Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Psalm 89:6-13

For who in the heaven can be compared to the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?
God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?
Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.
Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.
The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.
Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Psalm 145:3

Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Psalm 145:13

Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. (KJV)

Someone once gave me a very informal proof that God could not exist based on a flawed definition of omnipotence and this very question. This proof assumes that God is omnipotent and that omnipotence is "the ability to do anything".

His presentation of the proof went something like this:

• I go to heaven and stand before God. Skeptical that the display of power and supernatural grandeur could be a "Wizard of Oz" kind of trick, I ask Him to prove himself to be God by exercising His omnipotence by making a rock so big and heavy that not even He could move it.
• God is caught because whether He creates this rock or not, He surrenders omnipotence. If He creates this rock, He is not omnipotent because He lacks the power to lift the rock. If He does not create the rock, He is not omnipotent because He lacks the power to comply with my request.
• Therefore, even if God exists He could not be omnipotent and thus the Christian esteem of God cannot be fully true.

The proof given me had slightly less methodical reasoning.

My answer is that this definition of omnipotence is not Biblical. I would define omnipotence as "the insurmountable ability to exact one's will." This definition implies that the power (ability) God has to exact His will is the greatest such power that ever can be. There is no "potency" greater than that of God. Examining the above scriptures reveals that this definition of omnipotence is consistent with the Biblical teachings.

However, this definition of omnipotence does NOT imply that God has the ability to do anything, as the above farcical proof takes the word omnipotence to mean. The definition of omnipotence given in the previous paragraph is, of the two definitions discussed here, the only suitable definition with which to describe God. If one's definition of omnipotence is "the ability to do anything", then I say that according to that definition, God is not omnipotent, nor does the Bible claim that He is.

The word "omnipotent" occurs only once in the King James Version, in Revelation 19:6. It is part of a chorus of praise. The Greek word is pronounced "pantokrator", is a compound word of 'all' and 'dominion/strength', and suggests that God has all authority. The word does not carry the meaning that God can do anything. It means that God is ruler over everything. This is an important distinction.

Also, I do not believe that the words of Jesus, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth", in Matthew 28:18 are relevant because it seems that the "power" being referred to could just as well mean "authority". In Vine's Dictionary, the Greek word, EXOUSIA, is said to mean "freedom of action" or "right to act". In Strong's Concordance, it is said to mean "delegated influence". This is different from the word DUNAMIS which is usually used to refer to raw ability or might as in Matthew 26:64.

I would define sovereignty as "the exacting of one's will without exception, to the end of having one's every whim brought to realization when possible." So if God were omnipotent AND sovereign, then God would always get his way.

We know by I Timothy 2:3-4 that God is not omnipotent AND sovereign. It is suggested in the Psalms (quoted above) that God is omnipotent; we conclude that God is not sovereign. That is, God has the ability to bring his every whim to realization, but does not always exercise that ability. (In fact, the Father rarely exercises that ability without either the petition or permission of an angel, a human, or His Son.)

There are things that God cannot do. For example, God cannot sin against Himself. Furthermore, the fact that there are certain things that God cannot do does not imply that God is not omnipotent (using my above definition of omnipotent).

So, to answer the question of whether God can create a rock that not even he can move, no. I say that for two reasons:

• The challenge requires that God create a rock, the size of which is beyond his ABILITY to move. Given that God is supernatural, and that God has supernatural power over His creation, we can conclude that any ordinary rock, no matter what size, even if placed on the surface of a neutron star, would not be so heavy that God could not move it. God's actions need not conform to the laws of physics, by definition of supernatural. So no particular amount of exerted force would be necessary for God to move a rock; God could just move it supernaturally.
• If it were specified in the question that some extraneous circumstance might cause God not to be able to move the rock, my answer would be "yes". God could promise us that he would not move the rock he created, and create an ordinary pebble. We could pick it up, but God could not. This situation does not violate the above definition of omnipotent in that God promised us that He would not move it (he exacted his will in such a situation and was unrestrained in doing so), and in that God always keeps His promises.

Does God's self-restriction (by promises) violate the definition of omnipotent? No, because God's self-restriction is an EXERCISE of omnipotence.

To sum up: as the question is stated, the answer is no. If a provision were added to the question such that circumstances other than the weight of the rock alone might prevent God from moving it, the answer would be yes.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text: Luke 9:23-24

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. (KJV)

This is an excellent question, and it has two potential answers: yes and no, depending on what is meant (or not meant) by "serving".

If what is meant by "serving" is simply "bringing about what is in one's best interests and most fundamental desires", then the answer is clearly yes. Anyone who serves God (that is, anyone who seeks to bring about God's great desire to reconcile all people to Himself, anyone who seeks an intimate, personal relationship with God) is, in effect, serving himself (that is, fulfilling what is in his own best interest -- eternal life). We can be confident of that by Jesus' promise to us, quoted above.

However, most people who would ask this question do so hoping to draw a conclusion which reveals the servitude of God as false and empty. Most people who would ask this question mean that serving is "knowingly, purposefully, and by intent bringing one's deepest desires or best interest to full realization". And so, they say, when one serves God (willingly dedicates his life to the realization of God's desires), he is actually serving himself (seeking to fulfill his own best interests).

If this is true, then it is impossible to truly be selfless in being a servant of God. If this is true, then serving God is an act of selfishness. People often ask this question out of the belief that all people are selfish all the time, and that it is absolutely impossible to escape from selfishness.

My answer to this angle on the question must be a firm "no". Jesus' statement quoted above plainly states that part of being a servant of Christ (and, therefore, of God) is to "deny himself", to be selfless. This directly contradicts the idea that escaping from selfishness is impossible. And so, according to Jesus, if a person serves himself, he is not really serving God at all.

The issue that remains is the accusation that all people are selfish all of the time and that Jesus' demands can never be lived up to. I wish to say that this idea is circularly derived. How would someone determine that everyone is selfish all of the time? I point primarily to the cross as a counter-example. Some might say, "Yea, but Jesus did it because he knew" (or, rather, most people would say 'thought') "that He would be glorified later. So Jesus was selfish too."

The same people might say that even though people sometimes die for a cause (and thus eliminate the possibility of self-gratification as a consequence of their actions), the motive for the act is selfish because the rewarding feelings of having contributed to some 'greater good' outweigh the desire to live in some people. A good explanation, and I agree that for many this may be the case.

However, I know of no way to show these things to be true outside of circular reasoning because the person is assuming that someone is acting selfishly when all that is warranted is that it's possible to behave out of such motives.

I do not doubt that many people do self-sacrificial things out of selfish motives. I am saying that to insist that every deed is a selfish one is to make a conclusion based on circular reasoning. The only other way I would think people might attempt a proof of this idea is under the assumption that evolution occurred on the earth and took a natural selection angle to the problem.

Though this is not completely relevant to the question, I do want to mention that the religious mentality that can be found all over the USA is a sort of "I'll scratch God's back; He'll scratch mine" way of thinking. People are deceived in large numbers into thinking that if they can "be good enough" and follow the Ten Commandments religiously then they will "get into Heaven" and be happy forever. This is simply not true, as such a motive for "serving God" is as selfish as it can get. (And also, these people do not realize that they would probably not want to even go to Heaven, seeing as all that goes on there is the worship of God.)

And so we see that there are two answers to this question, and which answer fits the question depends on what is meant by the question.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

This is an extremely complex question. It has a very long answer, so please do not be frustrated with the depth in which I have answered it. I believe that the exhaustive nature of this response is necessary to fully answer the question. First, read through this list of pertinent scriptures.

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 7:20-23

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Jeremiah 1:4-5

Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Pertinent text #4: John 3:3-8

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (KJV)

Pertinent text #5: I Corinthians 6:16-17

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Pertinent text #6: I Corinthians 12:8-11

For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
But all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (KJV)

Pertinent text #7: I Corinthians 14:13-15

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. (KJV)

Pertinent text #8: I Corinthians 15:42-47

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (KJV)

Pertinent text #9: I John 4:12

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (KJV)

First, it is absolutely necessary to define the words "soul" and "spirit", so that the reader can know exactly what is meant here. People can mean all kinds of things by both words. In Webster's Dictionary, as well as in some thesauruses, the words are linked together as synonymous. However, Webster's also offers a couple of definitions of these words which have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Some people use the word soul as a synonym for the mind; others use it as a synonym for a ghost or an apparition. Others use the word soul to describe the consummate person. Some people use the word spirit to describe a deep emotional state or attitude ('lift your spirits', 'spirit of fear'). Others use the word spirit to describe a ghost or supernatural being (ex: angels and demons). Others use the word spirit to refer to the consummate person.

Even in the Bible, when one sees the word 'spirit', one must consider the possibility that the definition the author had in mind is different than was intended for another occurrence of the word 'spirit' elsewhere in the Bible. For example, in Luke 8:55, when Jesus raised Jairus' daughter from the daed, we are told that "her spirit came again". This seems to use the word spirit to convey the idea that the girl's life force returned. I would have used the word 'soul' in translating that passage, but either word is acceptable under standard English. Also, in John 11:33, when Jesus came to Mary and Martha the kinsmen of Lazarus, we are told that "he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled." It would seem that John is trying to give us the idea that Jesus was deep in sorrow, and this is a valid use of the word 'spirit' in standard English. Demons are also referred to as spirits throughout the gospels and The Acts.

When I use the word 'soul', what I mean is either the mind (i.e. the soul is a carnal thing) or the person in the generic sense of the word (i.e. 'that poor soul'). When I use the word 'spirit', what I mean is either a supernatural being (God Himself, the Holy Spirit, an angel/demon) or that supernatural component to the consummate human being, the human spirit (which I will talk about a good deal more in a while). Be assured that when I use the word soul, I am in no way speaking of the supernatural; also be assured that when I use the word spirit, I am always always speaking of the supernatural. Keep this in mind throughout the remainder of this dissertation; it is not wrong to use the words in other ways, but for the sake of consistency you may count on me using them this way from now on.

And so, the difference between the soul and the spirit is the difference between the mind and that supernatural component to the consummate human being.

Consider the question, "What is the mind?". Certainly, the intellect qualifies as a synonym. I would say that the mind is the soil in which personality, emotion, logic, perception, instinct, action, and thought itself all take root. Indeed, as is reflected in common usage of the word, the soul IS the person... at least, the soul is all of the person we can be familiar with. (Note that the body is commonly referred to more as a posession than as a component of the person, as in "It's my body, I'll do what I want with it." Thus the body does not truly qualify as part of the soul.)

Now consider the question, "What is a spirit?". This question is a good deal harder. The Bible tells us that God is a spirit, demons are spirits, and also that demons are 'fallen' angels. God manifests Himself as a Holy Spirit. The words for 'spirit' and 'breath' are the same in both Hebrew and Greek. Jesus described the birth of the spirit in John 3 using the wind as an analogy: we cannot see it, and we cannot see where it comes from or where it goes. Our sight does not detect the wind, nor do our senses in any way detect or perceive the Spirit of God (I John: "no man hath seen God at any time". Our senses do not perceive spiritual beings by themselves. These beings must manipulate matter or energy so as to create mirages or signs of their workings, like the way the wind blows the leaves on trees. Our senses in no way directly perceive whatever spiritual component of ourselves exists.

We, as people who trust that the Bible is God's written word to mankind, must learn about the spirit in three ways, and three ways only:

• The observable effects of the activity of spiritual beings (ex: demonic posession, divine healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.)
• Reading, studying, and comprehending what the Bible says about the spirit
• Carefully considering modern-day prophecy and revelation on the subject (I say carefully out of the caution that is demanded by claims of divine revelation.)

(I feel I must add something parenthetically here. Other people think of the consummate human being as consisting of body, soul, and spirit. Many have a tripartite concept of the human being. If a person thinks that way, then one of two things is true. Either his definitions of soul and spirit are different than mine and he is right, or his definitions of soul and spirit are the same as mine and he is mistaken. Such beliefs can only be the result of different definitions or error in thinking. So we will not think of the human being in this way here.)

Furthermore, we may recognize that the spirit (in any of these three senses) is supernatural in nature; that is, the activity of the spirit, the Holy Spirit, or an angelic or demonic spirit is not subject to any law of nature, and thus their activity will not necessarily conform to the laws of nature. I cite the working of miracles as evidence for this.

Let us now consider the quoted scriptures from Genesis. I included pertinent text #2 to illustrate the truth that animals (other than man) have souls as I have defined the soul. (i.e. they have minds and intellects) In Genesis 2 and 7 and words "breath of life" are used in reference to both man and (other) animals. It is also very easy to observe some forms of human intelligence in higher primates, household mammals, and even parrots; read a science magazine and you'll find all kinds of articles like that. Clearly animals have minds which are similar in many ways to our own. Animals have personality, emotion, instinct, action, and logic; all of these things are abstractly observable. (I do not say that morality is observable in animals.) Clearly, animals have souls.

Why do I not say that animals have spirits? In order to reduce the length of this answer, I defer to "Do animals go to heaven?". The issue of whether animals have spirits is more pertinent to that question. For this answer I will abjectly state that animals do not have spirits as the spirit is defined above.

One great difference between soul and spirit is that God, who is a Spirit, endows those of us who love Him dearly with gifts: supernatural gifts. Paul talks about some of the spiritual things that he had observed in the churches of the first century in I Corinthians 12 and 14. Among them are prophecy and healing. Though often these things are done, as it were, by people, this is not always the case. What is always the case, though, is that when these supernatural things occur, they (obviously) do not occur according to the natural. That is, they are performed via the spirit. The soul is incapable of such things.

Take special notice of what Paul said in quoted text #7. His advice is to people who are given the gift of speaking in languages that have not been learned. He advised them to ask God to share the knowledge of what was said with them, because if the person understand what his spirit is doing, then other people can benefit as well as the individual. The point is that the human spirit is known to perform certain activities without any involvement with the person himself (or, if you like, with the soul of the person). These things are supernatural. The soul may be aware of what is happening, but only if the activity affects or changes the natural world or if the person is told through revelation of some other kind.

As we read in I Corinthians 15, the physical (natural) body is the house of the soul for us. However, those of us who truly love God will be resurrected into an eternal relationship with Him. And, like Jesus had changed in certain ways after His resurrection (see Luke 24:13-48 and John 20:26), we are changed when we are raised into our spiritual bodies. They are bodies which are not part of the natural. They are supernatural bodies, and (I expect) will allow us the same supernatural abilities that Jesus' disciples observed from Jesus after His resurrection. But, like the natural body, the spiritual body is not the same as the soul it houses.

And so we have seen that in many ways, the spirit and the soul are completely different. The soul, as it refers to the mind, is completely separate from the spirit, as it refers to God or an angel or that supernatural component of the consummate human being. We have also seen the inherent difficulty in resolving the difference between soul and spirit caused by the fuzziness of the two words in the English (and Greek and Hebrew) languages. One must keep in mind that while the words are used differently from person to person, the meaning that the words are intended to convey remains the same.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Mark 12:28-34

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them rasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he;
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Romans 2:12-16

All who have sinned without the Law will also perish without [regard to] the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged and condemned by the Law.
For it is not merely hearing the Law [read] that makes one righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be held guiltless and acquitted and justified.
When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law.
They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]
On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts). (Amplified)

Pertinent text #3: John 15:20-25

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (KJV)

Pertinent text #4: John 14:6

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (KJV)

Pertinent text #5: I Corinthians 12:2-3

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Pertinent text #6: Colossians 1:19-23

For it has pleased [the Father] that all the divine fulness (the sum total of the divine perfection, powers, and attributes) should dwell in Him permanently.
And God purposed that through (by the service, the intervention of) Him [the Son] all things should be completely reconciled back to Himself, whether on earth or in heaven, as through Him, [the Father] made peace by means of the blood of His cross.
And although you at one time were estranged and alienated from Him and were of hostile attitude of mind in your wicked activities,
Yet now has [Christ, the Messiah] reconciled [you to God] in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His [the Father's] prescence.
[And this He will do] provided that you continue to stay with and in the faith [in Christ], well-grounded and settled and steadfast, not shifting or moving away from the hope [which rests on and is inspired by] the glad tidings (the Gospel), which you heard and which has been preached [as being designed for and offered without restrictions] to every person under heaven, and of which [Gospel] I, Paul, have became a minister. (Amplified)

Once the reader has understood the difference between the soul and the spirit, then (believe it or not) this question isn't really that hard. In dealing with this question, I shall define the word "soul" as "the mind; the soil in which personality, intellect, reason, emotion, motivation, perception, memory, morality, and consciousness itself take root". I define "spirit" as "that supernatural component to the consummate human being (being comprised, as some reckon, of spirit, soul, and physical body) in which the marriage between a human being and God Himself is rooted and by which the many gifts of God, such as healing and prophecy, are manifested".

Now, this question is somewhat pointed in the direction of salvation, and seems to be really asking, "Can people who never hear about Jesus be saved?" So before we can truly answer this question, we must have a good understanding of what salvation is according to the Bible. What are people saved from? What are they brought into? (I won't spend to much space on this issue, so my comments on the nature of salvation will not be very thorough.)

A short study of the second and third chapters of Genesis will teach us that Adam and Eve did not need to be saved before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; elsewhere in the scriptures we can also find it taught that salvation refers to being rescued from sin. And what is sin, but simply independence from God? And so, what is salvation, except a reconciling of ourselves with God? Surely the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is a quite accurate metaphor for salvation, for man is brought out of independence from God into complete dependence on God in absolute trust and confidence. Man is brought from sin into faith.

Jesus said that no one could come to the Father except through Him. What does that mean? The language used suggests that a person is brought into close proximity with God, but this proximity cannot mean physical nearness. Since God is a Spirit, and is not described with physical characteristics, this "coming to the Father" must refer to nearness in the sense of an intimate relationship. And so we see that Jesus means that only through Him is it possible to have an intimate relationship with God. Why? The cross. Paul said that Jesus made our reconciliation to God possible through His death on the cross and resurrection. (see pertinent text #6)

Jesus' death and resurrection makes it possible for anyone to have a faith relationship with God. Period. There is nothing else that we have to do. So it can be said that people who have never heard about Jesus at all do not really need to know who He is and what He did to have a relationship with God. BUT... if someone does not have conscious knowledge of who Jesus is or what He did, how can he know that he needs to be reconciled to God at all? Or, might the person have faith in some other god, and thus live a life that denies the authority of Jesus (such as Islam, which teaches that Jesus was one of several equally authoritative prophets)?

The kernel of the whole issue is this: What is the essential difference between a person that is saved and a person that is not? And does this essential difference require knowledge of who Jesus is and what He did while He was on earth?

We have seen that the essential difference between a person who is saved (from sin) and a person who is not is that the person who is saved has faith (the leaning of the entire human personality in absolute trust and confidence) in God. But how complete does our conscious knowledge of who God is have to be before a man's relationship with God can be called faithful? Is any knowledge necessary? If not, could a person who thinks an idol is the supreme being of the universe be saved? And if not, what is the point of evangelism? If so, how much knowledge about God is enough? Paul gives us a hint.

In the second chapter of Romans (quoted above), Paul discusses Gentiles who have had a lawless society (that is, they have not had Moses' law). He said that it is not too terribly important that people hear or know what Moses' law says, because "it is the doers of the Law who will be held guiltless and acquitted and justified." And what is the most important thing that the Law says? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." (see Deut. 6:4-6) If a certain knowledge of who God is were necessary to be able to love Him (or to have faith in Him), then we might not expect Paul to make this statement. Paul makes this statement, so it would seem that Paul is confident that no special knowledge of who God is is necessary to have love for or faith in Him.

So then, how might one know whether some Gentile way off somewhere had faith in a God that he doesn't know much of anything about? Paul gives us a "gold bite test" of sorts in I Corinthians 12, quoted above. If a man affirms that Jesus is Lord (having insurmountable authority over the universe and over that person by vehicle of that person's willful submission to Him), then surely this man has a faithful relationship with God. If a man denies that Jesus is Lord, and (once informed about who He is and what He did) knowingly considers Jesus to be "accursed" (Greek pronounced 'anathema', meaning excommunicated or cursed), then surely this man does not have a faithful relationship with God, and is not married to Him in the spirit. (I Cor. 6: "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit") And naturally, there is some uncertainty. What if the person doesn't know what to think? This requires wisdom and prayer; we're not talking about discrete mathematics, we're talking about people and their relationship with God.

So then what is the point of evangelism? If people in the Tonga Islands can have a relationship with God without knowledge of Jesus and His earthly ministry, then why do missionaries need to go there or anywhere else? Jesus gave us a hint in John 15:22, quoted above. Jesus said that if He had not been here, certain people would not have sin, but because He was present, the covering that people had on their sin was removed. Clearly Jesus is using two different definitions of sin in the same sentence (that is the only way to avoid a contradictory statement). Could he mean that without knowledge of Him, people do not have sin (deliberate operation in independence; rebellion against God) in their life, but because they know about Him their sin (way of life which is in independence from God) is exposed and must be dealt with?

Paul also said in Romans 7:9, "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This reinforces Jesus' statement that sin was dormant in some people until He showed up; now people who know about Him have no excuse for their sin. So we see that knowledge about God, God's begotten son Jesus, and God's law are not necessary for a relationship with God, but are absolutely essential in a healthy relationship with Him. Furthermore, those who are ignorant but love God anyway (and thus in some way have a marriage to God in the spirit) will always immediately acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Master when they come to know about Him and what He did, whereas those who are ignorant of and rebellious against God will be quick to reject Jesus as Lord. A purpose remains in evangelism in that evangelism is not simply an effort to get people to recite a sinner's prayer and send them on about their life; evangelism is a constant introduction of willing people into an ever-growing, ever-deepening relationship with God.

Now I feel that two questions have been answered, those being: "Can a person who never hears about Jesus be saved?" and "What then is the purpose of evangelism?" One question remains before this issue can be considered settled: "How can it be that conscious knowledge is not relevant to whether a person has a basic relationship with God?"

This is where the issue of soul vs. spirit comes in. I stated in the response to that question that a man's relationship with God is a marriage in the spirit, just as the relationship between man and wife is a marriage in the flesh (and therefore is more fully understood by the mind or soul). It is this imperceivable marriage in the spirit which occurs, and by which someone who does not consciously know anything about Jesus can still be saved from sin into a faithful relationship with God.

I don't think that anyone can deny that the mind is more fully tied to the physical body than to the spirit. Indeed, the spirit is simply not directly perceivable at all with the five senses, nor is it perceivable through introspection. The spirit, then, is as mysterious to people who know who Jesus is and what He did than to people who do not, though we who know can have more intellectual knowledge about the spirit. (Indirect observations such as with supernatural healings are likewise done in the same way between people who know about Jesus and those who do not.)

The link that ties all of this together is the thing of which I am convinced; that at some point in a man's lifetime, God may visit the man and provide him with a very basic, supernatural choice: to love God, and to be eternally committed to Him forever, or to rebel against Him and to be in eternal separation from Him. And because this thing takes place in the spirit (supernaturally), the soul need not be directly (consciously) involved. Sound hokey? Consider Ephesians 2:8, and the fact that faith is the gift of God.

However, even if you do not accept the explanation I have just given you, you may still have some understanding of the resolution of this common dilemma. Perhaps the reader is familiar with the genre of physics known as quantum mechanics? If not, no need to worry, just follow along. Quantum mechanics is a bundle of abstract mathematical models which describe the way matter and energy behave on a "particle" level. These models provide a way to think about the behavior of electrical systems, chemical reactions, and waves in general in ways that are superior to the models of classical physics. These models are tested in a laboratory setting to see if they are consistent with what is observed in the real world. Quantum mechanics is only a system of models; all it can ever be is consistent.

There is a mathematical concept called magnetic spin which is assigned to the electron, a subatomic 'particle'. The mathematical models of today only allow magnetic spin to exist at the moment it is measured. The mathematical concept loses meaning at all other times. Thus, we say that electrons only exhibit a magnetic spin when they interact with something. This model cannot describe the electron precisely when it is not interacting with something. This is different than claiming that the electron does not have spin when it is not measured; see the difference? And quantum mechanics is not proven to be incorrect just because it fails to describe the electron at off times. (critique me, physics people)

Jesus said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." Paul said that if someone who is informed calls Jesus "accursed", then for sure this person does not have spiritual marriage and fellowship with God. Also, if a person calls Jesus Lord and Master out of the depths of his being, surely this man has spiritual fellowship and marriage with God. And so, when the gospel is presented to a man, it may very well be revealed to us what is in his heart towards God. But if the man does not know about Jesus, the Bible gives us no direct clues. Does this mean that the Bible is not true, or that there is no answer? No. It means the theological model presented in the scriptures does not illuminate the situation for us; we must discover the answer some other way. In no way does the abscence of a direct answer imply that the oblivious pagan is neither lost nor saved, no more than the abscence of a complete quantum mechanical description of the electron implies that the electron is in limbo when not being measured.

Our conclusion is threefold: that people who do not have conscious knowledge about Jesus in any way can have a faithful relationship with God and be saved from sin; that evangelism still has purpose because of the fact that without such knowledge it is quite difficult to grow in one's relationship with God; that the soul need not be consciously involved in the initiation of a faithful relationship with God.

And even if you think that my detailed explanation is stupid, you may understand that the Bible, like quantum mechanics, does not directly explain everything, and should not be thought of as false because of that.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Jeremiah 1:4-5

Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: John 15:20-25

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (KJV)

This issue is a "special case" of the previous question. Babies are people who are not presented with the gospel (and who are incapable of mentally understanding it), and so the answer to the previous question applies in many ways to this issue. However, there are some things about this question that I want to address here.

First, I want to comment on the Catholic concept of Purgatory. I am told (I am not Catholic, and do not know an incredible lot about their doctrines...) that their theological stand on the issue is that babies go to Purgatory. I just want to make it clear that there is absolutely zero Biblical evidence of the existence of a realm of Purgatory. It is something that the Catholic Church came up with to explain a lot of issues such as this one, and a theological construct of sorts. I do not intend to offend the Catholic Church or anyone in it; I say this simply because it is relevant to the issue.

Second, I want to make it known what the central question is here. With the way the question is phrased ("What happens..."), it is made clear that the one who asks is wondering whether babies go to Heaven or Hell. Are they forgiven by default until/unless they reject Jesus later in life, or until they reach some (as it is called) age of accountability for their sin? Are they considered sinful by God until they repent from an inherited sinful nature? Or is it none of these things?

And thirdly, I want to further explain how the broad answer in the previous question applies specifically to infants and other people with immature understanding. Remember that I stated in the response to the previous question that the soul need not have any part in the initiation of a relationship with God.

Now, you should know that I am not saying that a young child is always always given a supernatural choice before it dies. I am saying that that is a plausible explanation (after all, God "knew" Jeremiah before he was even conceived). Another plausible explanation is that someone, anyone, is considered without sin until they are administered the gospel, administered a supernatural choice, and refuse fellowship with God (see pertinent text #2). I just want to remind the reader that, as I said in the response to the previous question, just because the Bible does not directly tell us about what happens does not mean that the Bible is false.

If you have not already done so, please read the response to What happens to people who never hear the gospel? You will find that this explanation also applies to young children, mentally retarded individuals, Alzheimer's patients, and (as a matter of fact) everyone else in the world.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

What are the theological ramifications of extra-terrestrial life?

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 1:26-31

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Genesis 3:20

And Adam called his wife's name Eve: because she was the mother of all living. (KJV)

Pertinent text #4: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.... (KJV)

Pertinent text #5: 1 Corinthians 15:20-23

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (KJV)

Pertinent text #6: 1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul: the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (KJV)

I feel that there are several separate issues that are all entailed by this question which deserve response:

1. Does the Bible insist that no other life exists in the universe?
2. Does the Bible describe extra-terrestrial activity on earth in the past?
3. Does the Bible teach that any sentient alien life would need to be taught about Jesus?
4. What if sentient alien life were found? What expectations should we have from a Biblical standpoint?

As to the first issue, I do not believe that is necessarily the case. In Genesis, we read that the earth was created on the first day, and that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth. That does not imply that God did not create other celestial bodies on the first day, these other celestial bodies to become planets (as the earth became) on the fourth day.

I find it possible that God would create one or many worlds, and then three days later create the plentitude of stars and other heavenly bodies to stabilize them in orbit. Summarily, I see no other scriptures that speak to this issue.

With regard to the second issue, I do not believe that the Bible describes extra-terrestrial activity anywhere in it. There are several scriptures which lots of people at least suspect relate to extra-terrestrials: Genesis 6:4, 2 Kings 2:11, and John 10:16. I have posted my convictions on the identity of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4.

I have only one remark concerning Elijah's departure in 2 Kings. Any believer in alien abduction will say that the subject is always, always returned to their point of abduction within a few hours (at least, that is what every proponent of alien abduction I have ever heard has said). This is not the case with Elijah, because fifty men combed the area (against the advice of Elisha) for three days without finding him, dead or alive. That fact, as well as the utter irrelevance of extra-terrestrial life to this record, convinces me that Elijah was not the victim of alien abduction. (Consider also the anointing that Elisha was given after Elijah's departure, which is not alleged to occur with alien visitations.)

The remark about "other sheep" in John 10:16 is not a reference to alien peoples, nor does it refer to the North Americans (as the Mormons suppose). Rather, it refers to the gentiles as a whole. Remember that Jesus told His discples on at least one occasion to minister only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", that is, to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-8). Jesus even refused at first to heal a gentile woman's daughter, saying that He was sent to bring the kingdom of God to the Jews only, until she out of faith pursued Him fervently (Matthew 15:21-28). See Isaiah 56:3-8 for further investigation into this topic.

And so, I believe that the Bible does not explicitly or implicitly say that extra-terrestrial life exists.

The third issue is comparatively complicated. Supposing intelligent alien life were found, would we (Christians) have any need to share the gospel with them? (I assume in this discussion an understanding and foundation of Biblical Creationism.) To resolve this issue, we must first consider who Jesus is and for what purpose He came to Earth.

We learn from Genesis that Adam was created "from the dust of the ground", and was given authority over all of the creatures of this world, and over the world itself. Eve was created from his rib to be his "help". Together they and their descendants (all people) were to "replenish the earth, and subdue it". This means, among other things, that mankind is to be a responsible steward of the earth. Mankind was not given authority over the stars or any other celestial body; man has authority over the earth.

Paul explains concisely in 1 Corinthians 15 what we can learn from careful study of the Old Testament; that Jesus came to be the means of reconciliation between God and mankind, who, beginning with the sin of Adam and Eve, continue to wander and stray from a relationship with their Creator. The purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is summed up by Paul's statement, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, animal sacrifices were done to atone for sins. Blood atoned for sin, and the blood of a healthy male animal at that. This law was fulfilled by Jesus' death on the cross, as evidenced by the fact that the curtain in the temple was torn in half when He was crucified (Matthew 27:51). Thus, the sins of the Christian are atoned for by Jesus' death, and further animal sacrifices would be pointless (vain). Thus, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:17-18 that if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, "your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."

To get to the point, it is clearly taught throughout the entire Bible that Jesus completely atones for the sins of all mankind, and of mankind only. Jesus called Himself the "son of man" because He is a descendant of Adam and Eve. (Indeed, for you advanced Biblical scholars, the fact that Joseph and Mary named Jesus instead of God is the only way that people had the ability to put Him on the cross.) It would not do for an angel to materialize and be killed to atone for sin, nor is Jesus the "son of squirrel".

Any extra-terrestrial, whether intelligent or not, would obviously not be a descendant of Adam and Eve. Therefore, as summed up by Paul and taught throughout the Old Testament books, Jesus' death would not atone for any sin against God they would have in them. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ would have little relevance to them. Likewise, supposing that this alien race had also strayed from their relationship with God, and supposing that God had manifested Himself to them as well in a Messianic way, whatever gospel they have would have little relevance to us. I believe that this resolves the third issue.

To address the fourth question, I would expect the following things to hold true if any extra-terrestrial life was found. These expectations are founded on the idea that God does not contradict Himself or betray the truths He sets forth. (James 1:17)

1. Any biosphere would have had life put on it for the purpose of being the home and stewardship of some race, this race being created by God to have a relationship with God, just as we were created.
2. Their world would not be subject to the stewardship of man, neither would our world be subject to their stewardship, excepting specific ordinance from God to one people or the other.
3. Either this alien race has a perfect relationship with God as Adam and Eve did in the beginning, or they, like us, have strayed from God and have no substantive collective relationship with Him.
4. If this alien race had forsaken its collective relationship with God, I expect that God would provide some means of reconciliation for them as well, probably but not certainly involving a Messianic incarnation of God for their people.
5. The means of reconciliation to God for this race would not be applicable to us, and our means of reconciliation to God (trust in Jesus as Messiah, Savior, and Lord) would not be applicable to them.
6. If we met representatives from their people who did not recognize and acknowledge qualities of the Creator which we acknowledge and consider essential to a true relationship with God, we would need to inquire as to whether any of their race, past or present, do or would have. We would also need to allow the possibility that their means of reconciliation has not yet been made manifest by God.
7. The only purpose to be found in explaining the gospel to extra-terrestrials would be to compare the revelations of God to our respective races, which would certainly be interesting. Also, it is possible that this exchange could further one or both races' relationships with the Creator.
8. As in the case of contradiction between Biblical teachings and other religions of this world, any extra-terrestrial belief system which denied the prescence or nature of the Creator which we respect, or which denied the authority, reality, and identity of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God is contradictory to the Bible, and one would be held by healthy reason to not believe both at the same time.

In conclusion, the Bible does not dictate the prescence or abscence of other life in the universe, but certain expectations about the relationship between God and any possible extra-terrestrial race can be derived from our own revelatory knowledge. Furthermore, the gospel of Jesus Christ only applies to descendants of Adam and Eve, not to any other creature, whether gorilla, or demon, or alien.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Philosophers and theologians hotly debated this subject in times past. They were not interested as to whether more than 15 or 20 could fit, but whether a finite number or an infinite number of angels could fit. The issue seems to revolve around properties of the spirit; can angels, who are spiritual beings, manifest themselves in any shape, size or form they wish?

(The reader may want to read The Supernatural Explained before proceeding.)

I wish to bring to the reader's attention a few pieces of knowledge:

• Angels, who are spirits, are supernatural beings.
• By definition, supernatural things do not necessarily conform to any physical or mathematical relationship. (They defy the nature of the universe.)
• When we wonder how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, we are asking a question about surface area, a physical (mathematical) quantity.
• This discussion assumes that angels are real and have manifested themselves at certain times throughout history, as also cited by the Bible (ex: Judges 13).

Suppose the surface area of a pinhead is x, measured in (say) square meters. If 100 angels were to fit on this pinhead, (and assuming they all manifest themselves at the same size), each would have to occupy a surface area of at most x/100, same units. Possible? Most people would say so.

But could we have an arbitrarily large number of angels on one pinhead (i.e. could we have each angel occupy an arbitrarily small surface area)? I say that the answer to this question is no. I have two main reasons.

1. The concept of surface area loses meaning when applied to very small spaces. Why? When you reduce the scope of the calculation to the atomic level, you end up trying to measure the surface area of quantum mechanical goo. This is not truly applicable to the traditional definition of surface area, rendering the question invalid.
2. Because of the fact that angels are supernatural, it is not truly valid to say that an angel's feet take up surface area. The visage of an angel that people see does not reflect actual matter, but a supernatural change to the fabric of space. Perhaps, when an angel appears to a person, it is only light (electromagnetic waves) and sound (vibrations in air) that are created/altered, generating the perceived angelic being. We don't know. So for this reason as well, this is not a valid question.

And so we see that this question is invalid, both because of the fact that surface area loses meaning when applied to small scopes, and because of the fact that angels are supernatural and do not necessarily conform to any mathematical or physical relationship whatsoever.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

You may not be surprised to hear that this is a debate with a long history. I will not make the foolish claim that there is one magic statement in the Bible that removes all doubt in the matter. The reason this is such a poser, and the reason this question is so heavily debated, is because different people have different definitions of salvation; different people think about salvation in different ways.

For example, many people think of salvation as "a state of mind in which a person expresses absolute, unflinchingly faithful devotion to God". Under this definition of salvation (I do not dare to say that I meet it), I think it can be reasonably said that salvation is not lost. After all, if someone has an unflinching faith in God, how shall he cease to express absolute devotion to Him?

Other people have a more lax definition of salvation, say, "a state of mind in which a person expresses devotion to God". Under this definition, it is certainly possible for salvation to be lost. I know of several people who once expressed intense devotion to God, but obviously their faith was not an unflinching faith; they no longer display any evidence of faith in God at all that is visible to me. I consider their salvation (by this definition) lost.

Other people define salvation as something that God labels us with, rather than as something we label ourselves with. This sounds good: "a spiritual condition under which God considers our sin forgiven and our (human) spirit to be 'born again'". It is this definition around which the debate centers.

I have only a few comments on this definition:

• It is not the case that all occurrences of the word "salvation" in the Bible reflect the same meaning. For example, Paul uses the word salvation to mean two different things between Romans 10:10 ("with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation") and Romans 13:11 ("now is our salvation nearer than when we believed"). Thus, one must allow for a subjectivism in the word 'salvation' itself; one must analyze the usage of the word carefully to determine what meaning is likely to be alluded to.
• Many of the passages in the Bible that are used to argue in this issue do not even use the word 'salvation'. Examples are John 10:27-29 and Matthew 24:42-51. Thus, the true relevance of these passages to the issue is somewhat muted, especially in view of the first bullet.
• I truly believe that the reason no objective answer to whether this kind of salvation is permanent exists today rests in the fact that the Spirit (of which we are born again) is inherently not objectively observable. Jesus said so Himself; he compared it to the wind (3rd chapter of John's gospel). Based on that knowledge, I don't see how people (aside from specific divine revelation, which may very well also not be an objective thing) could decisively say whether that kind of salvation is lost, especially given the ambiguity in the word 'salvation' as it is used throughout the scriptures.

I actually prefer to define salvation as "a reconciliation to God out of sin, sin being defined as 'independence from God in mind and/or action'". Follow the link on the word "sin" to read about my convictions on what sin actually is. Based on my definitions of sin and salvation, salvation can be lost; moreover, based on my definitions of sin and salvation, salvation is a continuing process.

That is, under my definitions of sin and salvation, Paul in Romans 10:10 above means "with the mouth confession is made so that it is evident that you are reconciled to God in mind and action", and in Romans 13:11 he means "the conclusion of the salvation process comes closer every day". My definition fits fairly well, and is consistent with all the pertinent real-world observations I have ever made. Plus, it does not make objective claims about an inherently un-objective matter. (Take note that I do not claim that my definitions of salvation are the "true definitions" as used in the Bible; I simply maintain that they are very largely consistent with the intended meaning of the word as it usually occurs.)

And so I think we can conclude that the reason there is such a big to-do about whether salvation can be lost is:

• The word 'salvation' is used in the Bible in many ways that are obviously not encapsulable into one solitary definition
• Different people mean different things when they say 'salvation'
• Being 'born again' or 'born of the Spirit' is not something that can be objectively observed, and so it is only possible to know whether such a thing is permanent through revelation (see first bullet)

Finally, I wish to say that I am confident that my salvation will never be lost, by any reasonable definition. I consistently endeavor to follow the greatest commandment that God ever gave:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5, KJV

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)