All posts by Bill Pratt

Does God Need Anything?

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Christians believe that God is completely self-sufficient, that he is complete within himself.  There is nothing that God needs that he doesn’t already have.  The quote below, from A. W. Tozer in The Knowledge of the Holy,  summarizes the point extremely well.

To admit the existence of a need in God is to admit incompleteness in the divine Being.  Need is a creature-word and cannot be spoken of the Creator.  God has a voluntary relation to everything He has made, but He has no necessary relation to anything outside of Himself.  His interest in His creatures arises from His sovereign good pleasure, not from any need those creatures can supply nor from any completeness they can bring to Him who is complete in Himself.

Practically speaking, it is a serious error to think that humanity is somehow providing God assistance that he needs to accomplish his tasks.  God may use human beings to complete certain tasks, but he never needs them.  He allows them to participate with him in the affairs of the world, but only out of his good pleasure.  Whenever humans start to think they are indispensable to God, a prideful fall is sure to follow.

Can Man Choose God On His Own?

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

No.  The Bible seems to clearly teach that God must call on man before man will respond.  Original sin has caused man to reject God without God’s intervention.  Jesus said, ““This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65).  The Psalmist said, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).  God must initiate salvation because man cannot.

So does God intervene to convict all men of their sins and call them toward him?  Yes, he does.  All men are given the chance to accept or reject God because God calls all men.  According to 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  According to 1 Tim. 2:3-4, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

God will freely offer the gift of salvation to everyone, but each person must decide to accept or reject this free gift.  God must call us first, as we are incapable of inclining our wills toward God on our own.

Historical footnote: The belief that mankind is born innocent of original sin and can freely choose God without God first initiating salvation is called Pelagianism.  This heresy was condemned by the Council of Carthage (A.D. 416-418).

Did Jesus Claim to be God? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

A foundational issue for Christianity is the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God and whether his disciples understood him to be claiming he was God.  This series of posts will examine the first question and we will follow this series with the question of the disciples.

Here are the topics we will cover:

  1. Jesus Claimed to Be Yahweh.
  2. Jesus Claimed to Be Equal with God.
  3. Jesus Claimed to Be Messiah-God.
  4. Jesus Claimed to Be God by Accepting Worship.
  5. Jesus Claimed to Have Equal Authority with God.
  6. Jesus Claimed to Be God by Requesting Prayer in His Name.

We will cover passages that expound upon each of the above claims and try to build a solid basis for the deity of Jesus.

Why is this topic important?  Because it is a central teaching of Christianity, and if it is not true, then Christianity is false.  But worse than that, the deity of Christ is one of the key elements of our salvation.  If Jesus is not God, then we have no reconciliation with God.  If a mere man died on the cross and was resurrected, then our sins are not forgiven and we will perish.

The gospel that the early church taught, in its simplest form, was the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  Without the deity of Jesus, there is no gospel.

I hope you’ll follow this series and be astounded at all the ways the NT claims Jesus is God.  It should be eye-opening!

More Ways Humans Differ from Other Animals

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

I have written on this topic before, but it’s so important that when I come across more information, I feel compelled to write about it.

Recently I was reading a book by Hugh Ross (More Than a Theory) and he listed off several stark contrasts between man and all other animals:

  1. awareness of right and wrong (conscience)
  2. awareness of mortality and concerns about what lies beyond death
  3. hunger for hope, purpose, and destiny
  4. compulsion to discover and create
  5. capacity for analysis, mathematics, and meditation
  6. capacity to recognize beauty, truth, logic, and absolutes
  7. propensity to worship and communicate with a deity

The gulf between man and the other animals is indeed massive.  Those of us who recognize this gulf encourage men to reach even greater heights, while those of us who think that man and animal are basically the same tend to excuse every kind of animal-like behavior in man.  After all, those people claim, we are born to act like animals, so why expect more?  (There is a schizophrenic third view that claims men are nothing but complex animals, but still expects men to rise above it.  This view is incoherent to me.)

Of course, the person that philosophically excuses men from animal-like behavior – who believes men are literally animals, and nothing more – quickly abandons that view when someone behaves like an animal toward them.  In that case, all we hear is how the perpetrator should have behaved better and should have controlled themselves.  It’s funny how vain philosophy collapses when it bumps up against reality.

Can I Be Saved By a Simple Prayer?

The Bible unequivocally teaches that faith in God is what saves.  So the question before us is whether speaking a “sinner’s prayer” constitutes saving faith.

All people possess intellect, will, and emotions – the ability to think, choose, and feel.  When the Bible refers to faith, it seems to teach that faith involves all aspects of a person.  In other words, a person’s intellect, will, and emotions must all be involved for faith to be salvific.

Let’s look at intellect first.  Based on the NT, there seem to be six propositions that a person must intellectually believe to be saved:

  1. Existence of God
  2. Necessity of Grace
  3. Human Sinfulness
  4. Christ’s Deity
  5. Christ’s Atoning Death
  6. Christ’s Bodily Resurrection

Each of these doctrines must be intellectually held by a person to be saved.  But believing in these truths with the intellect is not enough.

Billy Graham once said:

The word believe means more than just intellectual faith, because the Bible says, ‘The devils also believe.’  The devil is a fundamentalist, and he is orthodox.  He believes in Christ.  He believes in the Bible.   Intellectually, he believes in the dogma.  He believes in the creeds.  But the devil has never been saved and he is not going to heaven.  You may be able to recite theology, but I tell you that is not enough.

Saving faith also encompasses the will and emotions.  The NT seems to teach at least six ways that our will and emotions must be involved in our faith.

First, true faith involves trust in God.  Trust is the confident expectation that God will do what he says he will do.  Trusting God involves an act of the will that is beyond mere intellectual assent.

Second, true faith involves the willingness to fully commit ourselves to Christ as the means of delivering us.  Saving faith involves a true commitment to the gospel.

Third, true faith involves our obeying God’s command to believe in His Son.  If we have saving faith, we will obey God’s command to believe in His Son.  If we truly understand who God is and what He has done for us, our intellectual knowledge is accompanied by obedience to God’s command to turn to Him.   The demons do not obey the gospel and have forever turned their back on God.  Though they know who God is, they disobey Him.  Likewise, unsaved people have no will to obey God.

Fourth, true faith involves love of God, which is the greatest command.  “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37).  You cannot have a saving relationship with God unless you love Him.  Love of God is willing the ultimate good.  God is the ultimate good. This is not merely a feeling of warmth toward God, but a robust passion and desire for Him that manifests in all our actions.

Fifth, true faith involves childlike trust entailing humility.  There is no room for arrogance in saving faith.  Demons exhibit no humility toward God, whereas believers realize that humility is the only reasonable response because God is completely responsible for their salvation.  Dr. Gary Inrig explained humility this way:

If I try to make myself as small as I can, I’ll never become humble. Humility comes when I stand as tall as I can, and look at all of my strengths, and the reality about me, but I put myself alongside Jesus Christ. And it’s there, when I humble myself before Him, and realize the awesomeness of who he is, and I accept God’s estimate of myself, and I stop being fooled about myself, and I stop being impressed with myself, that I begin to learn humility.

Sixth, true faith involves repentance.  Faith implies the kind of commitment to and trust in Christ that will make an actual change in one’s life.  True repentance is a real change of mind about our sin and about who Christ is – our Savior.  Repentance is life-altering as well.  Therefore, faith and repentance are inseparable in the same way that the command to “come here” cannot be fulfilled without “leaving there.”  True faith and repentance, regarding one’s salvation, involve embracing right and rejecting wrong – one cannot be exercised without the other.

So, is a simple prayer enough to save?  If that simple prayer is being spoken by a person whose faith is intellectual, trusting, committed, obedient, loving, humble, and repentant, then the answer is “yes.”  If not, then that prayer may be a significant step, but until the person has truly applied all of his personhood to his faith, it has not saved him.

Can God Be Sovereign and Man Be Free at the Same Time?

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Yes.  There is absolutely nothing contradictory about an infinite God being in control of every little electron in the universe, but creating creatures in that same universe who have a special power of free will.  God can accomplish everything he wants to accomplish in human affairs through human free will.

While he commands volcanoes to erupt and water to flow as inanimate objects, he commands humans as free creatures.  He works in coordination with human freedom, not without it or against it.

Philosophers refer to this as primary and secondary causation.  God is the primary cause, and he uses the secondary cause of human free will to accomplish his purposes.

It’s ironic to me that some of my 5-point Calvinist friends say that allowing man to choose takes away from the glory of God.

The reality is that claiming God cannot create free creatures and still bring his plans to fruition is really the position that takes away from God’s glory.

Smoke that in your theological pipe for a minute.

Why Is the Trinity Important?

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Because it is the best synthesis of all biblical data on the nature of God.  All other views deny or ignore major swaths of Scripture.

For example, on one of our blog posts, there is a thread where Darrell presented numerous passages to a Mormon about the oneness and unity of God.  Instead of dealing with these passages the Mormon writer chose to ignore the passages and continuously point out other passages in the Bible that stress the plurality of God.

In Mormon theology, there are countless gods, and all human beings may one day become gods themselves.  So, of course, Mormons have to dodge and duck all of the passages in the Bible that speak on the oneness of God.  They ignore biblical data in order to accommodate their theology.  Their theology is more important than the data in the Bible.

The Trinity realizes a unity and plurality in God that makes sense of all the biblical data.  There are three persons (plurality) in one nature (unity).

All of the passages that emphasize the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are recognized.  All of the passages that recognize the unity of God are recognized.  Both of these truths are held, and neither is denied.

Is your theology more important than what the Bible actually says?

Thoughts on Ehrman/Licona Debate – Part 2

So what about their arguments?  Were they effective?  First let’s examine Mike Licona.

Licona has argued this historical approach for proving the resurrection in a book entitled The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, co-authored with Gary Habermas.  The approach is fairly straight-forward and effective at making a historical case for the resurrection.  Licona, along with Habermas, has clearly done a significant amount of research on the topic, and his claims about the historical facts about Jesus were not at all disputed by Ehrman.

The problem with his approach, however, is that it will always remain unconvincing to any person who does not believe that the God of the Bible exists.  To the person who is a serious skeptic of the existence of God, any explanation will be better than Jesus rising from the dead.  The skeptic has to at least be open to the existence of God, or Licona’s argument will fall on deaf ears.  This is exactly what happened in the debate.

This is a general weakness of historical apologetics.  Worldview and philosophical presuppositions will often prevent the argument from winning over skeptics, which leads us to Ehrman’s case.

Ehrman disputed Licona’s historical argument on the grounds that historians must always reject an explanation that includes the supernatural.  The problem with Ehrman’s claim is that he rejects the possibility of a miracle ever occurring without ever examining the evidence.  Ehrman will tell you that a historian can never show you that Jesus rose from the dead.  But isn’t this a classic example of begging the question?

A person begs the question when they assume what is trying to be proven.  The question before Ehrman is whether historians can prove that Jesus rose from the dead.  He is to give evidential reasons as to why they cannot.  But his response to the question is, in effect: “Since historians can never prove whether the resurrection occurred (because it is miraculous), well then the resurrection can’t be proven by historians.”  Ehrman fails to consider any evidence, and basically rules out the possibility of proving any miraculous event from the start.

There is another problem with Ehrman’s argumentation.  He spent considerable time denigrating the historical reliability of the gospels, claiming they were written by partisan Christians who were trying to convert people.  He also claimed that the oral and written traditions of the early Christians were purposefully changed many times in order to better reach their audiences.  In other words, the writers of the gospels felt free to deceive people to win them over.

In addition, Ehrman cited numerous alleged examples of discrepancies and contradictions among the gospels.  He documents all of these in his books.

Ehrman, while explaining the alleged late dates of the gospels, also mentioned that he believes Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark and from each  other.  This is the standard position that many New Testament scholars hold.

What occurred to me while listening to Ehrman is that these positions he is holding do not make sense, when taken all together.  If the writers of the gospels were writing their material to gain converts, and they were copying each other, then why in the world did they make so many mistakes?  Ehrman claims to have found numerous discrepancies and contradictions that are supposed to undermine the accuracy of the gospels, but why are these discrepancies there?

Were the gospel writers so idiotic that they each changed the previous Jesus narratives, knowing they were contradicting previous oral and written testimonies?  Did they think nobody would notice?  By this theory, the writers of the gospels were not only liars, they also were ridiculously stupid and careless.

But it gets even worse.  The church fathers started compiling the four gospels in the second century and left all of the alleged errors in there!  By Ehrman’s logic, they also knew of these issues, they also were hoping to gain converts, and they also were willing to change history to succeed.  Why not change the gospels and clean them up?  If you are Ehrman, you have to believe that the gospel writers and church fathers were all deceptive and all stone dumb.  They were unable to get their stories straight, and in the end just left a big mess for enlightened scholars like Ehrman to clean up.  This theory strains credulity, does it not?

Isn’t a better explanation that the gospel writers wrote the accounts of Jesus from different perspectives, shared their accounts with each other to ensure accuracy, and strove to retain the historical truth?  Almost all of the alleged discrepancies can be readily explained, after all, by realizing that the gospel writers were recording history with different perspectives and different goals in mind.  And maybe the church fathers refused to change anything because the church community had always accepted these writings as authentic and accurate, and maybe, just maybe, they are.

Thoughts on Ehrman/Licona Debate – Part 1

Last night, Darrell and I attended the debate between Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona at SES in Charlotte.  They debated whether historians can prove Jesus rose from the dead.  Here is my summary of the arguments that each of them presented.

Licona opened the debate with a historical argument that goes like this.  First, he argued, virtually all historians (close to 100%) agree on three key facts about Jesus:

  1. He died by crucifixion.
  2. His disciples believed they saw Jesus appear several times after he died.
  3. The apostle Paul believed he saw Jesus appear after he died.

Then, Licona explained that the historian’s job was to figure out the best explanation of these three facts.  There are four criteria that the professional historian should use to judge possible explanations of the facts:

  1. explanatory scope
  2. explanatory power
  3. plausibility
  4. less ad hoc

According to Licona, the explanation that Jesus actually rose from the dead meets all four criteria whereas all other explanations offered by skeptics fails to meet the above criteria (Licona spent a lot of time evaluating the idea that the disciples plus Paul hallucinated Jesus’ appearances).  Therefore, historians can “prove” that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Ehrman opened his case by making two key arguments.  First, he spent several minutes arguing that the four gospels are of poor historical value.  He showed this by claiming they were written late, they weren’t written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and death, and they are full of contradictions and discrepancies.

Second, he argued that it is impossible for historians to ever prove a miracle occurred.  Why?  Because the job of the historian is to find out what most probably happened in the past.  But, he argued, since a miracle, by definition, is always the least probable explanation of a historical group of facts, then a historian can never conclude that a miracle indeed occurred.  In other words, no matter what the evidence suggests, Ehrman claimed that a historian would always be wrong to accept a miracle as the explanation because miracles are the least possible explanation, and historians only deal with probability.

Interestingly, Ehrman did fully accept Licona’s three facts about Jesus as historically true.  He just didn’t accept the explanation of Jesus rising from the dead to explain those facts.  His favorite explanation seemed to be hallucinations, so the two debaters spent a lot time discussing hallucinations.

Next post, I will share my thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of each man’s arguments.