Will Science Someday Rule Out The Possibility of God? (Part 1)

Recently theoretical physicist Dr. Sean Carroll from the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) made a cultural splash when he suggested that the inevitable progress of science may rule out the possibility of the existence of God. He argued that, given enough time, science will be able to give us a theory of the universe that is entirely "self-contained," meaning that there will be no need to postulate the existence of God. Is he right? In one sense, he is quite right--but only if "God" is defined as a postulated deus ex machina. If, however, we define "God" as the biblical Yahweh--the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--then, no, he is not right. Dr. Carroll's splash, while not at all threatening to faith in the one true God of the Scriptures, does serve as a helpful call to a self-criticism of the Church's theology. How do we define God?

deus ex machina

a portion of Michelangelo's fresco on the Sistine Chapel.

"Deus ex machina" is a Latin phrase, which means "god out of the machine." In literature, it means that the playwright or author has introduced an arbitrary and external element in order to keep the plot going. This element is external in that it has nothing to do with the setting, characters, or actions of the play. In the case of ancient Greek stage plays, this was done by lowering an actor, playing one of the many Greek gods, onto the stage by way of ropes and pullies (or machines) so that he may alter the plot, which did not previously involve him. From a literary perspective, this is an illegitimate move that merely exposes the author's inability to write a solid plot. Of course, legitimate use of a god may be made by integrating the god throughout the narrative (i.e. Homer's Odyssey and Iliad). In philosophy, deux ex machina means that one appeals arbitrarily to a transcendent being (i.e. God) in order to make his philosophical system work. [1] To commit a deus ex machina in philosophy is considered to be equally illegitimate as it is in literature.

If the Christian God is merely defined or treated as an entity, which must be postulated to make our moral or natural system work, then the Church may face a crisis of belief as science progresses. If, as Dr. Carroll proposes, someone could come up with a scientific theory of everything that could uphold Christian commitments to morality and community, then it is conceivable that this deus ex machina could be written out of the play. The only obstacle that remains is that science is still a lousy playwright. But, she's getting better.

Is God merely a postulated entity that must be believed in in order to make sense of everything else? Or, is God the Personal Being that we encounter when we pray and meditate on the Scriptures? Ultimately, God is not a human philosophical crutch. He is the God who revealed Himself perfectly in history as the Incarnated Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:3), who penetrates human hearts through the power of His Word (Hebrews 4:12), and who calls his elect to salvation through the effectual drawing of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44) . It is this God who has legitimately integrated himself into the cosmological narrative that can't be reduced to a postulate and, therefore, eliminated by science.

How is this not irrational fideism?

Christian belief in the God of the Bible is potentially falsifiable, however. It is, therefore, not irrational or fideistic (faith for faith's sake). Christians would have good reason to abandon their faith, for instance, if the whole world flooded (Genesis 9:11) or if we definitively found the dead body of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:14). [2] Likewise, Christians would have good reason to abandon their acceptance of the inerrancy of the Scriptures if, in fact, Darwin's thesis that all life originated from a single organism could be definitively proven, because the book of Genesis claims that God created "each [animal] according to its kind." [3] (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) 

God as a philosophical crutch

The reason that Dr. Carroll's claim is a much needed impetus for Christian self-criticism is that the Church (at least in America) is experiencing something of a philosophical revival, and that comes with some inherent dangers. Christian studies of worldview, philosophy, and apologetics have become a booming industry. [4] These studies are being emphasized heavily in Christian higher and secondary education, and some churches have even begun to implement apologetics into their teaching curriculum. This is a much-needed correction to the anti-science and anti-intellectual impulse of 20th-century American evangelicalism. However, like the Christian philosophical rationalists of the 17th century (i.e. Rene Descartes and Gottfried W. Leibniz), the contemporary Church could easily reduce its God to a rational postulate and little more.

It is conceivable that a Christian could spend so much time considering the arguments for the existence of God and the consistency of his own worldview that he never really knows the God of the Scriptures personally. What a tragic judgment day that will make. (Matthew 7:21-23) Christians could read books about the inerrancy of the Scriptures but never actually read the Scriptures. Christians could quote line after line of C.S. Lewis, St. Anselm of Canterbury, or William Lane Craig, and not know a single line from the Old Testament. Christians could argue for the existence of God until blue in the face but never invite their neighbors to experience his saving grace now.

In his work, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (1968), Colin Brown writes:

"The God of the rationalists was a hypothetical abstraction, a deus ex machina, invoked to make the system work, but not one who was encountered personally in history and present experience. His existence was, moreover, based upon arguments which we have already seen to be dubious. It is not surprising, therefore, that, when later thinkers rejected the rationalist approach...they felt that God and religion had been disposed of altogether..."

This controversy has provided the Church with an opportunity to ask itself: How do we define "God"?

(In Part 1 I have argued that the occasion of Dr. Carroll's claims can be a useful call to authentic Christian faith. In Part 2 I will address the philosophical claim that there could potentially be a theory of everything so encompassing that God is rendered totally useless.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Not every reference to the transcendent God is a deus ex machina. The blogger Maverick Philosopher presents a good but lengthy discussion of how to distinguish legitimate usage of God from deus ex machina here.
[2] What constitutes a "definitive" find is difficult to say, but, if I believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus body had been found, I would leave the Christian faith, which would be reduced to a pitiable myth. (1 Cor. 15:14)
[3] Some Christians maintain both theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy by stating that the Genesis account is poetic and, therefore, may be interpreted more symbolically and figuratively. Even if taken as poetry, however, I think it doesn't make sense to include the detail of each creature being created "according to its kind" if God created all biodiversity from a single living organism. At best, the theistic evolutionist would have to assume multiple original life forms to be consistent even with a poetic reading, and I think this position just collapses back into creationism. Given that, I believe that either Genesis or Darwin must be wrong. In this case, for a number of reasons, I believe Darwin is wrong. If the hang up for some is the age of the earth, I do believe that an "old earth creationist" view (God uniquely created each "kind" over a period of billions of years) is conceivably consistent with a more figurative reading of "day" in Genesis.
[4] I teach systematic theology, apologetics, worldview, and philosophy at a private Christian high school.

10 Things You Shouldn't Say To Adoptive Parents

The Mooney family on vacation

My wife and I (both white) are the proud parents of two beautiful Korean children, so our family is  bi-racial. We're not only bi-racial, but we live in Arkansas--a state not exactly known for its cosmopolitan embrace of diversity and culture. When we go into public, we understandably draw attention, but we also inevitably draw stupid/inappropriate comments and questions. Below is my list of the top 10 things you shouldn't say to adoptive parents--especially in the case of obvious trans-racial adoptions like ours.

All of these statements have been made to me and/or my wife in one form or another. I'm also including our responses. Whether we actually said them or just thought them can be your guess.

1. "Is his/her dad Korean (or insert the applicable race)?" (spoken to April when she was alone with the kids) 
• "As a matter of fact, he is!" 
• Because it is not the business of a stranger asking, we usually just say "yes" and keep on moving, because, yes, our children's biological fathers are Korean. We don't feel obligated to go into an explanation for strangers.
2. "Did ya'll have them babies?" (no kidding. I couldn't make this up. It happened at Taco Bell.)
• There are no words for this. But, I would like to know if the milk man is Korean.
3. "Can't you have your own children?" or "Did you adopt because you can't have children?" (I've only been asked this by strangers.)
• "This is none of your business." 
• This is a profoundly personal question, and, if it is the case that a couple can't have biological children, it can be a deeply hurtful question. Adoption should never be thought of as a back-up plan. While infertility may have prompted families to consider adoption, adoptive parents never think of their adopted children as secondary in any way. In fact, they soon don't even think of them as their adopted children. They are just their children.
4. "Do you plan to have any real children?"
• "Nope. We're plenty happy with these plastic ones."
5. "Are they brother and sister?" (My children are not biologically related.)
• "Yes. Yes they are." 
• I get the spirit of the question. They want to know if the adopted children are biologically related to one another. If you must ask it, that is how you should ask it--"Are your children biologically related?" Just to be on the safe side; however, just don't ask. This is one of those questions in a gray area. For many families, it may be too personal to tell a stranger. As a side note, people frequently ask me if my children are twins. They are 18 months apart and not even related. They ask because the kids "look just alike." No, they don't look alike, my white friend. From an Asian perspective my children look as much alike as Justin Beiber and Mick Jagger.
6. "We're about to get us one of them." (In this case, an excited soon-to-be adoptive grandmother said it.)
• "Really? I hope you used a coupon!" 
• They are human beings and should never be spoken of as a commodity. My children are not like chihuahuas that you can keep in your purse. They are human beings, made in God's image, who need love, affection, and a family just like every other human being on earth.
7. "Are you going to tell them they're adopted?"

• In my case, this question isn't even dignified with a response. However, in the case of same-race adoptions (especially if the children actually resemble the adoptive parents), it is not an appropriate question. In today's adoption culture, the vast majority of parents are open about the adoption. It is just a fact that the children will grow up with and never know any differently. If it is the very rare situation that the parent actually does plan to keep it a secret, they certainly will not want to tell you.
8. "I bet they cost a lot." or "How much did you pay for your kids?"
• I have no funny response to this. It is just flatly inappropriate, both in wording and content. First, it is illegal and immoral to buy a human being. You are not buying a human being; you are paying for the adoption services. There are many legal safeguards in place to protect both children and families. While I think the system is oversized, bloated, and infested with a plague of bureaucrats, some kind of system is necessary to protect everyone involved, and systems don't run without money. Except in the case that you are sincerely asking a close friend because you are considering adoption yourself, this question is never ever appropriate.
  
9. "Why didn't their parents keep them?" 

• Just don't. If you ask me this and my children are near enough to hear you, Ima take you out back and get all up in your Kool-Aid.
10. "Why didn't you adopt a white baby?"
• "If multiple races are good enough for God's beautiful creation, they're good enough for my family." 
• Human babies need families--not just the babies of one particular race. While there are legitimate concerns about a child's self identity and psychological development in a multi-racial family, we have been trained in such details. We go to great lengths to keep our children connected to their home culture. The alternative is a life in foster care and/or an orphanage.

So you don't become overly paranoid and awkwardly avoid the obvious (like I do with pregnant women), I'm including a list of things that are totally appropriate to say or ask. Remember, compliments help.

1. "How long have you had your beautiful child(ren)? 
• "Thank you very much. Our son came home three years ago, and our daughter, six months ago." 
2. "What was it like the day you met your children for the first time?" 
• Because adoptive parents usually weren't there for the birth of their children, some celebrate what they call "gotcha day." It's a day as significant as the birth, because it is the day the child came home to their "forever family."
3. "I'm very interested to hear about the adoption process some time." 
• Most adoptive parents I know (including us) do like to talk about adoption within appropriate parameters IF we can tell that the person genuinely wants to understand and doesn't just want to be nosy. Asking us this way allows us to set the boundaries that we're comfortable with. It also doesn't put us on the spot in, say, the checkout line at Wal-Mart. (A disproportionate number of inappropriate comments take place at Wal-Mart.)
4. "Where are your precious children from?" 
• "They are from South Korea." 
• Don't try to guess by looking. There are many countries that are currently open to international adoption (i.e. Korea, China, Thailand, Ethiopia, Russia, etc...), so adoptive children could be from any part of the world. I completely understand that most Americans can't distinguish Koreans from Chinese from Thais from Japanese. Don't guess. Just ask. And, don't feel bad. I've been to Korea twice. They think I look just like every white actor they've ever seen--especially Conan O'Brian.

I love to talk about adoption. Adoption is a beautiful thing and the best picture of the Gospel there is. We are all spiritual orphans, because we have been separated from our Father by our sin. And, yet, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God willfully adopts us into his family. All of God's children, with the exception of Jesus himself, are adopted.

So please feel free to ask me about adoption, but do it within the etiquette I've provided above. If you come to me because you are genuinely considering the adoption process yourself, I'm going to be very open with you, because I want to encourage you to do it.

-----------------------------

I encourage adoptive families who have other unacceptable or acceptable questions/statements to leave them as comments below.

On Omnipotence: Chuck Norris, God, and the Unmovable Rock

Just a few years ago, Chuck Norris jokes were a ubiquitous meme. Though the fad is fading, Chuck Norris still enjoys a satirical, yet heroic, status in American culture like the titans of Greek mythology. The titans were both men and gods. His name has been written in the still-drying cement of contemporary American culture by the proliferation of Chuck Norris jokes. Chuck Norris jokes frequently bestow upon Chuck Norris some divine quality, such as: omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (all-present), etc... By my analysis, those that grant him omnipotence (all power) are further broken down into two categories: 1) the logically possible [but highly improbable] and 2) the logically impossible. [1]

1) The logically possible [but highly improbable]:

• "Chuck Norris has a grizzly bear rug in his room. The bear isn't dead--it's just afraid to move."
• "Some magicians can walk on water. Chuck Norris can swim through land."
• "Chuck Norris can cut through a knife with butter."

2) The logically impossible:

• "Chuck Norris counted to infinity...twice."
• "Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door."
• "Chuck Norris created a round square."

God and the Logically Impossible:

These jokes raise important questions about the nature of omnipotence and, therefore, about the nature of the God of the Christian Scriptures who truly is omnipotent. Can God do the logically impossible? Is doing the logically impossible part of the definition of divine omnipotence?

Christian philosophers have long argued that God absolutely can do anything that is logically possible, even if it is physically impossible. For instance, God can cut a knife with butter, swim through land, or make a grizzly bear submit to life as a rug. In reality, Jesus was able to also raise the dead to life, walk on water, turn water into wine, heal the sick, appear in a locked room, and kill a fig tree with his voice. Omnipotence means that there is no logically possible thing that God can not do.

Omnipotence, however, does not mean that God can do the logically impossible. God cannot, for instance, create a round square or create another God. Christians understandably are uncomfortable saying that there are things God can't do, but that shouldn't be the case. The Bible explicitly says there are things that God can't do. "It is impossible for God to lie," and "God cannot be tempted with evil." [2] From the Scriptures, we may also clearly deduce that God cannot be unloving, cannot be unjust, and cannot cease to exist. [3]

God's inability to do the logically impossible should not be problematic for Christians, because the logical order of the universe itself is the result of the creation by an orderly Lord. God's own nature is what defines the logically possible; therefore, God's own nature is the only thing that constrains God.

image from theresurgence.com.

Can God create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it?

This question, often called the "omnipotence paradox" perfectly illustrates the issue at hand. If God can create the rock, he is not omnipotent, because he is unable to lift the rock. If he can't create the rock, he is not omnipotent, because he is unable to create it. In either case, God is not omnipotent. Those few critics of belief in God who actually still use this long-discredited paradox are asking an absurd question, which is logically so incomprehensible that it can't even be answered. They might as well have asked if God can gilibrate a loamy fragmoot. This question falsely assumes that omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible, which orthodox Christian theology has never claimed. In short, the Christian must reply that that question can't be answered, because it is logically incoherent, as it would result in a universe that contains a logical contradiction--an irresistible force (God) and an unmovable object (the rock). If the world were to contain logical contradictions, nothing would make any sense at all.

--------------------------------------------------------

[1] By "logically possible," I mean that it does not present a logical contradiction. For instance, "swimming through land" or "walking on water" are not contradictory propositions, despite the fact that they violate the laws of physics and are, therefore, improbable without a miracle. Physical impossibility does not mean logical impossibility.
[2] Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13
[3] All of these things are logically impossible for God, because God is, by definition, loving, kind, just, truthful, and necessarily existent.

Logical Fallacies In Monty Python and The Holy Grail

Following the rules of logic is the key to making a good argument for any proposition. Logic is something of a science, which with practice, can be mastered. The following is meant to be an amusing demonstration of logic by using an example of bad logic from a scene in the classic British comedy Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975).

You may watch the clip here and then see my analysis of the logical reasoning below:

An Inductive Argument:

At the beginning of the scene, the mob attempts to use inductive reasoning, which means they attempt to arrive at a conclusion ("She's a witch!") by way of empirical evidence. What evidence do they provide? A witch's nose, witch's clothing, a witch's hat, and a wart. The nose, clothing, and hat all fail to lead to the conclusion, because, as it turns out, they forced her to dress in such a way. Therefore, they are false premises (see the argument below). The wart alone, then, is insufficient to declare her a witch, because non-witches have warts. This is the problem with inductive arguments--they are not conclusively true with absolute certainty. Inductive arguments, at their best, can only suggest the truth of their conclusion with a high degree of probability. [1] Inductive arguments may be strong and cogent. If the given premises lead to the conclusion with a high degree of probability, it is strong. If the given premises are true and they lead to the conclusion, the argument is cogent. In this case, the argument is strong, but not cogent (because three of the premises are false).

The failed inductive argument:

1. The woman has a witch's nose,           (false premise)
2. and [she is wearing] witch's clothing,  (false premise)
3. and [she is wearing] a witch's hat.       (false premise)
4. She has a wart.                                    (insufficient for the conclusion)
5. Only witches have witches' noses, clothing, hats, and warts.
6. Therefore, she's a witch!

The task of proving her witchy ways is not over, however. Due to Sir Bedevere's superior rationalist wisdom, he seeks to guide them through Socratic questioning down a deductive path, rather than an inductive one.

A Deductive Argument:

The transcript of the scene is below, but I have attempted to recompose the narrative as a deductive syllogism. [2] However, I have reconstructed the argument in reverse order, relative to the film, because Sir Bedevere seems to work backwards from the conclusion to the premises. [3]

1. If she weighs the same as a duck, she'll float. (false, confuses weight with density)
2. she does weigh the same as a duck; (true in this case, if the scales are to be trusted)
3. [conclusion #1] Therefore, she'll float. (valid but unsound)
4. If she floats, she is made of wood. (false, many other things float)
5. She does float; (false/based on conclusion #1)
6. [conclusion #2] Therefore, she's made of wood. (valid but unsound)
7. If she's made of wood, she's a witch. (assumed by all in the scene to be true)
8. She is made of wood; (false/based on conclusion #2)
9. [conclusion #3] Therefore, she's a witch! (valid but unsound)

Deductive arguments may be valid and sound. "Valid" means that the given premises logically lead to the given conclusion because they follow a good form. [4] "Sound" means that the premises lead to the conclusion, and all of the premises are actually true. In this case, according to the way in which I have modeled the argument, the three sections of the argument are all valid. However, they are unsound, because a number of the premises are clearly false.

Unfortunately for the young lady accused, this crowd of peasants and their dim-witted leader, Sir Bedevere, do not understand that arguments can be valid but still untrue.
-----------------------------------
[1] Scientific data and evidence presented in court are empirical data meant to construct an inductive argument. Scientific theories and verdicts in court can't be proven 100%; however, they can be demonstrated to be true beyond a "reasonable doubt."
[2] A syllogism is merely a form of argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two or more premises.
[3] I attempted to compose the argument in the same order as the film, but I couldn't make sense of it. Reworking it in reverse made it work.
[4] Each of the three deductive arguments that make up the larger argument that she is a witch are valid forms. The logical form that they are follow is called modus ponens, which means that the second line affirms the antecedent of the first first line. An explanation of the four valid deductive forms is beyond the scope of this post.
---------------------------------
Transcript:

Mob: "We've found a witch. May we burn her?"
Sir Bedevere: "How do you know she is a witch?"
Mob: "She looks like one!"

...

Man: "She turned me into a newt (pause)... I got better"
Mob: "Burn her anyway!"
Sir Bedevere: "Quiet, Quiet, there are ways of telling if she is a witch. Tell me, what do you do with witches?"
Mob: "Burn 'em"
Sir Bedevere: "And what do you burn apart from witches?"
Mob: "More witches ... (silence and pondering) ... wood."
Sir Bedevere: "So, why do witches burn?"
Mob: " (pondering) because they're made of wood?"
Sir Bedevere: "Good ... So, how do we well whether she is made of wood?"
Mob: "Build a bridge out of her."
Sir Bedevere: "Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?"
Mob: "Oh yeah..."
Sir Bedevere: "Does wood sink in water?"
Mob: "No, it floats. Throw her into the pond!"
Sir Bedevere: "What also floats in water?"
Mob: "apples...cider...cherries...nuts...churches...very small rocks...lead..."
King Arthur: "A duck!"
Sir Bedevere: "Exactly. So, logically ....
Mob: "If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."
Sir Bedevere: "And, therefore ...."
Mob: "A witch!"

The Problem With "Free" Will

Theologically, I'm Reformed (Calvinist). Philosophically I'm a soft determinist (compatabilist). This means I reject the concept that is commonly called "free will." On the occasions that I've openly stated my position on the will to students, fellow Christians, or even non-Christian friends, I've often been presented with stunned silence or disgust. I can't be sure if it is because they have never heard of the concept or if it is because they are just shocked that I would hold a position, which is so clearly incongruous with common sense and a plain reading of the Scriptures. It is my attempt to explain myself here.

Clarifying the meaning of "free will"

There seems to be some confusion regarding the concept of free will itself. Most people that I've encountered in actual conversation about free will have assumed that human beings either 1) have total libertarian free will or 2) they are mere automata, carrying out the orders of some external force (i.e. God, Nature, or the Matrix). But, this is a fallacious false dilemma.

While I do argue that the will is not "free," I do not believe that humans have no will (like robots). The "will" means that humans do what they want (or will) to do. To deny the human will (hard determinism) is contrary to common sense, I think, because we all commonly sense that we are indeed willful. If you have ever eaten a banana, run a marathon, driven a car, or accepted Jesus as your Savior, it is what you wanted to do.

In short, the rejection of free will is not the rejection of human willfulness. We are not robots.

The problem with the will

The problem lies in the human will--it naturally desires the wrong things. While human beings are willful (doing what they want), what they want to do is directed by corruption. Philosophers draw a helpful distinction between first order desires and second order desires. See the examples below:

First order desire: "I want to eat the orange."

Second order desire: "I want to want to eat the orange."

Humans wrestle with this distinction in everyday life. "I want that bacon cheeseburger so bad (first-order), but I wish I didn't want it (second-order)." We seem to have very little control over our first-order desires. The allure of some things (junk food, pornography, attention, drugs, etc...) is irresistibly strong. As the Apostle Paul declared in Romans 7:15, "...what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." Paul apparently had first-order desires to sin that he hated, but they were his desires nonetheless.

This raises important questions: Where did my desires come from? Why does my will want the things that it does? I reject the "free" part of free will, because our first order desires are not really free at all. The human will seems to be in bondage to some second order force that makes it want all the wrong things -- "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like." (Galatians 5:19)

Robots vs. slaves

As stated before, the rebuttal that the rejection of free will makes human beings into robots is a fallacious false dilemma. It does, however, turn the human will into a slave. That is precisely what I think the human will is--a slave. As stated in Romans 7:14, "...I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." On the surface, though, this doesn't solve the problem. One might object, "Why does it matter if we have a will if we aren't free to exercise it?" This is where the deepest confusion lies. We are slaves to ourselves. We are only free to want the things that our corrupt nature wants.We are not free to want the things that God's perfect nature wants. The assumption that any human is totally free to want either good or evil is simply not biblical.

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

there is no one who understands;

there is no one who seeks God.

All have turned away,

they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good,

not even one."

(Romans 3:10b-12)

Apart from Christ, all that any human being will ever want is the list of sins that Paul calls the "fruits of the flesh." (see Galatians 5:19 above). Naturally, we will never want the "fruits of the Spirit" -- "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23) Likewise, we will never want God himself, because his very essence is contrary to the corruption of our wills. This voluntary slavery to sinfulness is called the doctrine of total depravity or moral inability. It is what sets us in diametric opposition to God.

How do we get saved if we don't want God himself?

This fundamental corruption of humanity's second-order desires leaves humans in a precarious position--in absolute separation from God. If we are separated from God and totally incapable of fixing that ourselves, how does anyone get saved? By grace through faith, and the faith itself is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8-9) [1]

If man's second-order will truly is in bondage to sin and incapable of wanting God on its own, then it must be that salvation is 100% the work of God himself on our behalf and at cost to himself (the death of his son). This is the most powerful expression of God's love and the Gospel that I know.

-----------------------------------

[1] People are saved by placing their faith in Jesus Christ, but faith itself is the gift of God. It is, in no way, a work of the person. (See John 6:37; John 6:65; Philippians 1:29; Acts 13:48)