Behold, I am coming quickly

Defining our Terms

When approaching the subject of "Hyper-Preterism" it is essential to clarify our terms. There is an important distinction that needs to be made between Partial-Preterism and Hyper-Preterism. Partial-Preterism falls within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy, while Hyper-Preterism is heterodox (outside of Orthodoxy) and therefore a damnable heresy that true Christians cannot believe.

What Exactly is Hyper-Preterism?

Hyper-Preterism, also called "Full-Preterism," "Pantelism," and the "Hymenaen Heresy," is a combination of heresies that ultimately rejects key elements of the Christian faith that are essential to salvation. In a nut shell, Hyper-Preterism believes that all Biblical prophecy has been 100% fulfilled and completed. This means that the final return of Christ, final resurrection, final Day of Judgment, and the new heavens and new earth have already happened. When did this happen? They will argue in 70 AD, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgment upon the Jews.

Redefining Terms

You might be thinking to yourself: "Wait a minute, I look around me and see a Universe still under the curse of the Fall. I still get sick, and I will die some day ... I hope this isn't my resurrected body. How can the Hyper-Preterist honestly tell me all prophecy has already happened???" You would not be alone in thinking this. So how do they explain themselves? They argue that each of these 4 eschatalogical truths were utterly spiritualized and not physical events: (1) The final coming of Christ was the spiritual coming of judgment on the Jews in AD 70. (2) The resurrection of the dead was a spiritual resurrection. (3) The final judgment and (4) new heavens and earth happened in the past, and were also spiritual events.

A Combination of Heresies

The proto-Gnostics and the Gnostics of the first few centuries AD are the most comparable group to Hyper-Preterism. The Gnostics believed that the physical realm was evil, and that the spiritual was good. When the proto-Gnostic groups attempted to blend with Christianity, the result was to spiritualize certain Christian beliefs. For example, if Jesus was good, then he couldn't have a physical body since the physical realm is evil. Therefore, he was a spirit and did not have a physical body. Additionally, the Gnostics believed that man's spirit longed to be set free from the prison of the physical Universe.

It is worth noting that Hyper-Preterists detest being compared with the Gnostics, nevertheless, the similarities are striking. It is true that they don't agree with everything the Gnostics believed, however, they have strong Gnostic tendencies about their beliefs. For instance, that the final resurrection is solely spiritual, and that some believe Christ doesn't have his physical body now, while a minority believe Christ never physically rose from the dead to begin with but only spiritually arose.

Damnable Heresy?

Is it, perhaps, too harsh to say that this is a damnable heresy? I don't think so. At least part of this heresy is not new, and Paul addressed one aspect of it in 2 Timothy 2:14-19. Hymenaeus and Philetus were caught up in "worldly and empty chatter" whose talk "will spread like gangrene." What were they saying that was so terrible? They had "gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place." Clearly this was not acceptable for practicing Christians to continue on believing. The clever Hyper-Preterist will respond: "Well ... Hymenaeus and Philetus believed in a damnable heresy because they were wrong about the timing of the resurrection, as this was prior to 70 AD. We just happen to have gotten it right, therefore, we don't believe in a damnable heresy." They make my point for me: that getting the timing wrong for the final resurrection of the dead is a damnable heresy.

To make this even more clear, if you continue on in the immediate context, Paul declares:

"The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2 Timothy 2:24-26, NASB).

By claiming the resurrection had already taken place they were denying the faith. Paul's instruction to Timothy was to correct them in hopes that God might "grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth."

The author of Hebrews speaks about the second coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28. He will come "a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." This coming is not in reference to sin, but will be at the consummation of the ages. I would also point out that Christians are eagerly awaiting for the return of Christ. This will usher in the resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and new earth, and the final Day of Judgment. Earlier in his letter, the author also makes mention of the "elementary teaching" about Christ in which he refers to "the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment" (Hebrews 6:2). Subjects about the resurrection and the final judgment are of the most basic elements of the Christian faith, and to deny them is to step outside of Orthodoxy.

Spiritualizing Everything

How could the resurrection have happened in AD 70? Nobody saw dead corpses being regenerated across the globe. Integral to Hyper-Preterism is the belief that the resurrection of the dead is a spiritual resurrection. This is quite disturbing considering that for this to be true a complete redefinition of the term "resurrection" is required. "Resurrection" simply means: that which is dead coming to life again; to be regenerated. Examples include when Lazarus was resurrected from the grave, which was not a spiritual occurrence: "The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth" (John 11:44, NASB). When Jesus died on the cross, many saints were raised from their tombs and were wandering through Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)!

But the single most important example is this: Jesus rose from the grave, and this was a physical resurrection. Why is this so important? Paul explains for us in 1 Corinthians 15:

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:12-19, NASB). 

There is a direct parallel between the nature of Christ's resurrection and that of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore the nature of one will be the nature of the other. Paul asks the question: If Christ was raised from the dead, how are some saying that there is no resurrection of the dead? Or asked in a way more relevant to the Hyper-Preterist: if Christ rose physically, how can you say that the resurrection of the dead is spiritual? The importance of this cannot be overstated, and I think Paul expressed the significance of this when he said: "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Our Lord made reference to the nature of the resurrection very plainly:  

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29, NASB). 

I ask the Hyper-Preterist: what are in the tombs that will be resurrected? We know it can't have reference to the souls of men because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), as Paul stated prior to 70 AD. The only alternative could be the dead bodies buried in the tombs, which makes sense since this would incorporate the normative meaning of "resurrection."

Here is another example of the comparison between Christ's resurrection and our own ... 

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself" (Philippians 3:20-21, NASB). 

How Much of the Human Being Did Christ Come to Save?

A key question to ask the Hyper-Preterist is: since the resurrection was spiritual and happened in AD 70, what exactly did the resurrection accomplish? Obviously, from their perspective, the resurrection of the dead was a spiritual event. But my question is specific: what spiritual benefits did this spiritual resurrection produce? Because prior to when they allege that the resurrection took place, the New Testament describes believers as having been "raised up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6). Earlier in the same letter, Paul describes Christians as having been blessed "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). Prior to AD 70, believers were raised up with Christ, seated in the heavenly places positionally, and were given every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. I'm missing what an alleged spiritual resurrection in the first century actually accomplished. 

This raises an important point: Christ came to save the whole man, body and soul. This stands in stark contrast to the Hyper-Preterist who believes that Christ will ultimately only save the spiritual aspect of human beings. They believe that no redemption was intended to ultimately restore man's physical nature. Once more I point out: this is Gnostic.

The Apostle Paul takes the time to address the resurrection in his letter to the Romans: 

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. ... The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:11, 16-17, NASB).

I am compelled to point out that the comparison between Christ's resurrection and the resurrection of the dead is plainly made in this section of Scripture. Christ was raised from the dead, and He will also give life to ... what? He will give life to "your mortal bodies." This is the context of the glorification He goes on to discuss in verse 17.

Time Proof-Texts

I made a decision when writing this outline to postpone addressing Hyper-Preterism's most common argument: the so-called "time-texts." They will argue that there are dozens upon dozens of verses that indicate that all of these eschatalogical things would happen "soon" and "quickly." For example, Christ said that He is coming quickly three different times in Revelation 22. The Hyper-Preterist would argue: "Jesus said that he was coming quickly, therefore it doesn't make sense for the Lord to have taken 2000 years for Him to reappear." As if the 2000 year life-span of the church is beyond what could have been the intention of the Lord. I ask in turn to the Hyper-Preterist: is Christ coming within 40 years a quick return? It really boils down to context, and the authorial intent.

I would add that the entire hermeneutic of the Hyper-Preterist tends to be greatly flawed. What do I mean? They claim to interpret the so-called "time-texts" in a literal way: soon means soon, quickly means quickly, and so on. The problem with this hermeneutic is that it falls short with numerous Scriptural examples. Consider this Messianic Psalm:

"“I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You." (Psalm 2:7, NASB)

If we are going to interpret the time aspect "today" in the most literal way possible, was the ultimate fulfillment of this the day this was written? Of course not, this was ultimately referring to Christ, as Luke (Acts 13:33) and Hebrews (Hebrews 1:5) recognizes. Another example is a prophecy of the Messiah:

"For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come,
and will not delay." (Hebrews 10:37, NASB)

If "a very little while" and "will not delay" was interpreted using the Hyper-Preterist hermeneutic, how could they possibly make sense of it? The author of Hebrews is citing from Habakkuk, which was written hundreds and hundreds of years before Christ! And yet, the Holy Spirit has no problem using language like this for events far in the future. I would suggest to you that with prophetic literature in the Bible, we cannot put unrealistic and unBiblical restraints upon the text that the authors themselves never would have intended for us to have. 

The Olivet Discourse

You will want to become familiar with the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, and its parallel passages, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Central to their whole argument is Matthew 24:34, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (NASB). Like much of their interpretive hermeneutic, they interpret this text in an absolutist way so that, for them, "all these things" becomes the fulfillment of all prophecy, fulfilled within the generation that heard these words. As a partial-preterist myself, I believe that part of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the first century AD, namely, the coming of Christ in the form of judgment upon the Jewish nation, destroying the temple and Jerusalem. But I do not see the requirement to include all of Matthew 24 and a good deal of Matthew 25 to be included in "all these things." In fact, considering the nature of the final prophetic events, I am forced to believe that they cannot have happened in the past.

The other prominent error made routinely by Hyper-Preterists is the assumption that the same language always refers to the same event. For example, "a coming" of the Lord in Judgment must be "the final coming" of Christ because of the same or similar terminology. The big problem with this kind of interpretation is that they attempt to make connections between unrelated texts to try to prove their arguments. I believe AD 70 was  *a*  coming of Judgment, but this was not  *the*  final day of judgment because AD 70 doesn't fit the bill for the nature of this event. Matthew 25:32 says that "All the nations will be gathered before Him," and also in Revelation 20:11-12, "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." Are we expected to believe that this took place in AD 70? We can answer with certainty that it did not happen because all the nations were not gathered before the throne.

The New Heavens and New Earth

The new heavens and new earth did not come about in the first century. How do we know this? Because Peter describes this event for us:

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:3-7, NASB).

If the former judgment of Noah's day was with water, and this is being compared to the final judgment, why would the final judgment be something other than a physical event? In other words, was it actual water or spiritual water that Noah escaped from? Similarly, is it actual fire or spiritual fire that will destroy the Universe at the final judgment? Peter goes on in his explanation about the final destruction of the Universe:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:10-13, NASB).

We see then that the heavens and the earth will be destroyed with fire and will pass away with a roar. Even the elements will be destroyed, and the earth will be burned up. Twice we are told this will be the result of intense heat. Is all this a spiritual event? You would have to turn the passage on its head to interpret it that way. God destroyed the world through the flood; and He will again destroy the world with intense heat, melting the building blocks of the Universe!

Bodily Return of Christ

Our Lord provided overwhelming evidence that He continued to have a physical body after His resurrection (John 20:26-29). When the appointed time came for Christ to ascend into Heaven, He did so physically. The angels that suddenly appeared to the disciples declared: "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11, NASB). Hyper-Preterists try to make a connection between the angelic statement of how Christ was received by a cloud, with Jesus' statement at his trial that He would come on the clouds of heaven: "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven" (Matthew 26:64, NASB). This brings me back to an earlier point: simply because Christ was received by a "cloud" at His ascension, and "coming on the clouds" are mentioned in Matthew 26 ... this does not mean there is a necessary connection between these two statements.

If we are going to believe the angelic declaration that Christ's return will be a bodily return, then 70 AD was not what the angel was talking about. The destruction of Jerusalem was important for many reasons: (1) God expressed His displeasure with the Jewish people for rejecting the Messiah. (2) It helped the newly established churches to understand that the temple played no part in the New Covenant. (3) And it was the fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture ... but not the fulfillment of all prophecy.

How Should Christians Respond?

Our foremost concern as Christians should be to defend the truth, and to protect the flock against false teachers. Hyper-Preterists are similar to recent converts to Calvinism in that they want the whole world to know about their new-found beliefs. I have personally seen these folks (Hyper-Preterists) deceive Christians, including church elders, so that they might continue on a facade long enough to spread their heresies.

The Apostle Paul used enormously strong language towards a position considerably more accurate than Hyper-Preterism, but shared at least one similarity: saying the resurrection had already taken place. He called the message of Hymenaeus and Philetus gangrene (2 Timothy 2). And what do you do when your foot gets gangrene? You cut it off.

The initial concern should be to stop the spread of this damnable heresy, which means they cannot be allowed to further discuss the issue with Christians in the church. If they agree to this, I believe we ought to correct and rebuke with gentleness. I find it enlightening that Paul offered relevant thoughts about how to approach men like this within the immediate context of those who share the same heresy:

"But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels ... with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,  unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also." (2 Timothy 2:23-3:9, Bold Mine, NASB)

If Hyper-Preterists are members of a church, I believe that the Biblical approach to correction and church discipline ought to be followed to the letter. However, if a visitor or other non-member is "upsett[ing] the faith of some," (2 Timothy 2:18) then they should quickly be contained, addressed, corrected, and if they refuse correction ... removed from the congregation.

Paul said elsewhere in Scripture:

"This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:8-11, NASB). 

The Apostle offers a contrast between how we can identify what is good and who has believed God, with those who engage in foolishness and are unwilling to accept Biblical warnings. We must have a proper understanding of what is good and true in order that we can identify falsehood and rebuke it in a correct way.

When first encountering someone espousing the damning heresies of Hyper-Preterism, I would urge you to warn the one bringing the false message. If they refuse the warning, bring another brother to also correct him. If they continue on in their ungodly heresies, bring it to the elders of your church. Do not delay in this. This is the Biblical mandate found in Matthew 18.

Hyper-Preterism is not just another eschatalogical perspective. There are many things one can believe about the last days: one can be a Dispensational Pre-Millenialist, or an A-Millenialist, or a Post-Millenialist, or even a Historic Pre-Millenialist! What each of these positions have in common are the essential doctrines all being future and physical events.

Hyper-Preterism, as a movement started and failed prior to 70 AD. The movement started again in the late 1800's and failed. A slight resurgence started again recently more than 10 years ago and failed. It is a movement devoid of hope, because Christ has already come. What do they have to hope for other than death so that their souls may be free from their bodies - bodies which will never be redeemed or glorified?

The glorious and future return of Christ is described by the New Testament as the "hope" for the Christian: "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13, NASB). We long for that glorious day because it will usher in eternity where we will enter into the presence of our Lord. It is a day in which the fallen Universe is utterly destroyed, and a new one is put in its place - one that is filled with righteousness and fully reverses the effects of the Fall of Adam. We will also have resurrected and glorified bodies - bodies that cannot and will not ever sin against the God whom we love and worship! The Final Day of Judgment will also be the day where every wrong is righted, where justice is ultimately done. We will be with the saints for all eternity, and we will be with the triune Lord that has delivered us from the consequences of sin, the lifestyle of sin, and has redeemed the whole man: body and soul.

In the midst of dealing with the damning heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, Paul said these great words:

"Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands..." 

There was no doubt in his mind that the kingdom of God will never be overthrown, not even by heresies such as this. For the Lord of Heaven and Earth is ruling from His throne. May we be faithful witnesses as we continue to battle against the forces of darkness, and the heresies employed by the Devil, always defending the gospel of truth in a world that desperately needs the light of salvation.

"There is a book..."

When I first heard the news that Ken Ham and Bill Nye were going to debate, a sense of excitement took hold of me. The subject: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" I can't recall another recent opportunity for a Christian to engage such a well-known public defender of Darwinian Evolution, so I knew this was going to be a big deal. In fact, the week of the debate it was given a good amount of media attention in the secular press. If you have not seen it yet, please take this as my personal recommendation to watch the debate.

There has been some talk about whether this was a real debate or not, and I tend to lean towards those who say it was lacking a key element of a formal debate: namely, cross examination. In any case, I found the debate thrilling and frustrating. I agree with most of the conclusions that James White offered on his webcast, The Dividing Line, where he essentially said that Bill Nye won the debate based purely on debating grounds. I don't mean to dismiss Ken Ham by any stretch, because I thought he did a marvelous job. However, consider for a moment the subject for the debate. From the outset, Ham was at a disadvantage because it put him on the defensive, which left Nye without a burden to defend his own position, and allowed him to attack creationism at will.

Both men were fairly polite and respectful, each giving a captivating presentation. Bill Nye the science guy, with all his charm and nifty-looking bow tie, was openly cavalier in how he spoke of Ken Ham, creationists, and ... Kentucky voters. He made repeated references to "Ken Ham's creation model" in an attempt to make him seem even more distant from the alleged consensus of scientists. To the advocate of Darwinian Evolution who questions this, let me ask you: how would you feel if Ken Ham repeatedly made reference to "Bill Nye's evolution model"? Nye stated a couple times how "We, on the outside [do science this way]" (Brackets Mine), implying that outside of the Creation Museum, and/or outside your non-scientific perspective, is how you do "real" scientific analysis. The implication was made over and over again that if one wants to do "real" science, you must reject the supernatural realm, the Bible, the Christian faith, and any notion of disagreement with the majority of scientists.

"This is very troubling to me," Nye declared numerous times. What was troubling to him? There seemed to be two things: (1) that Creationism departs from the majority opinion of modern academia. And (2) a belief in the supernatural.

I will tell you this much: what was troubling to me was Bill Nye's lack of self-reflection. Ironically, for all the mention of "Ken Ham's Creation Model," Nye was woefully ignorant of Ham's actual beliefs on the most basic elements of his creation model. Nye demonstrated an unwillingness to test his own ideas; and why should he since they are proven facts? Right? There was an attitude of dismissiveness towards those who reject the majority opinion. As Ken Ham pointed out: both creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence; it is their interpretation that is different. And what causes a different interpretation of the same evidence? One's worldview is solely responsible for this.

He made many appeals to Kentucky voters, pleading that our schools should stick to teaching "science." Of course, what he meant was strictly teaching Darwinian Evolution. I will hand it to Nye, though - at least he wasn't hiding his belief that only his views should be taught in school. One thing that Ken Ham did very well was to point out that since no one was there to observe our beginnings, what we believe about the past is a matter of faith derived from one's worldview. This may appropriately be called a religion - a set of beliefs and presuppositions that comprise an entire worldview by which we interpret the world around us. Therefore, it shouldn't be a stretch to include theories such as Intelligent Design in our public schools, which would simply be an additional worldview taught alongside an already present one. I'm not naive enough to believe this is likely to happen, considering the stranglehold leftists have on our educational system and academics today. But in a just and fair society, this would be a feasible way to present information on the subject of origins.

All in all, I was very proud of Ken Ham for his involvement in the debate. It takes some guts to stand up to the might of modern science, and to have your beliefs mocked. Not everyone could do what Ken Ham did, and I hope many Christians consider that before harshly criticizing his performance. It is all too easy to criticize, especially behind the power of the keyboard (an instrument that turns everyone into an intellectual giant in their own mind). Do I think Ham could have been more effective in how he approached the debate? Yes, absolutely. I wish he was more direct in responding to some of the attacks made by Nye, and also in challenging his opponent's views. 

Nevertheless, it was incredibly refreshing to hear him boldly and uncompromisingly defend the Bible as the Word of God, and the Christian view of creation. My favorite part of the debate were the two times that Ken Ham seized the opportunity to explain that the Bible explains our origins: "There is a book, Mr. Nye, that discusses this. It's called the Bible..." I am proud of you, Mr. Ham. Thank you for your work and service to the body of Christ.

Live and Let Live: a World Where Anything Goes

"I support individual liberty, political freedom, and laissez-faire capitalism. I believe government is too big, too intrusive, and the biggest problem facing our nation. I believe that private citizens should have the right to live the way they want to live, in peace, and to be left alone. It's none of the government's business what you do in your private life. I say, live and let live!" ... Or so says the Libertarian.

At face value, I like most of the ideas listed above. Politically, I am a registered Republican, but consider myself significantly more conservative than my own party. I believe in smaller government, the right to privacy, responsible government spending, first amendment freedoms, and in Capitalism. In fact, when I first learned about libertarianism, I considered myself a Republican with libertarian leanings. But the more time libertarians have had to flesh out their ideas, the more they sound like anarchists than like any other political group.

In all fairness, I fully recognize that not all libertarians are the same - although it is difficult to properly define their political philosophy because there isn't a cohesive group aligning all (or most) parties. The closest American group is the Tea Party movement, which has such a loose set of ideas that its umbrella can encompass anarchists on the fringe of the political spectrum.

My biggest beef with libertarianism seems to be the concept of personal liberty taken to a new extreme. "If you want to have an abortion, you should be allowed to have an abortion. If two consenting adult siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to marry - government doesn't belong in the business of marriage anyways. If you want to smoke pot and get high, you should be allowed to get baked out of your mind." In other words, they do their very best to turn a blind eye to moral issues as if by ignoring them they will simply go away.

Stated pointedly, I am firmly opposed to the idea of liberty for everything. Considering the above examples: I don't support the murder of unborn human beings, incestuous relationships, or substances that the American Medical Association deem dangerous, with recreational use being used to get high.

In response, the immediate implication is: "So you basically support a Christian theocracy, forcing your religion on people." I would reply that there is a clear difference between supporting basic human morality and forcing Christianity on people through legal means. A distinction should be made between the state and religion - and this to protect religious and non-religious liberties, not the state. Finally, it doesn't do any good to pretend as if Christians are the only ones who possess a worldview by which the governing authorities pass laws and regulate morality. It is this last point that my libertarian friends do their best to steer clear of. Because no matter how much you wish you didn't have one, everyone has a worldview through which they interpret the world around us. Furthermore, all laws directly or indirectly regulate morality - to purport otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Here's a clear-cut example of what I mean: because murder is immoral, it is legally a crime to commit murder. My libertarian friends are quick to ask: "Aha! But where do you draw the line? Is EVERYTHING immoral to be considered a crime?" To which I respond: Ideally, yes, just not necessarily punishable by the state. The state is primarily responsible for allowing for a safe society that protects the rights and property of others, while also allowing for the flourishing of society. I've asked many libertarians this awkward question: So let's suppose there are 2 consenting adult brothers who want to get married and have a consensual sexual relationship - should the government allow this? In his heart of hearts the libertarian knows that incest is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, and that marriage is exclusively a relationship between one man and one woman. But his worldview tells him that anything goes, so he faces a conundrum.

A common libertarian response to these sorts of puzzling scenarios goes something like this: "As long as you don't cause physical harm to someone or to someone's property, you should be allowed to do anything." This sounds like wisdom, except that there are 2 glaring shortcomings with this perspective. The first is that many such behaviors do cause physical harm. For example, there is documented evidence demonstrating that the homosexual lifestyle drastically shortens the average lifespan of homosexuals. Second, there are other kinds of harm being done as a direct result of this behavior. Consider the emotional and psychological impact of denying the proper sexual function assigned at birth. Psychological studies have shown the immense changes homosexual behavior has on the human brain.

Going a step further, your behavior doesn't only affect you (which is what we are told), but also has a profound impact on those around you. Let's pretend that I started cursing like a sailor. My speech would have an active affect on those who heard my foul language. Their thoughts would be affected which may lead to changes in their words and actions.

Here is another example: Let's say that I were unfaithful to my marriage, and was proud of this fact. When I arrived at the workplace, I would tell stories about the strip club I was going to, and what a great time I had! Day after day I am telling these stories to my coworkers, who are laughing along, without realizing the influence I'm having on their thinking. In a short amount of time, and with relative ease, my behavior has made an impression on my coworkers that may weaken their understanding of marriage, love, faithfulness, and how they regard human sexuality. Feigning ignorance that one's own behavior affects others is to live in a fantasy world.

What type of society do we really want? Do we want a society where anything goes, where moral standards are so degraded that we have difficulty recognizing good versus evil? Think about a recent case where a biological male identified himself as a female at the age of 2, who is now 16 and goes by Nicole. He was recently caught up in a controversy because his state of Maine has 2 conflicting laws about which bathroom transgendered students ought to use. Think about this for just a moment: a male toddler identified himself as female, his parents encouraged this confusion, and our society is baffled about which bathroom he should use. Is this the type of society that we really want? One where the gift of gender cannot provide a meaningful expression of our identity as human beings?

My point is simply that morality is a good thing. Christian morality is a good thing. "I don't want your morality pushed on me!" cries the Libertarian. You're winning the popularity vote, Mr. Libertarian, so no need to worry any time soon. In any case, I don't have to exhaust my imagination to come up with an example of how Christian principles of morality can be applied to a society without forcing religion on people. In fact, I don't have to use my imagination at all! History records for us that America was founded on such principles, though I don't believe America was or is perfect as a government or a cultural setting. What it does show us is one possible way for how this might be done.

I would also go so far as to say that the insanity we are introducing in our society today can only bring about what insanity produces: further chaos. We will be left puzzled at what bathroom a gender-confused teenager ought to use, and even what pronouns we should use to describe someone! I feel like I've been saying this a lot lately, but worldview matters! If you believe that anything goes, and the ultimate authority for making moral determinations comes from each individual, you will be left without a moral basis to draw any kind of meaningful moral boundary. By contrast, the gospel of Christianity offers something truly unique: a consistent moral framework that is the best way to live life.

Jesus once told a parable of two men who each built a house on different foundations. The wise man built his house on the rock, and it withstood the pounding wind and rain, and the flood waters that crashed against it. The foolish man built his house on the sand, and could not withstand the bombardment, so it fell ... and how great was its fall. What was the difference between these two houses? Was it the materials used? Or how about the way they were built? Was the wise man more skilled at building? No ... the difference was the foundation they chose to build upon. The firm foundation of the rock allowed the house to withstand whatever it faced, while the shifting sand bought the foolish man's house to its destruction.

This parable is a marvelous example of why the foundation we choose to build our beliefs upon are of supreme importance. If your worldview is inconsistent and fails to properly explain and interpret the world in which we live, then your worldview will someday come crashing down upon you. However, if your worldview is built upon the foundation of Christianity, you can rest assured you are safe and secure upon the firm foundation of God's truth. Nothing can shake you.

The Ultimate Free Lunch

"I did it! I stopped!" Molly exclaimed. At least once a month Molly has a moment where her breath is taken away by a new experience. I recently taught her how to use the brakes on her bike, and once she did it on her own three or four times, she looked up and smiled at me, knowing that she accomplished a great feat. Now she can come to a complete stop by herself, look both ways for cars, and cross the street safely.

Do you remember the last time your breath was taken away by an experience? How about by observing the world and the Universe around us? For a few years now I have watched a variety of shows on the History and Discovery Channels about the Universe, and I found myself in awe of how amazing and strange it all seems to be. One scientist in particular was able to spark my imagination when considering the vastness of the cosmos: Alex Filippenko. So what did I do? I decided to read his Astronomy textbook, The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium by Pasachoff and Filippenko. My parents were kind enough to get me the textbook for my birthday, and I completed it just a few weeks ago.

The first thing I discovered in my reading was just how massive the Universe is. To set the stage, it is important to know that light travels at the speed of 300,000 km/s - or 186,000 miles per second - (pg. 2), and our own Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across (pg. 285)! Our galaxy contains "perhaps a few hundred billion stars" (pg. 384) and is one of 100 billion galaxies detectable by our best telescopes. Some stars called Neutron stars are only about 20 or 30 km across and yet a teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons (pg. 349). It is theorized that super massive black holes exist at the center of galaxies.

"As of 2013, the record mass of a supermassive black hole is 9.7 billion solar masses [one solar mass is equivalent to the mass of our sun], in an elliptical galaxy 320 million light-years from us in the constellation Leo, with a contender in Coma Berenices perhaps even more massive" (pg. 373, Brackets Mine).

Next in importance is the strangeness of the cosmos. Black holes, mysterious substances called dark matter and dark energy, and Quantum Physics force me to imagine the abstract in a bizarre new way. Surrounded by such aberrant and uncanny theories and possible discoveries, the textbook was compelled to discuss a recognition long understood by Christians: the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle basically states:  

"We exist, hence the Universe must have certain properties or we wouldn't be here to see it. ... In a few cases, apparently "mysterious" relationships between numbers were explained with anthropic reasoning. The values of the physical constants (not to mention the laws of physics seem to be spectacularly "fine-tuned" for life as we know it - indeed, almost "tailor-made" for humans. In many cases, if things were altered just a tiny amount, the results would be disastrous for life, and even for the production of heavy elements of molecules." (Pg. 535)

Makes sense, doesn't it? There is obvious complexity in the Universe, not limited to the complex life that we see on Earth, but also in the very composition of elements and the Laws of Physics. Complexity implies there exists design, which then implies a designer. Recognizing this is the reason this university science textbook felt obligated to briefly discuss the Anthropic Principle. I knew before reading this textbook that the authors were most likely coming at the subject from a purely secular and naturalist perspective. They presuppose that there is no god ... no designer ... and that all that is exists as the result of happenstance. Try as they might, one cannot escape the impact of one's worldview even in the realm of scientific analysis. For example, it is unsurprising why scientists who approach the study of the Universe from a naturalist angle interpret the evidence differently than one approaching it from a supernaturalist angle.

Like any good science book, this one began with a discussion of the Scientific Method, and the process by which they discern facts, create and test theories, arrive at scientific laws, and ultimately make conclusions. But the Scientific Method is also in bondage to one's worldview. Throughout the pages of The Cosmos are my annotations in the margins, highlighted sections, and scribbles intended for later use. What I was primarily looking for were the authors' presuppositions, which were surprisingly frequent. Don't get me wrong: presuppositions are not a bad thing - we all have presuppositions. But being unaware of them tends to make you a slave to them, because when unaware you lack the proper recognition to test your own traditions and consider alternate possibilities.

Contrary to what Astronomers previously thought, the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down but is expanding at an accelerating rate (pg. 341)! A mysterious Dark Energy is repelling the Universe further and further apart (pg. 341). It is believed that space itself is being created with the continuing expansion. Logically, if the Universe has been and continues to expand, then as you go further and further back in time we can conclude that the Universe was once very compact and had a beginning, or starting point: "The Universe had a definite beginning in time, called the Big Bang. The Universe isn't infinitely old" (Pg. 483). This begs the question: how did the Universe start? Here is the answer we're given:

"The Universe came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. Physicists are attempting to come up with ways to test this idea in principle, but no method has emerged yet; thus, in some respects it is not currently within the realm of science, which requires hypotheses to be experimentally or observationally testable ... If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is indeed correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is, in the words of Alan Guth, that the Universe is 'the ultimate free lunch!'" (Pg. 533)

We are told that the Universe came out of nothing, that in its first moment was very compact when the Big Bang occurs, thus forming all elements and the Laws of Physics. Something came from nothing, complexity came from non-complexity, life came from non-life, complex life came from non-complex life, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. I hope it is apparent to you that at the root of each of these conclusions lies an underscoring presupposition.

Conversely, here are the conclusions Christianity brings to the table: God created the Universe by His sheer will and power, He sustains it, He designed all the elements and the Laws of Physics, He is the designer and the intelligence behind all things, and He is the reason we and the Universe exist. To be fair, I'm demonstrating that I have my own set of presuppositions. The question then becomes: after testing each set of presuppositions, which worldview can consistently explain such things as the uniformity of nature, the laws governing the Universe, how and why we exist, and human dignity and morality? The worldview that proves to be internally inconsistent demonstrates its own fatal flaw. It is my contention that the Christian worldview, and only the Christian worldview, can properly interpret the world around us, and do so consistently.

Filippenko and Pasachoff impressed me by their willingness to scrutinize the historic view of the Big Bang Theory. They offered two primary problems: (1) The Horizon Problem - the Universe is so uniform, which you wouldn't expect if it were the result of the Big Bang. For example, cosmic background radiation is essentially identical in all directions. (2) The Flatness Problem - the Big Bang theory has no way of explaining "why the overall geometry of the Universe is so close to being flat" (Pgs. 526-527).

But they also offered the predominant theory to help answer both objections: inflation. Developed in the 1980's, the theory of inflation basically states that in the first moments of the Universe, it was much smaller than previously thought. Because the Universe was so compact it could explain how the temperature is so uniform. Then it may have inflated (expanded really fast) at an exponential rate during its first moments. This also could explain how the Universe is so flat (though they don't explain how inflation flattens it out) (pgs. 527-528).

I will admit that I wanted to (and needed to) read the section outlining the theory of inflation multiple times to fully comprehend the argument. One apparent problem is that since the cause of inflation is unknown (whether it is a certain element, or physical force), it is purely theoretical and therefore untestable. Even as an amateur, my initial thought was that since the Universe expanded at a rapid exponential pace, it seems possible within the framework of inflation that if inflation were true the Universe may be significantly younger than supposed. For example, if the Universe expanded so rapidly at the beginning, perhaps stars are as far away due more to inflation than the presupposed speed and time considered under current models. This could drastically (and exponentially) reduce the time it took for the Universe to be as spread out. It seems only logical that this remains a possibility ... again, all within their own framework.

So the theory of inflation is one possible solution to the problems associated with the historic view of the Big Bang theory. But what about the origin of the Universe? Above I cited the authors' acknowledgment that the Universe was created out of nothing, and yet, that is extremely unsatisfying, even to naturalist astronomers. Keep in mind that the law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which poses a contradiction to the Big Bang theory (pg. 510). 

One answer to how something can come from nothing involves the theories of quantum mechanics:  

"Quantum theory provides a natural explanation for how that energy [the energy that caused the inflation of the Universe] may have come out of nothing. It turns out that particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other, microscopically violating the law of energy conservation" (pg. 532, Brackets Mine).

 They continue... 

"Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our Universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one of them lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic Universe was born" (Pg. 532).

What concerns me most about this theory is that it is one thing to say that Quantum Physics exists in an already existent Universe, but you're asking me to believe that Quantum Physics may have had an impact in the creation of the Universe before there were Physics ... or the Universe? I'm gullible but not that gullible.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more strange, another leap is made in attempt to explain all this. Enter: the multiverse.

"Is our Universe the only universe, or could it be one of many? The entire history of our Universe might be just one episode in the much grander multiverse consisting of many (perhaps infinitely many) universes" (pg. 533). 

This recognizably eccentric theory might encompass theories such as parallel universes, and even a "hyperspace" plane containing ours and other universes (Pg. 534). They continue:  

"There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes. For example, distinct quantum fluctuations could arise out of "nothing," some of which give rise to a universe. This "nothing" might be the vacuum of our Universe, or the "nothing" outside our Universe, in some sort of a larger "hyperspace." If a quantum fluctuation out of "nothing" created our Universe, it seems reasonable that such a process may have occurred many times (thereby making the hyperspace a multiverse), perhaps even infinitely many. We do not yet know whether this is a viable process. To find out, we need a fully self-consistent quantum theory of gravity that unites relativity with quantum physics, and theorists are currently quite excited by the potential of superstring theories" (Pg. 534). 

I can't help but single out this statement: "There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes." Not gonna lie, I find this hilarious. Three or four ways? All involving theories such as the multiverse and inconsistent quantum mechanics. They do recognize the need for consistency, but I am awestruck that one would base one's beliefs about the origins of the Universe on recognizably inconsistent theories.

This brings me to my main point. And if you made it this far, allow me to thank you for sticking with me. Which is more logical:  an eternal and all-powerful Creator of all things, or the Universe coming out of nothing by nothing and for nothing? The Scriptures say that "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1, NASB). It is foolish for us to approach the subject of astronomy, or any subject, from a worldview that fails to consistently interpret the world around us. Worldviews matter, no matter how much the secular humanist wishes he could be unbiased. You cannot escape from your worldview, for it is the lens through which you see the world.

When the Scriptures call someone a fool, it isn't intended to be a personal insult, but rather a statement expressing a lack of proper judgment. Remember that since all human beings are created in God's image, we all possess the same general revelation of God's existence, character and moral demands: "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, NASB). This is why when we are talking with our fellow man, they know what we're saying is true, even though they naturally do their best to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). The Christian message rings true with all human beings across the globe because we have a common Creator, and we share a common natural condition as we enter this world.

What took my breath away as I read through The Cosmos was the sheer breadth, peculiarity and beauty of the heavens. There is an inherent wonder in the Universe, and I believe that all of creation is a testimony to God's handiwork: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2, NASB). I'm learning to again have a childlike amazement at the work of God's hands, something I can see in the eyes of my two-year-old. I encourage the reader to do the same.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

That's a Wrap, 2013

The year came and went in a WHOOSH! My mind is overflowing with memories that will last a lifetime. The love I have for my wife only grew, my daughter is walking, talking, riding a bike, and expressing the many young opinions she has formulated. The Ryan home grew in love, and feels more settled with pictures and things on the walls. Definitely feels like home.

Emily continues to be an incredible resource to her financial firm, specializing in a couple key areas that helps her to be an invaluable asset to them. Being the expert that she is, she even recently trained a class of newly hired coworkers.

Thankfully, my lovely wife is able to work part time allowing her to spend more time with Molly. We have both come to realize the immense responsibility of parenting in 2013. Our behavior and our attitudes have a direct impact on our little girl. One funny moment last year was when Emily and Molly were in the car, and someone rudely cut off Emily. Emily proclaimed, "Gosh, lady!"  Molly has since yelled this out from time to time - without any comprehension of what this means. While this is one of the more humorous moments of her imitating us, it has served as a lesson that other actions and words will likewise be watched very closely.

Two year olds have about as much energy as exists within a black hole, and my little girl is no exception. Rather than being amazed that she needs a nap during the day, what is more amazing is that she doesn't require significantly more sleep! Let me tell you - if I ran around ... everywhere ... always performing various crafts, reading, jumping, randomly yelling and squealing, and having emotional breakdowns - I'd need to go to bed at 7:30pm too! The Bible tells us that children are a blessing, and it is a blessing that my wife and I now understand. The joy that our daughter brings to our lives is immense, and increases my love for God and His goodness towards me. Molly is already riding her bike that she got for Christmas! On day 1 she needed help peddling and steering. By day 2 she was peddling and steering (almost) completely by herself! By day 3, she was making her daddy jog beside her just to keep up =). I find myself looking forward to each stage of her life, just not the part where she meets another boy.

Last year was also the start to my new job at my firm. While I can't discuss any specifics here, I can say that the Lord helped me to succeed, doubling my goal for the year. I very much enjoy the work that I do, I have an amazing boss (which, those of you who know me know that this wasn't the case a couple years back), and get along with my coworkers.

In fact, the Lord blessed me with opportunities to discuss the gospel numerous times with a few of my coworkers (all during appropriate times, not interrupting work). My drive home each evening typically included a recap to my wife of that day's conversation(s). We talked about history, morality, ethics, worldviews and presuppositions, logic, astronomy, macro-evolution, human sexuality, marriage, the family, and a host of other subjects. By God's grace, I did my best to offer my take on each of these issues from a Christian perspective, which was admittedly strange for them to hear. All of this culminated at the end of the year - I asked two of my coworkers for their permission to write them a full presentation of the Christian faith, hopefully to spur further dialogue. It was not my intention for the presentation to be as long as it was - 24 pages - but I couldn't bring myself to shorten it, for the sake of clarity. My continued hope is that the Lord might delight in showing these coworkers, now my friends, the same grace He freely bestowed on me.

Gotta tell you though, not in my wildest dreams did I expect to have to deal with a drunk driving accident. But one day, unexpectedly, Emily called me after getting hit by a drunk driver. It was the guy's turn to carpool for a couple of other kids, none of which were buckled. The arm of the Lord protected my wife and daughter, Emily having escaped with nothing but whiplash. Thankfully, everyone in the other vehicle escaped unscathed. Our first car was totaled, thus resulting in a used 2012 Mazda 6, which is the nicest car we've ever owned. Emily is still going through physical therapy, but has improved greatly.

One Saturday afternoon in September, I received a knock on the door from a man and a woman, who wanted to invite me to an upcoming event at their church. Yes, they were Jehovah's Witnesses. That first day, we spoke on my front porch for more than an hour, and starting that afternoon I began brushing up on Watchtower theology for a conversation I scheduled for the following Saturday. I decided to not only brush up on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' organization), but also Koine Greek (New Testament Greek), the Trinity, and to work through the many relevant arguments that would likely come up in a conversation. I spent approximately 3 months studying and preparing during my meetings with them. I went through my first year Greek grammar for the second time, re-read James White's The Forgotten Trinity, also re-read Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes, and worked through a host of issues with my good buddy, Gobbler (my professor in all things Greek). The final result of my studies was compiled in a spiral notebook, filled to the brim with my notes - if you're like me, it's enjoyable to look back over a project and see your progress and your thoughts along the way. There were three meetings that followed, and while I was unable to persuade them of the truth, my prayer is that the Spirit of Truth would convict them of the reality of God's triune existence.

Finally, I was able to get through some important books that have been on my list for years, many of which deserve a dedicated blog article, and you'll probably see these over the coming months: (1) Atlas Shrugged, (2) A Tale of Two Cities, (3) Great Expectations, (4) Rhetoric, Poetics and Logic by Aristotle, (5) Moby Dick, (6) The Three Musketeers, (7) The Panic of 1907, and (8) The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium.

There is so much more I could say, but will save more for later. For 2014, I have set some goals: working out, reading goals, Bible study goals, being more responsible with my time, being a better husband and father, and by God's free grace I hope to be a better Christian.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

A Desert Island Dweller

I had the opportunity to answer a question via AOMin and thought it worthwhile to post my answer here. The question was essentially: can someone who has never heard the gospel be saved? My response is below...

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

It is my pleasure to respond to your question. I will do my best to address all of your questions and concerns clearly and in a way that brings honor to our God.

To summarize your question: Can a person who has never heard the gospel, but only has a general belief in God, be saved from his sins?

The short answer is: no. Why do I say this? Because belief in the existence of God is something all human beings clearly know, and are condemned for it. The Apostle Paul argues in his letter to the Christians at Rome:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23, NASB).

Taking a closer look at verses 19-21, we see that knowledge about God is “evident within them.” How is this knowledge made evident? Paul answers this: “for God made it evident to them.” Someone might then ask: what is it that they know about God, and how do they possess this knowledge? Paul answers this as well: God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature - all clearly visible by looking at the created order.

All men have this general knowledge about God and His existence, but what is the unregenerate man’s natural reaction to this clearly revealed truth? To suppress it (vs 18), not to honor God or give Him thanks (vs 21), to become futile in their speculations (vs 21), claiming to have wisdom, yet in reality becoming fools (vs 22), and worshipping created things rather than the Creator (vs 23).

Furthermore, all men have God’s moral requirements written on their hearts, and know what is good and evil (Romans 2:14-15). But even having an understanding of what is right and wrong in the sight of God is not enough to deliver one from the consequences of sin. This moral understanding accuses them, pointing toward the final Day of Judgment in which the Lord will judge people by His perfect moral standard (Romans 2:15-16).

Up to this point, we have discussed 2 ways in which God has revealed Himself: the creation itself, and also His moral requirements given to all men. Theologians call this “General Revelation” because it is given to everyone generally.

Separate and distinct from general revelation is “Special Revelation,” which may basically be understood to mean the clear revelation found in the Bible, including the gospel. Only knowledge of special revelation, and specifically of the gospel can deliver sinners from the consequences of their sins. For example, Paul says earlier in his letter to the Romans:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17, NASB).

Let me ask the question: what is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes? Is it a general knowledge of God that has been revealed to all men? On the contrary; Paul is explicit, in that it is the gospel that contains the power of God for salvation. He continues in the next verse: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed.” The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not by another means.

Our Lord put it this way:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6, NASB).

The Lord Jesus was making a claim to exclusivity here. If one wants a right relationship with the Father, one must come through Jesus Christ. He is not one of many ways, not one of many truths, not one of many means to life. He is the exclusive way, the exclusive truth, and the exclusive means to life.

In one of his first sermons, Peter said this about Christ:

12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12, NASB).

Getting back to Paul’s letter to the Romans, he continues his argument in chapter 3, one of the great discussions about how sinful men may be justified in the sight of God:

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26, NASB).

While I won’t have time to fully interact with this remarkable text (one of my favorites, I might add), there is one point I wish to draw from it: Paul argues that the righteousness of God is made known “through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” Therefore, it is with the strongest convictions that Christians can rightly say that only those who have faith in Christ are justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is revealed through faith in Christ … not in some bland, generic, non-specific belief in the existence of God.

This brings me to your next question: what about the one who has never heard the gospel? Can such a one be saved apart from hearing the gospel?

I believe that the clear answer from Scripture is: no. Salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. One must not merely possess the general revelation of God’s existence and divine attributes. One must also have an understanding of the special revelation as revealed in the Bible, particularly of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This has been demonstrated in the above texts of Scripture.

I find that using exaggerated hypothetical examples can sometimes be helpful to make a point, so in the scenario where someone is born alone, lives alone, and dies alone, stranded on a desert island, and has never heard the gospel - what will become of this person? Unfortunately, this hypothetical person was clearly not one of God’s elect because he did not hear and believe in the gospel. I should add that the only reason we know with certainty that this desert island dweller was not chosen by God for salvation, is because it is a hypothetical example whereby we know he has never heard the gospel, and therefore, never believed the gospel.

Because we do not possess a knowledge of those whom God has predestined to save from their sins, we preach the gospel to all men everywhere. It is our desire to preach to everyone, for the sake of God’s elect (2 Timothy 2:10), recognizing that we are the means by which the gospel is preached (1 Corinthians 1:21), which alone has the power to save sinners. The Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20 reminds us of the principle that we are to preach the gospel to all the nations, and to all people’s everywhere - even those who might be stranded on a desert island. And we do this knowing that God will save whom He has decided to save, but we are to be faithful witnesses to the ends of the earth, as commanded by God.

Having said all of this, I would like to spend a few moments to respond to your friend’s argument: Since Jesus is God, if someone has a general knowledge of God and a belief in this general God, can they be saved? For many of the reasons mentioned above, I would say: no. One must have knowledge that exceeds the general revelation made known to all men; one must have knowledge of the gospel. This means that one must have a basic knowledge of the Trinity - even if they are not able to exhaustively define the Trinity, they need to know there is only one true God, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God - yet distinct Persons from one another. 

We have covered a lot of ground in this email, and my hope and prayer is that this has been beneficial for you. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns, or would like to talk about any of this further. It would be my privilege to do so.

Because of the finished work of Christ,

Rusty