Why Jesus Was Baptized Outside

Let the Little Children Come to Me

“Even to the foulest offenders, when they afterward believe, remission of sin is granted. On this premise no one is prohibited from baptism and grace. How much more should an infant be admitted, who, just born, has not sinned in any respect, except that, being born of the flesh according to Adam, has in his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient deadly nature. Would not such a child obtain remission of sins with the less difficulty, because not his own actual guilt, but that of another, is to be remitted? Our sentence therefore, dearest brother, in the Council (of Carthage 254 A.D.) was that none by us should be prohibited from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all.”

-- Cyprian of Carthage (martyred 258 A.D.)

Forward Looking to Father’s Day

Father’s Day falls on June 15^th. I’d like some input on a few things:

1) What does it mean to be a father?

2) What do fathers need (not just want) to hear from the pulpit?

3) What have wise writers said about the vocation of fatherhood?

Reward for Works?

When it comes to good works, countless Christians have this bizarre notion that they don’t matter. I guess they’ve heard “you’re saved by grace not by works” so often that they’ve concluded their works don’t matter. As a result, they tend to think of heaven as a great equaling ground. I don’t think Scripture teaches this.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of reward for works. In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 Paul says, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

Paul seems to think our works will be rewarded. Luther did too and Chemnitz even said in his Examen, “…the good works in the reconciled, since they are acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly mercy and liberality, for the sake of Christ, has promised that He would honor with rewards the obedience of His children in this life, even though it is only begun and is weak, imperfect, and unclean.” (Examination of the Council of Trent I, 653)

And the Lutheran Confessions even say this about good works and rewards, “It is God’s will and express command that believers should do good works which the Holy Spirit works in them, and God is willing to be pleased with them for Christ’s sake and He promises to reward them gloriously in this and in the future life. (Formula of Concord; Solid Declaration, Article IV, paragraph 38.)

Yet, when I’ve brought this up, people get nervous about “works righteousness.”

C.F.W. Walther, first president of the LCMS, spoke about this, “Sometimes people get very uncomfortable when you talk about degrees of reward and punishment because it seems like it conflicts with our understanding of the doctrine of justification (salvation by grace through faith in Christ). The key to understanding different rewards or different degrees of reward in heaven is to think of them as gifts. If rewards are understood as pure gifts of grace, in no way earned, merited or deserved, then there is no conflict, contradiction or problem reconciling them with salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.”

So, why aren’t we preaching more on rewards for works? Oh, and why desire rewards (for those of you who are so pious that you are unmoved by God’s promise of rewards)? The rewards will be used to bring glory to Christ. And what Christian doesn’t want to glorify Jesus?

So again, why aren’t we preaching on rewards for works?

Tekmerion: My New Favorite Word

“Tekmerion.”

In Greek, the word means “decisive, infallible, or convincing proof.” In his Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian said this about the word, “All artificial proofs, then, as I say, are distinguished, first of all, into two kinds, one in which the conclusion is necessary, the other in which it is not necessary. The former are those which cannot be otherwise, and which the Greeks call τεκμήρια (tekmēria) or ἄλυτα σημεῖα (aluta sēmeia), "irrefutable signs." These scarcely seem to me to come under the rules of art, for when there is an irrefutable indication, there can be no ground for dispute. This happens whenever a thing must be, or must have been; or cannot be, or cannot have been; and this being stated in a cause, there can be no contention about the point.” (See here for more.)

The New Testament uses the word only once (of which I’m aware). Where? Acts 1:3: “After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs (tekmerios) that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.”

While many today have challenged the resurrection, for Luke, Jesus’ bodily and physical resurrection from the dead was beyond doubt. The Christian faith isn't founded on a fable, but on the hard fact (the tekmerion) of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus lives!

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?

Intellectually fulfilled atheist – really?

Over 20 years ago Richard Dawkins claimed Darwinian evolution allowed him to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Did he come to that conclusion on his own?

Here’s why I ask, if evolution is true, free will is a myth; determinism rules the day. All things that exist are just the accidental and random byproduct of a purposeless Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago – this would include Dawkins claim.

Personally, I wouldn’t find that very intellectually fulfilling – no free will, no independent thoughts, no true discovery – only random neurons firing until I fade from existence (and let’s be sure to rule out any Theistic evolution too – the thought of God guiding a purposeless, unguided process is quite contrary to reason). Really, can determinism be intellectually fulfilling? Is this something atheists choose to overlook to soothe their naturalistic souls?

In contradistinction to Dawkins and all his “intellectually fulfilled” atheist friends, I find freedom to think my own thoughts quite intellectually stimulating. In fact, I find it very fulfilling to think that in the learning, studying, questioning, and growing process, I might be thinking the Creator’s thoughts after Him.

Any thoughts? (Assuming they are your thoughts and not some random neurons shooting off for no reason).

Light’s Glittering Morn

Light’s glittering morn bedecks the sky;
Heav’n thunders forth its victory cry;
The glad earth shouts her triumph high,
And groaning hell makes wild reply,
While He, the King, the mighty King
Despoiling death of all its sting,
And trampling down the pow’rs of night,
Brings forth His ransomed Saints to light.
That Eastertide with joy was bright,
The sun shone out with fairer light,
When to their longing eyes restor’d
Th’Apostles saw their risen Lord:
He bade them see His hands, His side,
Where yet the glorious wounds abide;
Those tokens true with made it plain
Their Lord indeed was risen again.
O Jesu, King of gentleness,
Do Thou Thyself our hearts possess;
That we may give Thee all our days,
The tribute of our grateful praise.
O Lord of all with us abide.

The strife is o’er, the battle done,
In this our joyful Eastertide;
The victory of life is won,
From ev’ry weapon death can wield,
Thine own redeemed for ever shield.
The song of triumph has begun.
Alleluia.
All praise be thine, O risen Lord,
From death to endless life restored;
All praise to God, the Father be,
And Holy Ghost eternally.
Alleluia. Amen.

Horatio W. Parker (1863-1919)

No More Marriage or Marriage for Evermore?

I’ve always struggled with Jesus’ words in Mark 12, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”

My hang up? I like my wife and it’s hard for me to imagine not being married to her. I can recite the usual answer about temporal, earthly marriage being an image of the eternal, Heavenly/New Earthly marriage between Christ and the Church and all that, but I still struggle with it.

So, I was surprised when I saw the way Ben Witherington III answered this question in his book Jesus the Seer (which really isn’t about marriage – just one paragraph).

Here’s what he said: “the discussion (in Mark 12) is about levirate marriage, not all marriages, and in a deathless state there would be no more point to levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is unlike regular marriage because it only exists because of death: the obligation to raise up an heir for a deceased brother was felt to require such an institution. Furthermore, Jesus does not say there will be no more state of marriage in the kingdom; he says there will be no more new acts of marrying – no marrying (the male’s role in a patriarchal situation) or being given in marriage (the bride’s role). To this one may add that early Jews did not generally think that angels were sexless creatures… There is thus nothing in Mark 12 to support the notion that Jesus saw marriage as ceasing in the resurrection. What Jesus taught was that there would be no more change of status in the resurrection.”

I’ve not heard this take before. I’d certainly like for him to be right. The obvious question is “What about those who have remarried (whether due to death or divorce)? And what about the polygamous patriarchs?” Whose spouse will be whose?

The Privileged Planet

I stayed up past my bed time last night watching The Privileged Planet. If you haven’t seen it, do.

A few highlights:

• Earth is fine tuned to sustain complex life
• Scientists have composed a list of roughly 20 variables that must be in place simultaneously for complex life to exist (like the strong nuclear force holding protons and neutrons together, earth’s distance from the sun, the size of earth’s moon, and many more)
• Earth is located in a small region of habitability (the habitable zone) within our solar system
• Our solar system is located in a small region of habitability within our galaxy
  

But what was really interesting is that we’re not only located in a habitable zone, but we’re positioned in a place ideal for scientific discovery in our universe. Astrologist Guillermo Gonzalez says, “The most habitable places in the universe also offer the best opportunity for scientific discovery. I believe this implies purpose.”

It’s almost like God hand-picked the perfect place for us to learn about His creation. And with such a privileged position, why wouldn’t we eagerly learn as much as we could about God’s handiwork?

Check out the website: http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

Paradise Temporarily on Pause?

From the cross Jesus says to a criminal, “…today you will be with me in paradise.” From what I’ve read “paradise” seems to be a reference to “God’s garden,” which is itself an eschatological image of the new creation, but I’d love to learn more about “paradise.” (I know it shows up in 2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7 too.)

My real question is this: When did this criminal join Jesus in paradise? In other words, what are we to make out of the word “today”? Jesus was in the tomb until Sunday, so the criminal couldn’t have joined him in paradise “today.”

Is this just Luke’s unique way of emphasizing the immediacy of salvation? (Today salvation has come to this house… etc.)

Time tirelessly ticks; I don’t.

With Holy Week ready to make Lent’s final assault, I’ve cleared my calendar from all distractions and am now ready to make my charge.

Sermons have been written. Services have been crafted. People are being organized. Palms are green with anticipation. Lilies lie in wait. Flags are ready to fly. Allelu**s are ready to be sung.

While everything waits in the ready, Lent has exacted its cost: my time is not mine. I belong not to me. It has taken nearly six weeks of sermonizing and studying the Word ad nauseam, but I get it (again). It’s not about me. I will die with Christ on Good Friday in joyful anticipation of the resurrection.

Genesis 1: Straight talk or Circumlocution?

Genesis 1 – is the point to convey what really happened or a roundabout way of saying “God created”?

For a moment, let’s follow the crowd: there’s no way Genesis is literal; the point is God created. Great. God guided evolution (or set the process in motion and let er go). What I love about this solution is that it works great for every person who doesn’t read his Bible.

The problem is I am one of those eccentric souls who actually read mine.

What am I supposed to do when I get to Genesis 3 and I read that the penalty for sin is death? If millions of years of evolution passed before Adam, then millions of years of death passed before Adam, then Adam’s sin didn’t cause death – God did and used it as His mechanism to create. And if God’s mechanism to drive evolution was to weed out the weak, why do we strive to keep them alive? Shouldn’t we endeavor to eliminate the frail, the feeble, and the pathetic? (Is it any wonder eugenics and assisted suicide have been accepted by so many?)

What am I supposed to do when I get to Exodus 20:11 and God inscribes in the Ten Commandments that the basis for our seven day week is the creation week?

What am I supposed to do when I get to Mark 10:16 and Jesus declares that “at the beginning” God made them “male and female”? If Adam and Eve didn’t enter the scene until 12 billion some years after the beginning, what is Jesus talking about?

What am I supposed to do when I get to Romans 5:12 and Paul asserts that death entered the world through Adam? If millions of years of evolution and death passed before Adam, then Paul got it wrong.

And let’s say I’m okay with the above problems and still insist on jamming millions of years into Genesis 1 to make it fit the latest evolutionary theory, do I have to change the order too? Genesis says the earth came before the sun; evolution claims the opposite. Genesis says the plants came before the sun; evolution claims the opposite. Genesis says birds came before reptiles, evolution claims the opposite.

And yet most Christians are okay with this and even defend it. Case in point: the Clergy Letter Project (Google it). Even the pope accepts it (Benedict, JP, and Pious) (Google “Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church”). Never mind that evolution wreaks havoc on Scripture and numerous Biblical teachings; the majority accepts it, so that settles it.

I think Charles Spurgeon said it well, “We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatic in theology my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.”

The short of it: evolution can’t dance with the Bible. We either follow the Bible’s lead or get a new partner.

Later I’ll blog about the two mechanisms (mutation and natural selection) that supposedly drive evolution forward while, in reality, doing the opposite.

Starlight, Starbright, How old are you?

100 billion stars in the Milky Way. 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe with millions to trillions of stars in each one and Psalm 147 tells us, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name”!

The question, however, is, “When did God create the stars?” The Bible clearly states “Day 4.” Some try to reinterpret “Day” to mean “epoch” or “era,” but Genesis 1 doesn’t allow this interpretation. The Hebrew is pretty straight forward - the days are literal, 24 hour days (and just in case there was any doubt, Exodus 20:11 supports it). So, if we just read the text, we come away with six, 24 hour days and an earth that is only several thousand years old.

How then can starlight take millions of years to reach earth? (the answer is going to take awhile, but it’s worth it)

Some well-meaning Christians have tried to posit an “in-transit” theory of starlight. What then are we to conclude about supernovas? If the light was in-transit and if the earth is only several thousand years old, then the supernovas astronomers have witnessed didn’t really happen because there hasn’t been enough time for the light from the explosion to reach earth. If this is so then God created the appearance of a supernova. In other words, God is deceiving us – doesn’t sound like the God of the Bible.

So now what?

Let’s start with the Biblical text. In several places the Bible indicates that God “stretched out” the heavens (Isaiah 45:12 is one). By the way, astronomers observe that the heavens are still stretching - called “red shifts.”

Anyway, if we rewind a bit we can arrive at a time when the universe was smaller (before God stretched it if you will).

Evolutionists rewind to a single infinitesimally small point (which they call a “quantum state of being”). Most people imagine this dot exploding into space, but that’s not what evolutionists teach. They teach that all matter, energy, and space-time was inside the “quantum state of being” and it (for some unknown reason) rapidly expanded into our cosmos (some 13.7 billion years ago).

And get this, they teach that it (the dot) was infinite with no center and no edge. So, that centerless, edgeless “quantum state of being” rapidly expanded into the centerless, edgeless, infinite cosmos we know and love today.

This is an essential cog in the evolutionist’s theory. Stephen Hawking explains, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (137-138, A Brief History of Time)

Here’s what I find interesting: evolutionists admit that from all observations and calculations earth seems to be located in an ideal place for star gazing. In fact, it appears to be near the center of the universe, but having earth near the center of a universe with at least 100 billion galaxies is statistically impossible (lest it was placed there by a Designer).

So, they assume a centerless, edgeless universe. Hawking and Ellis admit, “we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology… we are now so democratic that we would not claim our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall… call this assumption the Copernican principle” (The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time)

Ok, if you plug an edgeless, centerless universe into astronomical equations you get an old earth and old starlight coming from a big bang some 13.7 billion years ago. But please note, the conclusion is affected by the staring assumptions. If you change your starting assumption, you change your conclusion.

The Bible says God “stretched out” the heavens. If we rewind to creation week, we can assume the universe was smaller. If the universe is bounded (i.e. has an edge and a center) and if earth is near the center of the universe (which the Bible suggests when it tells us the sun, moon, and stars were created for us as “signs to mark seasons, days, and years….” (Gen 1:14), then our conclusions will be far different from the big bang cosmology.

Here’s how: gravitational time dilation. I’ll make this as simple as possible and avoid black holes, white holes, event horizons, and E=MC^2.

Here’s the short of it: gravity affects time. The greater the gravitational force the slower time moves relative to time under lesser gravitational force (if you want examples, I’ll give you some).

So, if earth was near the center of a smaller universe, then the gravitational force would be greater toward the center than the edges. If so, clocks on earth would move slower relative to clocks on the edges of the universe.

Now this is going to stretch your brains, but if the force was great enough (which the equations suggest they were), then millions (and even billions) of years could transpire in the outer reaches of the universe while only days transpired on earth.

Here’s the short of it, there was plenty of time for distant starlight to reach earth and the time referenced in Scripture is given in earth time.

So, if you take a bounded universe with an edge and center and posit that earth is near the center (not that earth is stationary and the universe revolves around it) and that the universe has been stretched out and plug all this into the astronomical equations, you end up with a young earth with relative old light.

In short, the Bible’s account stands. I skipped a lot of steps to get here. If you need me to fill them in, ask.

If you want to know more, buy Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by D. Russell Humphreys.

RVL resonates with Bell

A while back I mentioned that something Ray Vander Laan said reminded me of something I had heard out of the emerging church.

During RVL’s talk he described Matthew’s account of Jesus and Peter walking on the water. RVL said that Peter didn’t lose faith in Jesus (because Jesus was right in front of him); he lost faith in himself. In other words, Peter didn’t believe he actually could be like his rabbi (which was the highest aspiration of ever disciple).

So, when Jesus said, “You of little faith. Why did you doubt?” He was saying, “Why did you doubt yourself and your (Spirit empowered) ability to follow me?” RVL was sure to include the “Spirit empowered” qualification.

I’ll let somebody else critique RVL’s exegesis here; I want to share where emerging church pastor Rob Bell takes this. (Bell, by the way, is enamored with RVL. As best I can tell, Bell takes RVL’s teachings to places RVL didn’t/doesn’t envision.)

Anyway, here’s a quote from Bell’s Velvet Elvis, “God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me.” (134)

Before I go further, my purpose isn’t to bash Bell (or RVL); Bell has a lot of great stuff and he’s absolutely right about several things. Here, however, I struggle to take him seriously.

“God has an incredibly high view of people.” Does he read the Bible I read?

“God has faith in me.” Really?

I know one of the characteristics of the emerging church is a hesitancy to define terms with precision (and I’ll admit that endless definitions of terms can be tedious at best). EC prefers “messy” theology – by which they mean a more eastern approach of story/question/conversation in contrast to the western’s proposition/answer/definition. In many ways it’s a helpful corrective. Despite the dryness of definitions, however, they’re essential for conversation. If you don’t know what another means, how can you converse?

So, how does Bell define “believe”? Belief in God is a “good thing”? Isn’t it a saving thing? Does God believe in us in the same way we believe in Him?

How does he define “faith”? Faith in God is a “good thing”? Isn’t it by faith alone in Christ that we are saved? Does God have faith in us in the same way we have faith in Him?

At some point we have to define terms. As much as EC likes things messy, they are going to have to define terms to carry on their conversation. Otherwise their conversation will become as meaningless as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between Rome and The Lutheran World Federation.

Perhaps someone else has thoughts on this? Maybe I missed Bell’s point altogether. Let me know.