone else he might converse with). 

In this way he is showing that he doesn't really believe logic is purely conventional. Remember, if logic is just a convention, then it isn’t objective and real in the sense that it is universal and absolute, reflecting the way reality actually is.

In terms of apologetical discussion, the key is to show your opponent that he doesn't live like he actually believes what he claims to believe. He doesn't live like logic is purely conventional (and not objective and universal).

5.  Human experience reveals that logic is discovered, not invented.

Human conventions are useful for organizing things humans can control (like the grammatical rules of language, certain societal laws, etc.). But are laws of logic really like that? No. Logic is something most people don't study, and yet they conform to it all the time.

They naturally and instinctively revile contradictions. They understand that a thing is what it is. In other words, people naturally think and act logically—not perfectly, but normatively—and expect others to do the same. 

Our natural bent is not to treat logic as a manmade convention but as the way things are.

We instinctively think and act logically. It's only later, upon reflection, that they learn about logic and realize that this is the way they've been operating in the world all along.
Logic is discovered, not invented.

6.  If logic is a human convention, then it would not exist where no humans existed.

There are no humans on Mars. If you went to Mars, could you invent your own logic? Could you stand on Mars and say "I am here and not here at the same time in the same sense" and be correct? 

Obviously, not—and not only not in terms of our (supposedly) subjective earth-bound conventions. It is plain that our martian would be uttering a false statement, and that the statement is false because it’s illogical. But if logic is purely a human convention, it could be true. 

Since that’s wrong, we can see that logical is not merely conventional.

CONCLUSION: TRYING TO MAKE LOGIC “CONVENTIONAL” DOESN’T SOLVE ANYTHING

In short, by attempting to make logic a merely human convention, the skeptic is showing that he doesn’t understand logic (which is not invented but discovered), but at the same time he is undercutting his ability to attack the Bible for supposedly containing contradictions. 

After all, if logic were merely a manmade convention, then why accuse the Bible of having a different convention? And whose to say the skeptic’s is the “right” logic, and the Bible’s is “wrong?” They’d just be “different.”

The truth is that logic is real, and it is discovered by humans, not invented by us. If logic were not universal and objective, then logic would be universal and objective. And if trying to understand that seems like an exercise in futility, you’re right, it is. 

Just like trying to deny the reality of logic, and the reality of the Triune God of Scripture.

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/ThinkInst/Gp9W0f2

Why Logic Must Not Be Man-Made

@arthur_again I have been seeking out conversations with atheists on Twitter lately (though they usually find me), and a recent one got me thinking. 

In speaking with this chap, I made the point that truth presupposes God, and that faith in God is the necessary precondition to any truth-seeking endeavor.

He asked me why, and in the course of elaborating, I asked him if he believed in absolute truth. To that, he replied No, he did not.

This raised two questions that I realized I needed to do some more thinking about:

First, why does truth presuppose God? (I’ve written before on why scienceand logic presuppose God, but why truth?) I believed this was the case, but could I articulate it?

We must begin with a definition of the word truth, without just defining it by itself. This is harder than it would seem. Truth is one of those words that we use all the time, but we don’t really think about what it meansbecause it seems so self-evident: “Truth is… what’s true.”

Webster’s says truth is “the state of being the case.” But then, this feels incomplete. What is in the state of being the case? What case? What sort of thing can be true? Can a rock be “true?” No, truth is a quality of propositions, it cannot be possessed by things. 

A rock cannot be true, but the statement, “the rock is on the table” can.

For the purposes of this article, then, we will build a more complete and useful definition of the word truth–a true definition–and then demonstrate that truth is an impossible without God.

Second, is it an appropriate dodge on the part of the atheist to simply declare he doesn’t believe in truth, or absolute truth, and therefore avoid belief in God? Again, I knew this couldn’t be the case, but could I express why that was?

Jesus says that truth is essential for freedom (John 8:32), and here this guy was denying the truth–and therefore the possibility of his own freedom. As a follower of Jesus, I wanted him to be free. 

To help me communicate that (to him and others), I wanted to be able to explain what truth is, and how truth connects to God.

So I undertook the task of defining what exactly truth is, and why belief in God is the necessary precondition for truth–and why simply saying that truth doesn’t exist isn’t an effective move.

For the purposes of this thread, then, we will build a more complete and useful definition of the word truth–a true definition–and then demonstrate that truth is an impossible without God.

So we have seen that truth is an attribute of propositions, and propositions are by definition linguistic; they are statements made in a particular language, whether English, French, Koine Greek or something else. 

Propositions, being a function of language, only make sense if they accord with the laws of language (grammar and syntax, etc., but also they must contain real words that are meaningful within that language).

It makes sense to say in English, “The rock is on the table,” but not “The rock fleurglob table the.” That’s nonsense, not English. Language isn’t freeform, it has rules. 

That collection of “words” doesn’t follow the rules of the language and therefore it’s incomprehensible, meaningless. Such a “proposition” really isn’t a proposition, and it makes no sense to ask whether it is “true.”

So the first criterion of truth is that a proposition accords with the rules of language. It is comprehensible.

Next, for any proposition to be sensible or possible, it must accord with the laws of logic. I have written about logic before, but in short, a logical proposition must not contradict itself (the Law of Noncontradiction). It must refer to what it refers to (the Law of Identity). 

It must affirm a state of affairs or its opposite, but not both (the Law of Excluded Middle).

These logical laws govern all thought and language. They are transcendentals, in that they transcend any one particular language or culture. Whereas vocabulary, grammar and syntax change from language to language, the laws of logic are unchanging. 

They are also immaterial, universal, and knowable.

A proposition (in any language) that contradicted itself or otherwise violated logic could not be meaningful, let alone true.

The second criterion for truth, then, is that a proposition accords with the laws of logic. It is coherent.

Finally we come to the third criterion, and this is the one most people think of when they think of truth. A true proposition is one that describes the actual state of affairs. It affirms the real world the way the real world actually is.

In this, it is necessary to believe that there actually is such a thing as “the real world.” More on this in a minute.

Therefore the third criterion for truth is that it accords with reality. It is correspondent.

We may now define truth as the quality of a proposition that is comprehensible in terms of language, coherent with regard to logic and correspondent to actual reality.

Now we can move on to why truth presupposes God. This is the case because all three criteria individually require God in order to be meaningful or real.

How does language presuppose God? Language presupposes God because it assumes that minds are designed to communicate and understand ideas. Further, the use of language assumes the uniformity of nature, that the future will be like the past.

That is, the speaker (and the hearer) must believe that words will mean the same thing in five seconds that they meant five seconds ago. “Is” will always mean “is” and never “is not." 

This requires a stability to the universe that can only be explained by the faithful, unchanging, good God of Scripture.

What about logic? Logic presupposes God because it assumes that there are true, immaterial, unchanging, good, universal and knowable laws that govern thought and speech. God is all of these things. 

If you believe in God and the truth of the Bible, it makes sense that the universe would be governed by such laws. It also makes sense that human beings, created in the image of God, would think and speak logically.

Could an atheist still affirm belief in logic? Of course! Atheists do this all the time. The question is, can they do so consistently? No.

Unbelief in God makes belief in logic simply a matter of random, subjective opinion (not possible).

Worse yet, an atheist evolutionist, who believes that his mind (which is just his brain) is the product of time + chance + millions of years and merely “aimed” at survival and reproduction (unrelated to actual truth-seeking), 

must believe that his own belief in logic is determined solely by his genes.

Belief in logic isn’t rational; by believing in logic he’s merely dancing to his DNA. A mind evolved by chance could never “step outside itself” to analyze its own conclusions, including its conclusions about logic. On such a worldview there is no reason to believe in logic.

Belief in reality presupposes God because it assumes there is a state of affairs external to one’s own mind. There is a world which is objectively “out there.” That world is intelligible; it is capable of being known.

Similarly, this also presupposes that one’s mind is able to know something about the external world. 

In order to be able to make correspondent propositions about the world, the human mind must also correspond to the world in such a way that knowledge about the world is possible, and conclusions about the world may be correct.

The Bible teaches that God created man in his image, with the ability to study the world and gain true knowledge from it (see these verses related to the intelligibility of nature https://www.openbible.info/topics/the_intelligibility_of_nature). Without God there’s no reason to believe this.

So far we’ve defined truth according to three criteria, defined those criteria and seen how each of them presuppose God. Now let’s examine why truth is a problem for those who deny God’s existence.

However you look at it, truth presupposes God.

Atheists then have a huge problem. This brings us back to my Twitter discussion partner–the one who denied the existence of absolute truth.

To affirm the existence of truth is to presuppose the existence of God and the truth of what the Bible teaches about God, the world and humanity.

On the other hand, to deny truth is to deny the possibility of saying anything is “true.” This also precludes anyone from saying that it is true that God does not exist. If there is no truth, than the fundamental proposition of atheism, “God does not exist,” cannot be true.

And what about the dodge that my discussion partner made, by denying absolute truth? He didn’t take it this far, but I will make the argument for him. What if truth exists, just not absolute truth? Is that possible?

Absolute truth is just truth that is true universally and unchangingly. Without getting too deep into the weeds, every true proposition is universally true, given enough details.

As an example: “Joel Settecase is a 13-year-old boy” was true, but it is no longer true. However, it is absolutely true that on October 21st, 1996, I was a 13-year-old boy. That statement is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that I just typed that. 

And it is absolutely true that you are reading these words at the current moment in time.

So then, truth exists, and absolute truth exists absolutely. There is no way around this.

I had affirmed to my discussion partner that faith in God is necessary in order to pursue absolute truth. He asked me why, yet he asked this while denying the very existence of absolute truth.

He perhaps couldn’t see how his own worldview made his question incoherent.

On his worldview, it was true that truth didn’t exist. Truth both existed and didn’t exist–a logical contradiction. And he wanted to know how belief in God was necessary to pursue truth according to that definition. But this is a logical impossibility. 

I was not interested in defending the pursuit of a logical impossibility. I therefore wanted to establish that truth only made sense from the biblical worldview in the first place.

When I pushed him on whether it was absolutely true that truth does not exist, he told me that I apparently wasn’t interested in having a conversation, and he ended it.

None of the above proves that atheists and unbelievers can’t know anything true. They know all sorts of true things. Truth is inescapable. Rather, all this shows that atheism cannot account for the existence of truth.

The Bible, on the other hand, is full of truth, and it centers on the One who is the embodiment of truth himself: the Lord Jesus (John 14:6). To know him is to is to know truth. That knowledge is bound up with obeying him as Lord. 

And then, Jesus says, “the truth will set you free.”

You can read the unrolled version of this thread here: https://typefully.com/ThinkInst/OPxtSyZ