The Atheist Must Answer: The Origin of Life

Atheists claim life came into existence without the aid of a Creator. It’s one thing to make a claim; it’s another to support it with reasonable evidence. As a Christian it seems quite reasonable to believe that infinite Life (i.e. God) created life. Even more, everything we see as observable facts supports that notion that life produces life; I’ve never seen a rock give birth to a living creature. Obviously I can’t prove God created life, but it sure seems like a reasonable conclusion.

So, how did life come from non-life? I can think of no better atheist to ask on this subject than Richard Dawkins. How does he answer?

“The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about… Once the vital ingredient – some kind of genetic molecule – is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”

How does this happen?

“Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers… The beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.” (The God Delusions, 137-138)

It’s really that simple. Of course, with logic like this, it’s also simple to conclude that leprechauns exist at the end of some rainbow on some planet.

I think Varghese says it well, “Given this type of reasoning, which is better described as an audacious exercise in superstition, anything we desire should exist somewhere if we just ‘invoke the magic of large numbers.’ Unicorns or the elixir of youth, even if ‘staggeringly impossible,’ are bound to occur ‘against all intuition.’ The only requirement is a ‘chemical model’ that ‘need only predict’ these occurring ‘on one planet in a billion billion.’”

So, I’m wondering, is the best explanation possible? Well, there’s always panspermia, but that only backs the boat up and doesn’t answer the question.

Can someone answer this question: how did life come from non-life (and why isn’t it happening today)?

The Atheist Must Answer

Every atheist, if he is to be respected, must offer a naturalist response to the following truths (taken from The Wonder of the World by Roy Abraham Varghese):

1. The scientific method assumes that the world is understandable – and also rational in the sense that its operations can be categorized under laws and theories.
2. Science assumes that all events and phenomena have an explanation, that every effect has a cause, although in the quantum realm, cause and effect can only be identified at a probabilistic level.
3. The world revealed by modern science is a world that (a) obeys fundamental mathematical principles, (b) resembles computational systems with their elaborate information processing and mapping of symbols, and (c) confirms our assumption that it’s intelligible and rational.
4. The laws of nature describe certain regularities in the universe. But these laws are not just descriptions of the regularities. Rather, the laws cause the regularities.
5. The laws of nature, particularly in relativity and quantum theory, can be understood and structured in the most complex and logical thought-form known to the human mind, that of mathematics. Scientists have been stunned by the one-to-one correspondence between the ‘program’ of nature and the programs of independently discovered and developed by the mind. Since symbolic thought and data processing are peculiar to minds as distinct from particles or force fields, it seems reasonable to assume that the laws of nature are manifestations of a sophisticated mind. No wonder then that the quantum physicist Paul Dirac said, “God is a mathematician of a very high order.”
6. The paradigm of infinite Intelligence expressing itself through a hierarchy of manifestations immediately makes of the most diverse phenomena in our experience: rationality, intention, intelligence, beauty, and love. The denial of this paradigm comes at a heavy cost: we have to explain away the most obvious realities; the laws of nature cannot be explained and the apparent correlation between cause and effect, phenomenon and explanation is simply an illusion or at best a coincidence; there is no such thing as consciousness or intention or thought; finally, everything that seems ordered and intelligible is actually random and irrational.

So, as Varghese says, “There has to be intelligence in the laws of the universe or it would not exhibit the kind of rationality shown by the success of science… In a word, there’s some underlying structure about the way the world is made. And if it’s astonishing that the world exists at all, it’s just as astonishing that it’s a world with a structure.

Einstein said it best with his stunning declaration that anyone seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”

To this point, I have seen no satisfactory answers offered by atheists to the above points. I’m waiting and I have a feeling I’ll be waiting for awhile…

Spirituality – incarnation required

Christian “Spirituality” seems to be everywhere and nowhere these days (to say nothing of non-Christian spirituality – even atheist spirituality!). Countless Christians talk about “spirituality” and “spiritual” experiences, but no one seems to be able put their finger on their “spirituality” or their “spiritual experiences.” No one seems to know what it is.

Why?

I think the Bible is pretty clear on this.

Paul says, “I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1).

According to Paul, spirituality involves our bodies. Paul even says we worship God with our bodies! Indentifying spirituality shouldn’t be any harder than pinching ourselves. This means any spirituality devoid of the flesh isn’t Christian.

But there’s more: spirituality and worship involve Jesus’ body. In worship we do not experience the mere spiritual presence of God. We receive the real, bodily presence of God’s Son in, with, and under, the elements of bread and wine (after all, isn’t this what Jesus says? ‘This is my body…’ And remember, the question isn’t, ‘Is this possible?’ but ‘Does Jesus speak truth?’)

This sacramental gift of God is not meant to be a spiritual experience in which we achieve communion with God through the ascension of our faith into heaven. This Sacrament is a real gift in which Christ’s body actually descends to us and for us.

As God’s redeemed, who have received Christ’s very body, we daily offer our bodies as living sacrifices in, with, and under our God-given vocations. Whether we are a mother, a father, an employee, a student, or a neighbor, Christian Spirituality always involves our bodies and Christ’s body. I guess you could say Christian spirituality is incarnational.

As Joan Chittister says, Spirituality is “living the ordinary life extraordinarily well… if we are not spiritual where we are and as we are, we are not spiritual at all.” (quoted in Philip Yancey, Rumors of Another World. 65)

Our vocations may not appear “spiritual” by worldly standards, but according to God they embody spirituality and are even among the things with which God is most pleased. As St. Paul says, being a living sacrifice is “holy and pleasing to God.”

Asking the wrong questions?

When it comes to theology, is it possible to ask the wrong questions?

Here’s what I mean: The Reformed/Protestant traditions often ask questions like these?

1) Is it possible for Christ’s body and blood to be present in the Sacrament?

2) Is it possible for an infant to have faith?

These questions are usually answered “No. It’s not possible for Christ’s body to be present more than one place at one time.” And “No. It’s not possible for infants to believe.”

And, as much as my three pound brain can figure, these answers are right. But what if they are the wrong questions?

As a Lutheran (evangelical catholic), these aren’t the questions with which we begin. In fact, there’s only one real question we start by asking and it’s not “Is it possible.” The question we ask is “Does God speak truth?”

If the answer to this question is “yes,” then the answer to above questions (and others like it) will not be answered according to the capacity of my cranium, but in accordance with Scripture and I will not be the judge of the Word, but the Word the judge of me.

So, if Jesus speaks truth and He says, “This is my body…” well, I guess He means it. And if the Scripture says the Spirit is poured out in baptism, well, I guess infants can have the Holy Spirit and faith.

I guess the task of the theologian then is to learn to ask the right question: “Does God speak truth?”

Thoughts?

Your Average Extraordinary God-glorifying Vocation: Parenthood

Been thinking a bit lately bout vocation, specifically parenthood (obviously my thoughts won’t apply to everyone).

There’s nothing glorious in diapers, duplos, and discipline… but why should I expect there to be? Should I expect praise for doing my job?

No, there certainly isn’t glory for me. For me there is a constant cross… For me there is a daily death… For me there is an unceasing self-denial…

And isn’t that what my vocation is supposed to be? Isn’t that how my flesh is mortified?

Wingren says it well, “In one’s vocation there is a cross… and on this cross the old human nature is to be crucified. Here the side of baptism which is concerned with death is fulfilled. Christ died on the cross, and one who is baptized unto death with Christ must be put to death on the cross” (Luther on Vocation by Gustaf Wingren 29).

Wingren elaborates, “To understand what is meant by the cross of vocation, we need only remember that vocation is ordained by God to benefit, not him who fulfils the vocation, but the neighbor…. Under this cross are included even the most trivial of difficulties, such as: in marriage, the care of babes, which interferes with sleep and enjoyment; in government, unruly subjects and promoters of revolt; in the ministry, the whole resistance of reformation; in heavy labor, shabbiness, uncleanness, and the contempt of the proud” (Luther on Vocation by Gustaf Wingren 29).

No, no glory for me.[1]

For Jesus my Lord, my Redeemer, My Savior, however, there is glory. When I am faithful, He is glorified and God through Him… and when Jesus is glorified, I, well, I’m deeply satisfied.

And isn’t that what makes parenthood an average extraordinary God-glorifying vocation?

---

[1] No glory for me, but Scripture does speak of reward (in this life and the next) for faithfulness. That, however, is for another post.

Perpetual Perdition per the Early Fathers

In my previous post I discussed the Scriptural case for the eternity of Hell. While some question may be open today as to the interpretation of some of these texts, it seems the early church was virtually of one mind on this. While some today might feel free to depart from this tradition, I do not (not to mention my subscription to the Book of Concord which clearly teaches the eternity of hell).

Yes, it’s possible some details might differ, but on the eternity of hell, the early church agreed. Before I could embrace any form of universalism and reject the eternity of hell, I would need to see some impressive arguments that would decisively overturn the interpretation of a whole lot of folks.

Here are a few quotes from a few church fathers:

Ignatius of Antioch

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire, and so will anyone who listens to him (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

Justin Martyr

No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons (ibid. 52).

Theophilus of Antioch

Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God.... [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire," they will be damned forever (Against Heresies 4:28:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

Standing before [Christ's] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: "Just is your judgment!" And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).

Cyprian of Carthage

An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike; For if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350]).

Perpetual Perdition?

In the following paragraphs I’m going to argue for something I really don’t want to be true. In fact, I would really like to be wrong on this, but as I’ve searched the Scriptures, I believe this conclusion takes into account the whole of the Biblical account.

READER BE WARNED: YOU NEED FIVE MINUTES TO READ THIS AND 30 TO CONSIDER ITS IMPLICATIONS!

As most people know, the Bible has numerous references to “hell.” As far as I’m aware, few people actually deny hell exists and that people go there. Many people, however, seem to suggest hell won’t endure for eternity. Are they right? (Honestly, I wish they were.)

Here’s how I see it:

On the one hand, the Bible says all people have been forgiven. So that means everyone is/will be saved right? Well, on the other hand, it says some will go away to hell forever. So, the question is: is this hell really eternal – as in never ending torment?

People often object to the doctrine of eternal hell for a few reasons: 1) God says He wants all people to be saved and because He’s sovereign, He’ll accomplish His desires. 2) The punishment of eternal hell doesn’t meet the crime – eternity is too long. 3) God is a God of love and He wouldn’t damn people for eternity.

While several passages talk about hell, here are the ones that mention its eternity:

· Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46)

· But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29)

· If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:42-48)

· All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10)

· In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

· A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11)

Personally, these verses make me shudder (especially because half of them came from the lips of Jesus)!

Now, some have claimed “eternal” means “for an age” or some such equivalent. And I suppose you could argue that on one or two passages (although I really don’t think it would hold up exegetically), but it really seems unlikely that all six passages actually mean “for an age.” If hell was meant to be understood as non-eternal, why does the Bible nowhere clearly indicate this? Why does it use so many different words for “forever”?

At some point, it becomes quite difficult to make a Scriptural case for a non-eternal hell. Yes, the Bible does say Jesus forgave the whole world, but in my mind, it is far easier to qualify these statements (i.e. Jesus purchased forgiveness for all people, but not all want it) than it is to qualify the statements of hell (i.e. the Bible says hell lasts forever, but it means “for a time”). Even more, the early church fathers interpreted the Scriptures this way as did the Lutheran reformers – and they wrote it in their confessions (The Augsburg Confession and The Apology of the Augsburg Confession).

Now, on the concept of punishment matching crime, I think Aquinas actually explains this well: “The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin… Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin – it is more criminal to strike the head of state than a private citizen – and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against him.”

And as for being uncomfortable that a loving God could send someone to an eternal hell, well, I guess we’ve just got to get our concept of God from the Scriptures and not our own notions of what is just and right.

Obviously, this only scratches the surface, but at least it’s a start and, like I said above, I wish it weren’t true.

Syllogisms of Salvation: Part II

The Lutheran Syllogism of Salvation

Major Premise: Christ told me*, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Minor Premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.

Conclusion: I am baptized (that is, I have new life in Christ).

*Christ speaks through the mouth of the called pastor.

Result of Syllogism:

1. There are no conditions established about what we are required to decide or believe in order to ensure the promise applies to me.

2. The minor premise isn’t about our faith, but about the truth of Christ.

3. Whereas the Protestant syllogism required us to believe that we believed, the Lutheran system calls us to believe that what God says is true.

4. The Lutheran need: believe the Word of Christ.

Luther’s Teaching:

Luther taught that fundamentally faith says, “God speaks truth.” Only after this did faith say, “I believe.” (So Calvin’s syllogism isn’t necessarily wrong, it’s just misplaced – it shouldn’t be fundamental, but secondary.) According to Luther, faith may say, “My faith is weak” or “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief,” but faith, if it is to remain faith, cannot deny the truth of God’s Word. In short, faith does not rely on faith; faith relies on the Word.

End Result: sola fide doesn’t mean we rely on our faith; it means we rely on the truth of God’s Word.

In Luther’s words, “Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain [because he doesn’t know for certain whether he believes], but also an idolater who denies Christ. For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely a gift which he has from God [that is, faith], and not on God’s Word alone.”

Nota Bene:

Eternal salvation requires the gift of persevering in the faith and Luther (along with Calvin and others) did not suggest this gift was given in Baptism – Baptism isn’t a magical, free ticket, but that’s for another post.

Syllogisms of Salvation: Part I

A couple days ago I read an article in CTQ (Concordia Theological Quarterly) that I think helpfully summarized the difference between a Protestant and Lutheran understand of sola fide. I will post it in two parts.

Part 1: The Protestant Understanding

Part 2: The Lutheran Understanding

The Protestant Syllogism of Salvation

Major Premise: Whoever believes in Jesus is saved.

Minor Premise: I believe in Jesus.

Conclusion: I am saved.

Result of Syllogism:

1. We must not only believe, but know that we believe. In other words, salvation means believing we believe in Jesus.

2. The Protestant need is “the assurance of faith.”

Calvin’s teaching:

Calvin distinguished between temporary faith and true saving faith (faith that perseveres). According to Calvin, we should be able to know if we have true saving faith. Those with temporary faith may think they have true saving faith, but are just wrong (a very disturbing thought). How are we to know? Calvin instructs us to look inward for evidence of true saving faith because true faith bears fruit in sanctification (which is 100% true according to Scripture), but the noticed growth in sanctification is supposed to assure us of our faith. In other words, our assurance of faith is supposed to come from our own heart (this is why Protestants often speak of the moment they were saved – it was the moment they believed they believed).

End result: sola fide is about faith in our faith alone or believing that we believe in Christ alone.

My next post will be on the Lutheran teaching.

Saved by...?

After reading Danny’s and Daniel’s post on (saving) faith in infants and started thinking: some questions are great philosophical questions, but less than helpful theological questions. For example, a great philosophical question is, "Can God create a rock bigger than He can lift?" No doubt an interesting discussion could ensue on the nature and power of God and so forth, but theologically, it's not the best question. The Bible would ask the question this way, "Has God created you and is He your rock?" The answer: "Yes, and you can't move Him, so trust Him and find refuge in Him."

Daniel, on www.allpossibleworlds.blogspot.com has asked a great philosophical question about (saving) faith in the context of infants (or mentally challenged individuals). He wondered if belief (in adults) might be the result of faith (understood as the giving of the Holy Spirit). So “belief” (our understanding and ability to believe) isn’t necessarily necessary for saving faith, the Spirit who gives Christ is. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

In regards to your faith and belief question, I think you might be getting close to a helpful distinction. Lutheran theological Arthur Carl Piepkorn says it this way, "To have faith in the context of infant baptism means to have become a person in whom God has initiated His work of sanctification and to whom he has given the Holy Spirit. As the individual matures, the Holy Spirit enables him so to see in the divine word God's revelation of His gracious self and of His saving purpose in Christ that the individual comes to know, trust, and worship Christ…" (The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, 230)

So we could phrase our philosophical problem this way:

1) Those who have the Holy Spirit are saved.

2) The Holy Spirit is given in Baptism (obviously rejected by Reformed churches today – Reformed being understood as non-Catholic and non-Lutheran)

3) Infants are baptized.

4) Therefore infants have the Holy Spirit and are saved.

So, our focus is turned away form "personal faith" (a phrase the Bible never uses anyway) to the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments (what the Bible emphasizes). Asking if infants can believe might just be the wrong question. Do they have the mental capacity to understand the Trinity? No, but who really does? Can they receive the Holy Spirit? Yes.

By the way, the emphasis on "personal faith" comes out of the Reformed (non-Lutheran and non-Catholic) tradition. If you can't look to any tangible means whereby God gives His Spirit and promises, you are forced to look inward and start asking questions like, "Do I believe enough?" (Also important in the Reformed tradition, “Am I one of the elect?” – for another post)

And when we speak of being saved by "faith alone," I think it's important to remember that it isn't our activity of believing that saves us, but the object of our faith – Christ who saves us.

So, I guess my point is starting with "personal faith" as our criteria for salvation isn't a helpful (or Biblical) question and it only leaves us with a "pretty fierce theological dilemma." And really, any time we start delving into the depths of what people believe / are capable of believing, we stray from Scripture's emphasis on the Spirit and promises of God in Christ. Only in Christ do we find any certainty. All other philosophical questions are interesting, but ultimately unanswerable.

What is sufficient for salvation?

Thanks to Danny on www.allpossibleworlds.blogspot.com for raising this question. As he worded it, “What is required for salvation? The answer I have always heard growing up is that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, He died and rose for my sins, and I that I must accept Him into my heart. This seems to make sense until one reads Romans 1:18-20…”

Below are my thoughts on the matter (WARNING: it might take you five whole minutes to read it!)

First, what we know with certainty from the Bible:

What the Bible says about man:

· All people inherit Adam’s sin and are therefore conceived and born sinful (Psa 51:5, Rom. 3:12).

· The unbeliever is “lost,” “blind,” “dead,” and a “slave to sin.” For this reason he does not and cannot seek God (Rom. 8:7).

· Those who reject the truth will be condemned to an eternity of torment in hell (Mat. 25:41, Rom. 2:8-9).

What the Bible says about God:

· God has revealed Himself to mankind in many ways (creation, burning bush, dreams/visions, pillars of fire/cloud, shekinah glory in the Temple), but in these last days He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus (Heb. 1:1-2)

· God is merciful, compassionate, and abounding in steadfast love (Psa. 86:15).

· God wants all people to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9).

· God is just (2 The. 1:5-10) and for this reason will judge sin and unbelief.

What the Bible says about salvation:

· God’s judgment of all people’s sin has fallen on Jesus (Isa. 53:6, 1 Pet. 2:24).

· Salvation is found in Jesus only (Acts 4:12).

· Salvation is for those who receive Jesus by faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

· Life on the New Earth is reserved for those who are saved (Rev. 21:27).

This is what we know with certainty. Now, what about people who have never heard about God’s revelation in Jesus? Will they be saved or not?

In Romans 10:17-18 the apostle Paul asks himself this very question. Speaking about Jews of his time, Paul says, “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear?”

If you didn’t know what Paul said next, you might expect him to say, “They didn’t hear, so they aren’t accountable for rejecting God,” but that’s not what he says. Surprisingly, he says, “Of course they did: ‘Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.’”

Paul answers his question by quoting Psalm 19, which begins “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (19:1-4).

In other words, God has revealed Himself in more ways than Jesus. One of the many and various ways He has revealed Himself is creation. Those who don’t recognize His revelation as Creator and respond by worshiping Him will be held accountable.

Paul also spoke about this in Romans 1:20, where he says, “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Paul is clear: God has revealed Himself to all people as the world’s Creator so as to leave people no excuse for rejecting Him.

Having said that, the question remains: “What about those who recognize God’s revelation in creation and worship Him alone as the Creator, but have not heard about Jesus?”

Some have concluded that God only holds people accountable for the revelation they have received. This opinion is very appealing and many think Paul seems to imply this (and I’m willing to leave this door open), but I don’t think Scripture explicitly teaches this. Therefore we shouldn’t either. That, however, doesn’t mean we throw up our hands in despair and think no more about it.

Because we are uncertain about the salvation of people who have not heard of Jesus, shouldn’t we passionately and energetically pursue and support mission work around the globe with our prayers and our money? Shouldn’t our uncertainty drive our mission?

Even more than asking “What about those who don’t know Jesus?” We should be asking “What about those of us who do know Jesus?” What are we doing with our knowledge?

We might not know the answer to every question, but we do know the question that every one of us must answer: “Can I stand idly by while millions live and die without knowing Jesus?”

Let none hear you idly saying,
“There is nothing I can do,”
While the multitudes are dying
And the Master calls for you.
Take the task He gives you gladly,
Let His work your pleasure be;
Answer quickly when He calleth,”
Here am I, send me, send me!”

Hunger in Heaven?

Last week’s Gospel reading (John 20:19-31) got me thinking, will we need to eat once we have received our resurrected bodies on the New Earth? Jesus certainly ate after He rose from the dead, but did He need to eat or was it simply to prove He had a flesh and bones body (Luke 24:39)?

Isaiah envisions “rich foods… the best meats and the finest of wines” on the New Earth (personally I’m hoping for a little cabernet sauvignon – I savor the iron fist in a velvet glove and can only imagine heaven’s version!). So, it sure seems food will be there, but will we need it?

The little I know about early church fathers tells me they were split on this. If I recall, Tertullian confessed the literalness of the resurrected body, but rejected the idea that we would eat at all (although I think he might have been influenced by Platonism – someone correct me if I’m wrong).

Augustine seems to have thought we would eat for enjoyment, but not need to eat to survive.

My limited reasoning abilities tell me if God designed our bodies to need and enjoy food in Eden, it would be logically consistent for us to need and enjoy it in the redeemed and restored New Earth.

Of course, perhaps one of the characteristics of the upgrade to the resurrected body is freedom from the need of any thing to sustain us save God (not by bread alone, but by every Word from the Lord).

Could this be one of the qualities of the “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44)? In his The Two natures of Christ, Chemnitz quotes Augustine who says, “The (resurrected) bodies will be spiritual, not because they cease to be bodies, but because they live by the life-giving Spirit” (429).

So, will we need to eat on the New Earth?