Well, we come now in our series on theology proper, which we're doing this afternoon service, to the existence of God. The existence of God. God's existence has been called an attribute, but when we talk about God's existence, we're not talking about God's existence like we would speak of any other creature's existence. And so it's not necessarily an attribute so much as it is the way in which God exists that we're speaking of here. The way in which God exists, or the more technical terminology, the modus ascendi. And we're going to do this from Psalm 53.1. What we're going to do is in traditional theological form, move through how we may know that God exists, and then we're going to end this afternoon's message with God's self-existence or His aseity. So if you go to Psalm 53.1, I'll just read that first verse there, and then we'll pray. Hear the Word of God. Psalm 53. The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt and have done abominable iniquity. There is none who does good. The fool has said there is no God. Let's pray. Our blessed Father, glorious Son, and ever-present Spirit, we pray that as we approach now Your existence, that we would do so humbly, desiring to learn and plunge ourselves into these deep things which are revealed to us and are intended for us to know Yet, we understand and we admit that not everything is simple. And as we are believers here, we are pressed by Scripture itself to move from milk to meat. And we pray that we would do that circumspectly, wisely, not flippantly, and not to no avail. That we would know You so as to approach You humbly. That we would know You so as to grow in our love for You. that we would know You for You. We pray that You would give us Your wisdom now, in Jesus' name, Amen. So our true knowledge of God, which in the first sermon last week we spoke of as redemptive knowledge of God, knowledge of God as Redeemer, that true knowledge of God must come through the Scriptures. And we spoke about how there is a natural knowledge of God gained through natural revelation, But that natural knowledge of God is not a knowledge sufficient unto redemption. It does not give us the Trinity. It does not give us the incarnation. It does not give us the gospel of salvation. And more than that, we spoke of how, last week, how a right knowledge of God begins with a, per Proverbs 1-7, fearful humility before God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. And that knowledge grows and matures in proportion with that humility, whilst that humility conversely grows in proportion to our knowledge of God. In other words, if we claim to know God, and we are knowers of God, should that not show forth in the fact that we are too humble ourselves. Should that not show through in our manner of life, our knowledge of God? And should not our manner of life then take us further into the things of God? So you see how humility and knowledge of God grow in proportion with one another. Now that we've covered that manner of knowing God, we now move to consider the existence of God Himself. The existence of God Himself. So first what we're going to do is we're going to consider this subject under three headings. And firstly, we're going to consider the question, how may we know God exists? Just basically, how may we know God exists? Now we've spoken of how all men know God through the things that have been made. Romans 1.20. And now we're going to ask... how that is the case. In other words, we're going to make explicit what is implicit in the minds of all men. And then secondly, we're going to look at the shortcomings of materialist atheism which pervades our age. We're going to look at the shortcomings of materialist atheism which pervades our age and denies the existence of God. And then thirdly and lastly, we're going to consider God's self-existence. God's self-existence. And then we're going to move on from there in the next sermon to examine what we could call attributes, but we could examine immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and so on and so forth as we go on before getting to the Trinity or the triunity of God in a few weeks. So first, we're going to ask the question, how may we know God exists? Now, the field of apologetics has been trying to make the answer to this question as explicit as possible for many, many years. But it's more of a recent innovation to relegate the question of how we know God to the field of apologetics. This question applies to Christians. This question is for the good of Christians. We'll speak of the purpose of the ways in which we know God through what has been made here in a moment. But to make explicit, to make clear what goes on in the minds of everyone who knows God, which is literally everyone, according to Romans 1, 18 through 20, we could think of the arguments for God's existence. Now, I'm gonna list these out. I'm not gonna get into them in too much depth, because I don't wanna spend our time here, but I'm gonna list them out because they are important tools for how to think about the existence of God. The arguments for God's existence divide into roughly three different kinds. The first kind we might think of and perhaps are most familiar with are cosmological arguments for God's existence. The second kind are ontological arguments for God's existence. And the third kind are teleological arguments for God's existence. We'll look at a few under each of these headings. So under cosmological arguments, I have two. Two examples. There is the argument from motion. The argument from motion. which runs something like, premise one, we observe that things move. Premise two, that which moves is moved by another. Premise three, infinite regress is impossible. Conclusion, therefore, there must be a first mover, this first mover we call God. And then you have an argument from contingency. Number one, premise one, we observe that there are things whose explanation is not found within itself. Creatures, right? is my explanation for my own existence in myself. No. I have to appeal to my parents, I have to appeal to water, to air, to food, and so on and so forth. There are several different factors that explain my existence. That means that the explanation for my existence is not in myself, and that's the case with all creatures. We observe that there are things whose explanation is not found within itself. Premise two, that which does not have an explanation in itself has it in something else. In other words, it's explained by something else other than itself, namely its cause. Three, infinite regress is impossible conclusion. Therefore, there must be something whose explanation is in itself that explains everything else, and that we call God. Those are cosmological arguments. Then there are ontological arguments. Anselm's ontological argument, God is that being, then, which nothing greater can be conceived. Premise two, that which is the greatest must exist in reality, since if it did not, it would not be the greatest conclusion. Therefore, God exists. Then you have the argument from gradation. I'm not going to go into that one, but that's another example of the ontological argument, or ontological arguments. And then thirdly, there are teleological arguments. These are arguments that a lot of people are familiar with, arguments from purpose, the purpose that we perceive in the universe, in the world. A bee is purposed to a flower. A man to a woman, and woman to man. Crops towards sunlight, right? Plants grow upward and stretch their leaves out in order to allow for the pervasion, if you will, of sunlight. so they can undergo things like photosynthesis and so on. So there's arguments from purpose. We observe purpose and intentionality in the universe. And there are specifically arguments from intentionality. An argument might go like this, if you're thinking about the intentionality that we perceive in the universe, right? Premise one, we observe intention in the universe. Just one instance of intention is enough. Something that's intended for some goal. We observe intention in the universe. Premise two, intention cannot arise unintentionally. Therefore, conclusion, that which has intention gave rise to this intentional universe, the first intention we call God. Then there are arguments from design. We perceive laws of logic, laws of nature, apparent design in biological life forms, mathematics, formulae inherent in creation. You think of the Fibonacci fractals or the mathematical spirals that occur naturally A snail's shell is an example of this. Seashells are often examples of these Fibonacci fractals that occur in creation that seem to be designed and coherent according to mathematical laws. That goes on all over the universe. Think of the microcosm and the order of the human body, and so on and so forth. So there are various ways in which we know God through the created world. This is that natural knowledge, again, that I speak of here. There are various ways in which that's the case, and the arguments for God's existence are just to demonstrate that there are ways that we know God through what is made, as Romans 1, 18 through 20 says. Now what's the purpose of such things? What's the purpose of such things? We spoke of last week about how the purpose of these kinds of things should not be to merely accumulate knowledge so that you can become intellectually superior to your theological opponents. The purpose of these things is not merely to increase the quality of your moral living. There are purposes for these kinds of things, however. Though we don't want to get bogged down in them to the exclusion of the gospel and the simplicity and beauty of the plan of redemption, there are, however, a purpose of such things. Number one, there are three of them basically mentioned. Number one is to aggravate the condemnation of the unbeliever. These arguments and general knowledge of God through what is made aggravates the condemnation of the unbeliever. Number two, these arguments shut the mouths of the irrational in a rhetorical effort to protect the people of God. So error can be refuted through argumentations such as this. And that refutation of error is in pursuit of protecting the people of God and shutting the mouths of the irrational. Thirdly, these arguments can be used to edify the believer by testifying to the sure foundation of his faith, which is God himself. These arguments can be used to edify the believer by testifying to the sure foundation of his faith, which is God himself. And fourthly, these arguments can be used in conversations with others to clear a way to the gospel. They can be used in the providence of God to soften people to further conversation having to do with the gospel, which is the only knowledge unto salvation. So there are places for such things. And you might say, well, why reason with unbelievers in such a way? Because the Bible, we've just read it. Psalm 53.1, the Bible declares that they are foolish. They're foolish precisely because these arguments are made and are able to be made. That's why they're foolish. They're foolish because they are surrounded by a world that testifies to the existence of God, and these arguments show plainly how that is the case. Unbelief is foolishness. God's existence is apparent through what is made. We read that in Romans 1. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Arguments for God's existence show the various ways in which God is known by the things that are made. Man knows God inevitably, inescapably, by virtue of coming into contact with the outside world. Man knows God because God's creation testifies that God exists, and in some measure, it tells us what God is. The power of His Godhead, His goodness, and His providences, and so on and so forth. And because God's existence is so apparent through His creation, because God's existence is so obvious through His creation, Scripture calls unbelievers fools. It calls unbelievers fools. Now, what does it mean to be a fool in the context of Psalm 53-1? To be a fool is to be foolish or senseless, or it is to lack perception of something that is obvious. It is especially applicable to the man who has no perception of ethical and religious claims. That's what it means to be a fool. the man who has no perception of ethical and or religious claims. It can also denote an ignoble or disgraceful immoral character. That's what it means to be foolish. It is, in short, what Paul describes as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That brings me to materialist atheism. This is one obvious form of unbelief that we deal with today, and even if we don't deal with it explicitly, we deal with it implicitly as it has kind of pervaded and intruded our society over many, many years. And we want to address atheism because that's essentially what Psalm 53-1 addresses, is a functional kind of atheism. The fool says in his heart, there is no God. So we're looking secondly at the shortcomings of materialist atheism. Atheism, what is it? Think of the term a-theism. It's the opposite of theism. That is, it is the declaration that there is no theism. or it's the lack of belief in theism, a-theism. And atheism is the dogmatic and or practical disregard of a certain form or forms of theism. So in that regard, the term atheism is broadly used historically. Early Christians were even termed atheists because they dogmatically rejected all of the Roman gods and goddesses. And so the Romans called Christians atheists because they were atheistic concerning their gods, concerning their deities. Deists, we can think of some of our founding fathers in the 18th century, those who believed that God is like a grand clockmaker who designed the world, wound it up, and then turned away from it. There is no providence. There is no miracle. There is no supernatural in this world, it is just the natural world, and there is no way to know God through the natural world, so it's a functional denial of Scripture and the possibility of knowing God through Scripture as well. But deists, as compared to Christians, may be termed atheists in the sense that they deny the Trinity, distinct to Christian theism. So atheists, as a term, is able to be applied very broadly. When I say materialist atheism, Materialist atheism is very specific and it is novel and actually quite distinct to our modern age. Materialist atheism is the dogmatic rejection of all kinds of theisms without qualification. It is the dogmatic rejection of all kinds of theisms without qualification." So in other words, it's the materialist atheist who would, upon hearing those arguments that we've just covered or surveyed, would say, I don't believe any of those. I think they're false. And I'm going to try and show you how none of those arguments truly conclude at the existence of God or gods. While Psalm 53-1 has in view those who live as if there is no God that's dealing in light of pagans in particular, it continues to apply to the novel brands of various atheisms and skepticisms unique to the 17th to 21st centuries. Think of methodical skepticism or rationalism led by the likes of Descartes in the 17th century, this idea of doubting for the sake of doubt. We can think of naturalistic skepticism, which was popular among the deists, some of whom found in this country or had a hand in it, John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, et cetera. We can think of then materialist atheism, which is what we're addressing here, and the corresponding scientism which constitutes the method of the materialist atheist. We'll talk about scientism here in a moment. Materialist atheism dogmatically rejects any notion of the supernatural. All that exists is the material universe. All that exists is the material universe. They reject the supernatural, they reject the supra-natural, they reject Obviously the soul, the spirit, they reject God, they reject miracle, anything having to do with something that takes more than nature to be accomplished or that exists in a way that is beyond nature. They reject all of that. And then they use scientism as their method. And scientism is the claim that if something is not perceived through means of the natural scientific method, if you think of what the scientific method is, which is good, and it's proper to be used within a proper context, the scientific method is inductive study of the material world through experimentation and repeatable results. All right, that's what the scientific method is. But what they do is they take that method and they say that if I can't detect it through this method, then I can't know it. If you cannot come to a conclusion about what is true through the application of this scientific method, inductive study of the material world through experimentation and repeatable results, then you cannot claim to know what cannot be verified through that method. It should not be believed as true if it cannot be verified by the inductive study of the scientific method. That's what scientism is. And upon scientism, we do away with philosophy, we do away with religion, we do away with the objective existence of the laws of logic, we do away even with, in some measure, the objective existence of mathematics and physical laws, if we're being consistent. What's the foolishness of this position, if you haven't seen it already? It's foolish. Now, before we get into that, it's not necessarily an insult and unnecessarily incendiary to call something foolish. Think about what the above definition entails. It's not just by way of insult that the Bible calls unbelievers, or those who suppress the truth and unrighteousness, fools. It is making a definitive, factual claim that they are denying the obvious existence of God, which is obvious precisely because God has revealed Himself to us through what is made. To call something foolish is to merely observe a denial of what is either self-evidently true or obviously and unquestionably the case. That's the existence of God. Let me give some examples of how I might be called a fool. Let me put myself in the shoes of the foolish. And I'm liable to all these, by the way, so I don't want anyone to perceive me as trying to take a position of superiority or having a superiority complex here in this sermon. I'm subject to all these things. For example, if I were to run into a wall Eyes wide open, I may have some friends, maybe some friends in this very room, who might label me foolish for failing to pay attention to what was so obviously right in front of me. It'd be a cause of laughter, maybe pointing and poking fun. That's one example. It's so obvious. How could you possibly let that happen, Josh? You were even looking at the wall, and you still ran headlong into it. Secondly, if I were to deny the existence of my parents, someone may label me foolish for denying the nearest explanation for my own existence. How are you here if it weren't for your parents? Thirdly, I may deny that a set of train tracks were laid down by a man with an intellect, foresight, intention, the product of engineering, and the product of hard labor. I might be called foolish in that case, since railroad tracks are so obviously designed, since they have a purpose, since they are ordered toward a goal, and so on and so forth. Materialist atheism is foolish, as the Bible says, for the following reasons. There are several of them. Number one, it denies the obvious revelation of God through nature. Number two, it makes use of the laws of the universe whilst denying a universal law giver. It makes use of the objective laws of the universe, or universal laws, whilst denying a universal law giver. Number three, it asserts value of human life, to one extent or another, whilst denying that which gives humanity its inherent value. In other words, they proffer value without an explanation for how we get the value. Number four, it makes moral claims. It makes moral claims and expects justice whilst rejecting any formal or ultimate standard of justice in the world. In other words, their morality, their ethics, their standard of justice is always going to be subjective. It's not grounded in anything. It's not explained in anything. It's just a figment of imagination. But they don't live, nor do they act like it's just a figment of their imagination. And number five, it, materialist atheism, makes use of the order required to perform scientific experiments and live daily life while at the same time alleging randomness and disorder as the origin of the universe. In other words, they have to say that order has arisen from disorder, regularity has arisen from irregularity, and so on and so forth. think about it in a context that perhaps is even more close to societal home. If we were to blend materialism, materialist atheism, and the current LGBTQIA++++ with those atheistic assumptions, we might further press, and by the way, before I go to these next three reasons why materialist atheism is foolish, I might say that the LGBTQIA++ is a product of materialist atheism. It's a product of materialist atheism. Why? Because there are no objective laws, there are no objective standards, there is no objective meaning, there is no objective goal, values, nihilism ensues, life is ultimately meaningless, therefore we can make up our own genders, we can make up our own purposes as human beings, we can define ourselves however we want, and so on and so forth. But if we were to blend the current LGBTQIA movement with its materialist, atheistic assumptions, we might further press that. Number one, the LGBTQIA plus agenda claims rights for itself. You hear that language all the time. Rights. Which assumes human values. It claims rights for itself, but where do rights come from if not from a creator or a right giver? If rights come from man, there are no objective rights for anyone, and any one person is as free to deny rights to others as the next guy. There are no objective rights. Secondly, the LGBTQIA plus agenda, with its obsession over gender identity, makes identity claims, obviously. the reality of which would only be possible if identification were possible. But to identify anything requires the employment of the laws of logic, an assumption of order, value, meaning, definition. Where does all of that come from apart from an intentional designer of the world? They want to say that this world is fundamentally and genetically unintentional, However, they want to affirm intentionality in their arguments and their claims for identity and identity politics. their desire for certain rights, and so on. Thirdly, the LGBTQIA plus agenda works to persuade others of its point of view. Like others should believe what they are selling. But if there is no objective meaning, what is it worth to persuade anybody of anything? They're arguing for what they perceive to be truth, yet they are denying objective truth in the first place. When everything essentially means nothing, persuasion, fighting, arguments, rioting, protesting, lobbying, voting, platforming, etc., etc., are all exercises in futility. We may as well, as Paul says, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Time is too short to argue about ideologies. But no, they perceive there to be some purpose in what they're doing, contrary to their fundamental assumptions. These things, among other things, highlight the ludicrous outcome of denying a creator, of denying a first mover, of denying an authoritative lawgiver, and so on and so forth. And now that we've covered that, which I think was hopefully necessary and helpful, I think we should pass on from here to the only position that makes sense, and that is that of Christian theism, beginning with the self-existence of our God. So now we can really start digging in, moving from a prolegomena into the attributes of our God, beginning with what's called aseity. A-S-E-I-T-Y Aseity is the fancy word for self-existence. God's self-existence. That God is self-existent means that God needs nothing to be God. We read the text from Acts 17 beginning in verse 23b. Paul says, and he's talking at Mars Hill before the Areopagus, he says, Therefore, the one whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you, God who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of Heaven, and earth does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is he worshipped with men's hands as though he needed anything..." Key phrase in that text. "...since he gives to all life, breath, and all things." Acts 17, 23b-25. What's that word there for needed? That word there for needed, when Paul says, as though he needed anything. In other words, God does not need us. God does not need anything. He only gives, but never needs. We give, and then we need to replenish what we gave. God never needs anything. He only gives. He is infinite and pure being. Self-existent. That word for needed, which is prosdaiomai in the Greek. It means to want besides. It's to have a want or a need. It's to lack something. And so it's to need in addition to what something already is. In other words, as a human being, I need things beyond what I am to be what I am. I need water. I need food. I need air. I need encouragement. I need discipline. I need all of these things to be what I am. I want that which is in addition to myself. God does not need anything to be what He is. Nor does He need anything to become more than what He is. God never becomes other than what He is. He never becomes more than what He is. This means that when God creates, when God exerts the act of creation, or when God brings to pass creation, it does not add anything to God. God, given creation, is still God. Nor does the incarnation of our Lord add anything to God. God, given the incarnation, is still God. God does not change. There is nothing added to Him nor taken away from Him because He is self-existent. He wants nothing. He needs nothing. He exists of and in Himself. That brings me to the next observation, that a thing can be of itself or of another. A similar ting to this statement existed earlier in one of the arguments. I think it was the argument from contingency. where a thing can either have its explanation in itself or it has its explanation in something else. A thing can either be of itself or it is of another. All creatures are of another. All creatures are of another. No creature, there is no such thing as a creature that is of itself. That would mean, by the way, that a creature would have to create itself, which is illogical. It doesn't make any sense. But a thing of itself is uncreated. It does not come from another. That's what God is. God is a thing of itself. Of Himself. He's not created. He's not perfected by another. He is wholly sufficient in Himself to be Himself. God is of Himself. He is self-existent. This is the idea in Acts 17.25. God is of Himself, therefore He needs no other to be who or what He is. He does not need anything. Stephen Charnock writes that if God is the first cause of all creation, He must necessarily exist. It is necessary that He by whom all things are should be before all things and nothing before Him. He's first. There's nothing preceding Him. Nothing that makes Him to be what He is. He's first. And if nothing be before Him, Charnock continues, He comes not from any other, and then He always was, and without beginning, hence His eternity, which we'll get to. When Charnock says that God must be necessary, that which is necessary is that which must exist because it does not depend on anything else to be what it is. This is to be seen in contrast to that which is contingent. Something that is contingent relies on something else to be what it is. It depends on something else to be what it is. That which is necessary doesn't depend on anything else to be what it is. It's self-existent. God is necessary. God is self-existent. Things that are of another, creatures, are created and explained by something else other than themselves, i.e. God. God is the explanation for the universe. The universe does not explain God. No creature can create itself. No creature is necessary. They are created by definition. All creatures depend on numerous things to be what they are. Humans depend on air, food, parents. Those parents depend still yet on other parents. That's grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents. And the list goes on and on and on. We all have family trees. Some of us have very exhaustive family trees. And that's like seeing a line of causation. You would not be where you are now without that long, linear line of causation represented in a family tree. We are not of ourselves. We are of others. Therefore, we are dependent. God is not dependent. He is self-existent and necessary, and therefore, wholly independent. He does not need anything, as Acts 17 tells us. There are two other texts that I would like to look at. And there are texts among these as well, in addition to these, that establish divine aseity, or that establish divine self-existence. Exodus 3.14. It's one that we are accustomed to seeing and hearing. In Exodus 3.14, this is where God tells Moses, I am who I am. And He said, thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I Am has sent Me to you. Now notice in our text and in the language, God does not here appeal to anything beside Himself to explain Himself to Moses. He doesn't say, I was sent by I Am, or I Am such and such in relation to who and who. He says, I Am who I Am. He doesn't appeal to anything other than Himself to justify the mission He commits Moses to. God appeals to Himself as His own self-explanation. He has His explanation in and of Himself and does not derive it from any other. He does not rely on another to be what He is. Deuteronomy 6.4, the Shema is another text. Sometimes we don't think about the implications of a text like this one. It is another text. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Now usually we just take this text and we say, well, this is the one God of Israel. He's unique. He's set apart. He's the true God in contradistinction to those false gods of the pagans at the time and so on and so forth. But there's more implied here than that. That God is one in the truest sense means that there is nothing besides God or in God that is not God which makes God to be God. There's nothing besides God or in God that is not God which makes God to be God. God is one. If God relied on something that is not Himself to be Himself, He could not properly be said to be one. That will get us to divine simplicity. All these attributes, to one extent or another, they intermingle with one another. And so there will be some overlap as we go through this. And what I want to say now is that, just by way of closing, this is lofty. It's not always easy to see where the practicality of these kinds of things pick up. But again, I trust that insofar as God is known, that is the extent to which we will be like God. It's the knowledge of God that makes us like God or that restores the image of God in us. And that is sanctification, right? A growing in our knowledge of Him. This is not a futile exercise of the intellect. This is knowing God and growing in our understanding of who He is insofar as He has revealed Himself to us. And I'm afraid that today there is a downplaying, and we might even be able to call it a downgrade, when it comes to God. The whole reason for our religion as Christians is God. This is the most important doctrine that we could ever preach, teach, contemplate, meditate upon, talk about with one another, and so on. It's one of the most important doctrines. Even the Gospel is aimed toward this doctrine. The Gospel is what brings us to God. God is everything. And I'm afraid that what's happening today is there are all sorts of different models and speculations concerning who God is that makes God just another, maybe more powerful and more phenomenal creature. Thanks of God as something that might be played around with in our minds. God as an intellectual exercise or a philosophical phenomenon that we can kind of mix and meld according to our whims. Or God really isn't all that important, so it doesn't really matter what we say about Him, what we think about Him. All that really matters is, I don't know, evangelism or something like that. God is the very core. He's the center. He's the foundation. He's the principle. We must know God. And we must be discerning against errors concerning God. Because when God is construed falsely, when God or the doctrine of God involves errors, those errors start to roll downhill into other things. You'd be surprised at how a bad doctrine of God can affect one's perception of the Gospel. Who God is in His holiness, in His unapproachability, in His incomprehensibility. How a false doctrine of God can lead to a great deal of impiety and a lack of concern as to what God actually has said. In addition to those things, I'd just like to close with four observations or considerations. There's really a four-fold consideration we need to make in light of the doctrine of God's self-existence this afternoon. Number one, we have to remember that if God were to depend on anything other than Himself, if that's really how we want to think about God, that God depends on something other than Himself to be what He is, then He would not be God. that on which He depends would be God. So we have to understand as Christians, when we're talking about the Christian triune God, we must be believing and confessing a God that does not depend on anything other than Himself to be Himself. Because if He depends on anything, then what He depends upon is actually God. Not Him. No, the triune God is independent. and self-existent. Secondly, if God were to depend on something other than Himself to be what He is, then he would depend on that same thing to do what he does. Now this is where something like this gets very practical in my estimation, because if God depends on something, then what he says and what he does also depends on that something, and that is to make God's promises not dependent on the God who gives them, but dependent upon whatever God depends upon. We want to be careful that when we read about God's beautiful promise of the Gospel, reconciliation of sinners to an all-holy God through the blood and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, the promises that come through the Gospel are sure and stable precisely because God is who God is and does not depend on any other. If he depended on something else to be himself, we could not take his promises for granted. And we could not trust in their certainty. Thirdly, if we compromise on God's self-existence, then Calvinism, monergism, which is the unilateral act of God to save humanity, Calvinism, monergism, free and sovereign grace are all false. If God depends on something else, like creatures for example, to be what He is, to know what He knows, and to do what He does, then He is not sovereign over at least some things, which means He is not sovereign over anything. And that precludes biblical and confessional soteriology. The doctrine of salvation. God must be self-existent. In fact, I would say that Calvinism as a position, the doctrines of grace, really rest upon the self-existence of our God. The doctrines of grace really rest upon the self-existence, simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and triunity of our God. You need those things to get to the doctrines of grace. Fourthly, and lastly, if God depends on what is not God to be God, the atheists are right to reject the Christian God. If God depends on what is not God to be God, the atheists are right to reject the Christian God, because if the Christian God depends on anything to be what He is, then He is not God and should not be worshiped as God. Hopefully this points to the importance of God's self-existence. It is precisely because of His self-existence that we can trust in His promises. It is precisely because of His self-existence that Christians in this room can have assurance with much warrant. It is precisely because of God's self-existence and the surety of His promise that even those who are unbelievers in this room can repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of God and the grace of God alone. Because it's the self-existent God who has issued forth the Gospel to be preached and believed on throughout the world. It is precisely because of God's self-existence that both unbeliever and believer can walk out their doors with a modicum of trust in the natural order. That you're not just going to walk out and fall through the ground because the natural laws change every five minutes. There's a constancy, an order to our world and that bears It bears out the fact or shows forth the fact that this creation was set forth and created by a self-existent, independent, constant, and consistent God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let's pray. Our Heavenly Father, we thank You that You, being self-existent, not needing anything from us, have yet created, and have set forth a plan of redemption to bring us to Yourself. You do not need us. You do not need anything. You have the infinite plentifulness of Your own being which lacks nothing. Glorious plenitude of triune perfection that doesn't want for anything in addition. You are perfect. and holy, and yet you have sought to redeem sinners like us. We thank You for the Gospel, the Gospel which we know to be sure, certain, and unchangeable, precisely because You are the God You are. We pray that You would give us a zeal, a fire in our hearts to know these things, to contemplate upon Your being to contemplate upon the Trinity. You are the seat of all of Your promises, the explanation for all the world. We pray, therefore, that we would have You as the chiefest object of our study and the only object of our worship. Prevent us from idolatry that comes with a flippancy and a cynicism toward these things. We pray that we would hold fast to our confession, that we would know You and seek to know You in all humility. Give us that humility and give us this zeal by Your Holy Spirit. We pray that as the plan of redemption unfolds, You would continue drawing those who are yet outside of Christ to Yourself. We know that because You are independent and not dependent on another, that all You have elected will surely and invalidly come to You, for You will complete Your purpose. We thank You, God. We bless You. We pray that You would bless us. In Jesus' name, amen.