Is natural revelation God’s word? Or does Scripture only qualify for such a title? In other words, when nature speaks clearly about something can we say that this represents the voice of God to the same degree as Scripture?

Natural revelation is God’s communication through creation. It is seen in the vast expanse of the universe and in the minute details of the human cell. It is found in the very consciousness of humanity and in our capacity for rational and analytic thought. Nature tells us much about the attributes and character of God. While, without the Scriptures we would lack an understanding of God’s ultimate plan of redemption and Christian living, we would still have quite a bit of theological understanding.


Paul tells the Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20)

Notice a few things:

1. “Revealed from heaven . . . being understood through what has been made.” This is what can be know about God without the Scriptures. It is God’s revelation through creation.

2. Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. This tells us that natural revelation is evident to all. This is sometimes referred to as “general revelation” because it has a general audience that is not limited to a particular people, nation, or time.

3. God has shown it to them. This tells us it is from God. God is the author of this revelation.

4. Invisible attributes . . . eternal power and divine nature. This lets us know that we can understand many of the characteristics of God through natural revelation. His “eternal power” (aidios autou dunamis) has to do with not only ultimate power and ability, but the necessity of its eternality. His divine nature (theiotes) speaks of his divinity, or the nature that divinity necessary must encompass, including attributes and characteristics.

5. They have been clearly seen. The word for “clearly” (kathoratai) is in the present indicative telling us that this is an ongoing occurrence. The word carries the idea of inward perception coming from our reasoning, not simply seeing with the eye. BADG suggests this translation: “God’s invisible attributes are perceived with the eye of reason in the things that have been made.” In other words, natural revelation is evidently evident!

6. They are without excuse. This is very important to understand. The word here for “without excuse” (anapologetous) has a judicial feel to it. Josephus uses the word in the sense of being “without a defense.” Dio Chrysostom uses this to describe Alexander’s aid to Homer saying that he will not let Homer go “undefended.” This verse is telling us that these characteristics of God are so clear that people are left without a defense of any sort for unbelief.

About natural revelation’s voice, the Psalmist writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

In other words, both these passages teach that we are held accountable for hearing through creation the authoritative voice of God. So much so that we will be without excuse if we ignore what it has to say.

Now, we are evangelicals and biblicists, so we have to make Scripture more authoritative than creation, right? But the problem is How can God’s word (Scripture) be more authoritative than God’s word (creation)? If they are both God’s word speaking with His voice, then they both have the same authority, right?

Some may say, “Yes, but what about Sola Scriptura?” Don’t we believe that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible norm in matters of faith and practice? But this assumes that we have interpreted the Scripture correctly, which is, many times, a rather large assumption. However, creation is the same isn’t it? If we interpret its voice correctly, doesn’t it carry the same authority? This is the key question that I think we need to wrestle with.

Here are some implications:

The acknowledgment of the validity of Natural theology. Natural theology (the theology derived from natural revelation) becomes a primary source of study in which Christians need to engage more often. While natural theology is not emphasized in many of the more fundementalistic Protestant circles, this has not always been the case. Great philosophers and theologians of the past have seen the importance letting God’s voice come through creation. Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover,” Justin Martyrs “God of the Philosophers,” Anselm’s “Necessary Being,” Aquinas’ “Five Proofs,” and John Calvin’s “sensus divinitatis“ all evidence an understanding of the authority of creation’s voice. We need acknowledge and engage in the study of God’s voice through creation with more confidence.

Issues of faith and science become less dichotomized. Once we recognize that science is simply the interpretation of God’s “book of nature,” it will no longer be seen as a threat. The scientist can give valuable information to the theologian in the same way the exegete does. Seeming conflict will no longer present the dilemma of having to choose which source is more authoritative, but which source speaks to the issue more clearly. Rhetoric between the ones who study human origins from God’s word in Scripture and those who study God’s word in creation will tamed. Both sides will see that we are ultimately on the same team, even if we may sometimes interpret each source of God’s voice differently.

Current issues about the nature of God will be put into perspective. Open theists who claim that the Bible never speaks about certain attributes of God held to by traditional theists such as asiety, immutability, and necessary eternality can recognize that even if Scripture did not speak of such things (which I do not concede), nature does have an authoritative voice to contribute. This means that philosophy and science do matter. This means that the old adage “If it is not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not only irresponsible, but unbiblical! If nature says that God must be an Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause, or the creator of time, then we must incorporate this into our theology, even if the Bible did not speak on it.

What I am not saying (just so I don’t have to deal with misconceptions)

  • I am not saying that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation. I don’t believe it is. Natural revelation does not present the Gospel.
  • I am not saying that Scripture is not as important as we once thought. Without the Scriptures we would not know about God’s plan of redemption. As well, Scripture speaks much more clearly in most areas of faith and practice. Its interpretation is not as difficult and, because of this, its message is more exhaustive and louder.
  • I am not saying that Sola Scritura is not correct. Sola Scriptura has to do with special revelation, God’s mediating voice through human agencies, not natural revelation. Otherwise, what do we do with Romans 1 and Psalm 19? How would we say that God’s word is more authoritative than God’s word? Scripture is the final and only infallible authority in the sense that no human institution or authority can rise to its level.

In the end, I propose that natural revelation is just as much God’s word as Scripture (AHhhh!). Both have to be interpreted and both speak to different areas. Most importantly, both are authoritative and should be taken seriously. We will be without excuse if we close our ears to the voice of either.

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    26 replies to "Is Natural Revelation Also God’s Word?"

    • wondersforoyarsa

      One could say, in a sense, that they are both part of the same thing. That scripture is a particularly deep and rich subset of natural revelation.

    • veritas83

      Michael: I think Psalm 19 is one reason to be a cumulative case apologist – accepting the testimony of nature while still emphasizing the superiority of Scripture. I believe that the first 6 verses speak of the usefulness of general revelation, while verses 7-14 speak of the usefulness of special revelation. It would seem that the Psalmist accepts both, but believes that the latter is superior (I think this is what you were saying).

      Thanks for an interesting post!

      Stephen Stallard

    • Vance

      Michael, as you might expect, I was nodding vigorously through the entire article and agree very much.

      What I would add is that while they both have authority, they seem to have different “areas of expertise”, so to speak. As you mention, God’s Creation can tell us a lot of about God, but can’t point the way to salvation. Likewise, Scripture, which is THE blueprint for Salvation, from beginning to end, only touches upon scientific issues in broad brush strokes, like an impressionist painting (hey, I like that one, I think I keep it in mind!).

      Thus, I think that both are authoritative in their bailiwick, there are two important points:

      1. Ultimately, Scripture is the more important, since nothing is more important that the part of the revelation that it covers.

      2. The two revelations can not contradict each other. So, if there is a seeming contradiction, we need to consider where we are getting it wrong. As a general rule, if the subject of the seeming contradiction deals with Nature, then we might consider that that to Nature we must go first, and see what it has to say (when properly “read”). Then we can look at our interpretation of Scripture and see whether we might have gotten it wrong, and if there is a reading that can be consistent with Nature, without undermining what Scripture is telling us about IT’S expertise, namely God’s Redemptive Plan.

      However, I always see this as a sliding scale. HOW solid is the evidence from Nature and HOW crucial is that particular interpretation. If the evidence from nature is weak, and the interpretive position is essential, then I will tend to stick with my current interpretation, etc.

      Ultimately, it is about getting both of them right, or as right as possible.

    • Nick N.


      I’d have to say that Scripture is the more important (or authoritative) of the two — after all, without reading Romans 1 and Psalm 19 would you have come to the same conclusion about nature being just as much God’s word? In other words, did it take the special revelation to give you knowledge concerning the general revelation?


      You said: “The two revelations can not contradict each other. So, if there is a seeming contradiction, we need to consider where we are getting it wrong.”

      I’m wondering, if nature or as Paul calls it ‘η κτισις’ (Rom. 8:19-23) was affected by the fall then wouldn’t we expect some level of contradiction between it and special revelation?

      I also wonder if this affect is enough to answer Michael’s question: “How would we say that God’s word is more authoritative than God’s word?” by saying that one was subjected to futility because of the one who subjected it…

      …but then that gets me thinking that Scripture (at least as we presently have it) is not without problems — certainly textual errors have crept in over the centuries and as Dan Wallace has pointed out, some portions of the OT require conjectural emendation…

      …so does this now place Scripture back at the same level as Nature? Was Scripture subjected to futility not willingly but because of the sinful copyists who introduced errors (no matter how big or small)?

      This post has me thinking too much… 🙁

    • Vance

      oooh, you make my head hurt, Nick! 🙂

      But good points. I don’t think that the fallen state requires there to be any contradiction since most of the Scripture about the world was written about the world “as it is”. Most of the seeming contradictions come when Scripture is describing the world around us, but in language that seems at odds with, well, the world around us! At least with what we know about the world now. The firmament, the fixed earth, the sun “standing still” (rather than the earth stopping to create that appearance), which seed is the smallest, etc.

    • C Michael Patton

      Nick, not only this, but both sources are only as good as their interpretation. Therefore, whether it is natural revelation or special revelation, they are both subject the fall in this sense.

      You said:
      “I’d have to say that Scripture is the more important (or authoritative) of the two — after all, without reading Romans 1 and Psalm 19 would you have come to the same conclusion about nature being just as much God’s word? In other words, did it take the special revelation to give you knowledge concerning the general revelation?”

      I don’t think this is correct sense Romans 1 is speaking about those who do not have the Scripture, only natural revelation. They are “without excuse” and they don’t need to have read Romans one. In other words, they cannot say to God, “But I never read Romans 1.” Therefore, we don’t need Scripture to tell us about the authority of natural revelation, even though it does confirm it.

      Thanks Nick.

    • Vance

      Ah, but Michael, what about the whole salvation without Scripture (the Gospel) issue? Could they be condemned without the Scripture, but not have the possibility of being saved without the Scripture?

      Or is that just the Arminian in me coming out?

    • C Michael Patton

      Arminian all the way!!

      Arminians will usually approach all of these issue with the opportunity for salvation as the primary issue, while the Reformed will normally have the justice of God as the primary issues.

      In this case, I would say that Paul’s only purpose in Romans 1-3 is to get people condemned so that they see their need for salvation. But we must not mistake the idea of a need for salvation with the idea of a right to salvation. God is not obligated to save anyone. These people are without excuse because they knew of God and His requirements and went against them, not because they rejected the Gospel.

    • Saint and Sinner

      “The acknowledgment of the validity of Natural theology.”

      Of course, I have to be the one to disagree. Your leaving out the noetic effects of sin. Read 1 Corinthians 1-2 and tell me if that teaches “the God of the philosophers”.

      If one is to read one book on this subject from those who would disagree, it would be “Revelation and Reason” by Oliphint and Tipton.

    • C Michael Patton

      Yes, but the noetic effects of sin (has nothing to do with Noah folks 🙂 ) distorts our interpretation of both. If it means that natural revelation itself is distorted and increasingly untrustworthy, then how do we handle the “clearly seen” and “without excuse” of Romans 1. I would think that someone would have an excuse if natural revelation was distorted by the noetic effects of sin.

      In reality, doesn’t the noetic effects of sin have to do with us and our mind? (taken from the Gk for noos for “mind.”) Sin has effected our mind to the degree that we can misinterpret any of God’s revelation, whether natural or special.

      Wouldn’t you agree?

    • Vance

      So, the Calvinist would say that NONE of those who have the “law written on their heart” and are thus condemned in their natural state, could ever be called by the Spirit to respond and turn to God (all within the Calvinist process, let’s say for the sake of argument), since they did not hear the Gospel message? None?

      Keep in mind that we are talking about the vast majority of humans who have ever lived on this planet, none of whom ever heard of the Gospel, or even lived before there WAS any Gospel. Is the Calvinist position really that only that tiny percentage of those people who have lived in very recent times, and primarily in the West, ever had any chance to be called of God? Sounds like a doctrine developed by someone who lived very recently in the West. 🙂

      Setting aside the concept of a just God, that seems like a pretty tiny and exclusive sample, and that in the New Heaven and New Earth, humans will be pretty thin on the ground, while Hell will be overflowing.

      Makes the Vatican II position seem downright “universalist” by comparison!

    • C Michael Patton

      Well, Christ did say “few are those that find life” and “many are those on the path to destruction.”

      In reality, Calvinists don’t necessarily have a position about the destiny of the unevangelized. Ultimately, the Calvinist can say that God can save anyone since people are regenerated by a sovereign act of God before they can even exercise faith.

      Yet the point is not one of Calvinism and Arminianism. When I said, “Arminians will usually approach all of these issue with the opportunity for salvation as the primary issue, while the Reformed will normally have the justice of God as the primary issues” I meant it to demonstrate the normal starting point of each. Arminians are also concerned with the justice of God and Calvinists are concerned about opportunities for salvation.

      What it comes down to is whether or not you believe that people must hear the Gospel to be saved (restritivism) or whether God will save people without the Gospel (inclusivism). You can be a Calvinist or Arminian and hold to either.

    • Vance

      Ah, that is good to know. I thought that Calvinists were primarily restrictivist, but I am glad to hear y’all are open to that. I am still struggling with that myself. On a practical level, I am not sure I would want to live in the New Heaven and New Earth with just those folks who would make it under the restrictivist view! 🙂

      [which reminds me of a funny Blackadder episode . . . ]

    • Sean

      Y’all aren’t going to get anywhere if you keep making everything into a Calvinist vs. Arminian issue. 😉


      I must say I’m amazed, if not surprised, that everyone is trying to discuss this without any reference to Karl Barth, the greatest theologian of the 20th century, one of the greatest (top 5?) in all of church history, who is perhaps most famous for his emphatic, “No!” to this question. (For a moment, this is making me sympathetic to the catholic caricature of evangelicalism as everyone just running around with his or her Bible making pronouncements. Never mind, though; I’m sure that feeling will pass. Still, it’s good to be familiar with the top authorities on certain issues.)

      Basically, Barth started with the fact> that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ; that has to be the beginning point of Christian theology. Christ is God’s plan and the one he sovereignly works through. It follows that Barth rejected natural theology as a human effort to come to God on human terms, apart from Christ. His argument was that if natural theology (reason and philosophy meditating on general revelation) cannot lead us to true knowledge of God as revealed in his Word, then it leads to a false god. Barth is a big part of the reason why protestants do less with natural theology than catholics, though that is changing in some areas.

      (Disclosure: I am not a Barth expert, and I don’t have any of his works handy at the moment to quote. I also don’t have my mind made up on this issue. I’m sorry to say, however, that I think Barth is closer to being right on this one than Michael. It’s ironic as Barth’s view is largely a function of his Calvinism.)

      (nitpicking mode on)
      I must also take issue with the repeated equation here Scripture==God’s word. Evangelicals do this a lot, but it is an overly simplistic reduction that leads to some, uh, mistakes. Please consider the following, which shouldn’t be too controversial:

      1. Jesus is the Word, God’s supreme revelation (John 1.1, Heb. 1.1-2). Jesus is the supreme authority over Scripture.

      2. God’s word is prior to Scripture–e.g., when God called to Abr(ah)am, that was God’s word even before Moses (or whoever) wrote it down.

      3. “God’s word” is a subset of revelation. That is, something could be revelation without necessarily being Word. Natural or general revelation is just that, general revelation. As it is nonverbal, it’s not really appropriate to refer to it as God’s word.

      (nitpicking mode off)

      Nick, how did you get Greek into your post?

    • Sean

      And with my tag problems there, I probably don’t have any business trying to mess around with Greek.

    • kolabok21

      this would do better justice than the one picture. This reveals “natural revealtion” that God is bigger than the human mind can relate too. All the dots we thought to be stars, turns out to be galaxies.

      I often wondered what the ancient ones thought of when they looked up into the night (pollution free sky) time sky, having know written words of God, just peaceful bliss and an awe of something bigger than themselves. Do we still hold the same feeling today, I wonder

    • Nick N.


      There’s a couple of ways you can get Greek into the post. The easiest way would be to go to MS Word ans just use the Unicode (UTF-8) Greek font and cut and paste it into the comments box. But you can also learn the Number Codes for Greek characters.

      For example, the term that I used (hē ktisis) would be written as:

      &.#951; &.#954.; &.#964; &.#953; &.#963; &.#953; &.#962;

      You wouldn’t use the periods though. I just included those to show how the code looks — if I didn’t include them it would have appeared as the Greek characters (obviously).

      So it is & + Number + semi-colon. For single words do not place spaces between each letter.

      But for my money your best bet is just going into MS Word, clicking “insert”, then clicking “symbol”, then going down to the “basic Greek”, and choose your characters that way.

      I hope I wasn’t too confusing. 🙂

    • Nick N.


      Bruce A. Ware has some interesting thoughts on restrictivism in his essay “How Shall We Think About the Trinity?” in God Under Fire, (Zondervan, 2002), 253-277.

      He said:

      . . . Jesus never anywhere suggests that somehow, apart from the proclamation of the gospel, people will know about God’s free offer of salvation as the Spirit brings God’s saving truth and grace into the cultures and religions of the peoples of the world independent of the knowledge of Christ and the need to believe in Christ to be saved. Never! Instead, Jesus’ only instruction and mandate is to take the gospel to the world in the power of the Spirit. Spirit and gospel truth are inextricably linked by Jesus, as they are likewise inextricably linked in the apostolic mission of the early church. Apart from the gospel of Christ, people are without hope. [p. 262]

      And again:

      What of the notion that the Spirit is present in the non-Christian cultures of the world, already having brought them saving grace apart from knowledge of Christ? Jesus’ own commission and the record of the book of Acts present exactly the contrary evidence. Consider Jesus’ own final commission as recorded in Luke 24:46-49:

      He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

      Notice four items. (1) Those to whom he sends his disciples are “all nations.” This leaves no one out! Every country, culture, language group, and religion is included in the scope of those to whom Jesus commissions his disciples to go.
      (2) The current salvific status of these “nations” (i.e., all people everywhere) is indicated when Jesus implies that they require “repentance and forgiveness of sins.” That is, all nations inclusively are currently in sin and in need of forgiveness of their sin. There is no indication that somehow, apart from the witness the disciples are to bring, these nations already have access to saving grace. All are in sin, all need to repent, all must be reached.
      (3) This repentance and forgiveness of the sins of the nations will occur as their message is “preached in his name to all nations.” The name of Christ is central to the gospel of the saving grace of God. Yes, salvation is to be broadcast universally, but only as the name of Christ is proclaimed universally. There is no universal Spirit presence of saving grace devoid of the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.
      (4) The implied reference to Spirit-empowerment energizes this gospel proclamation. Jesus tells the disciples they are witnesses, but they are not alone! They are to “stay in the city” and wait to receive “what my Father has promised,” by which they will be “clothed with power from on high.” As we know from Acts 1 and 2, Luke unmistakably intends his readers to connect this with the outpouring of the Spirit by which the disciples were empowered to bear witness of Jesus, “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). [p. 263-64]

      He also said in a foot note:

      Appeals by inclusivists to salvation in the Old Testament where, presumably, knowledge of the Christ to come is minimal at best, miss the radical redemptive, historical significance of the coming of the long-awaited Messiah. Now that the Savior has come, all New Testament evidence points to the fact that the gospel is the gospel of Christ died and risen; by faith in Christ one may be saved. As one clear evidence of this, consider the logic of Gal. 3:23-26, where Paul actually speaks of the period of the law as a time “before faith” had come (3:23). It is clear, as one continues reading, that he means specifically “before faith in Christ” had come, since the law was our tutor to lead us to Christ(3:24), and that by “faith in Christ Jesus” we might be made sons of God. [p. 263, n. 23]

      And I sincerely apologize for veering off topic into restrictivism/inclusivism — but you guys started it! 🙂

    • Vance

      Oh, man, Nick you went from making my head hurt to giving me a lot of reading to do as issues to delve into! Grrrr . . . 🙂

      That is very good information as I am still working through this whole issue.

    • Lito Cruz

      My answer to the question is no, Scripture stands out above natural revelation.

      As Saint and Sinner said or rather implied, after sin we lost all direct communication with God.

      The height of God’s revelation is Christ and His Cross.

      You can look at nature and become a theist but it will not make you a Christian. I experience that when from atheism, I turn to being a theists. In fact when I became a theist it only made my situation a lot more fearful, for I knew there was a God but I also knew, I was detached/disconnected from him. I was lost as a goose. Natural revelation will do that to you. It will give you the Law but not the Gospel.


    • JohnT3

      Natural Revelation while speaks of God and attests to his majesty and power and delares his glory it is not the same.

      Natural Revelation can condem because man had all this awesome display of God and his power and they did not seek him. They instead chose to exchange the Creator for the thing created. But It can not save.

      God’s word will give an explanation that can cover all things. Natural Revelation only deals with God’s existance and hm being creator. It can not explain what He wants or how we can be saved.

      In order to be saved we need God’s word.

    • Joanie D

      In the 11th comment above, Vance wrote, “Setting aside the concept of a just God, that seems like a pretty tiny and exclusive sample, and that in the New Heaven and New Earth, humans will be pretty thin on the ground, while Hell will be overflowing. ” (NOTE: Vance isn’t saying he agrees with that, mind you.)

      In reading the Book of Revelation, it seems the Apostle John had a vision of heaven with numbers of people in it so numerous that no human could ever count the number. Here is a section of Chapter 7, verses 9-17:

      After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:
      “Salvation belongs to our God,
      who sits on the throne,
      and to the Lamb.”

      All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:
      Praise and glory
      and wisdom and thanks and honor
      and power and strength
      be to our God for ever and ever.

      Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”
      I answered, “Sir, you know.”

      And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore,
      they are before the throne of God
      and serve him day and night in his temple;
      and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
      Never again will they hunger;
      never again will they thirst.
      The sun will not beat upon them,
      nor any scorching heat.
      For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
      he will lead them to springs of living water.
      And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

      Joanie D.

    • Vance

      Wow, I have read that passage every year for ages and never caught the “multitudes” aspect of it like that. It is very inspirational! Makes it once again a place I long to be, rather than the “ghost town” feeling I was beginning to get. Thanks for pointing that out!

    • terry

      If it was possible for wise men to have read in the stars about the birth of Christ
      I think it was also possible to have put the Gospel there as well …
      I read a article from Bullinger in it He calculated that there were 2 stars in the night shy
      at the time of Christ that would suggest the Savior …

    • Joanie D

      Vance, I am glad you found that passage inspiriational. I do too. It gives me hope for the world.

      Just for the “fun” of it, I decided to figure how long it would take to point to 3 billion people. Never mind actually saying the words, “One thousand one; one thousand two, etc.” Just pointing fingers at the 3 billion people. I figured:

      There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year

      So there are 315,360,000 seconds in ten years

      So it would take one hundred years to count 3,153,600,000 people. Wowza!

      Also, the groups that want to think they are one of the 144,000 people mentioned in Revelation should read that passage carefully. They all have to be male virgins!

      I know there are passages in the Gospels where Jesus says “few are those that find life” and “many are those on the path to destruction.” Perhaps Jesus is referring to people as they live on earth. Few of us find our way to fully living the life that God has offered to us and many of us are on the path to destruction, both on this earth and in the “afterlife.” Because even though a multitude of us will be with God in heaven and in the new earth, there will still be multitudes who rejected God’s love and who persecuted those people who loved God and who attempted to walk in his light. It is hard for me to imagine how any of this would really “work” and I look forward to the day when all our questions will be answered. That will certainly be an amazing theological lesson!

      May we all walk in His light, at all times….

      Joanie D.

    • Steve S.

      I found this website to be a good reference to Natural revelation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.