All posts by Bill Pratt

Marriage

How Do I Stay Married?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

This topic is a bit off the main theme of this blog, but this is an extremely important topic that all Christians must deal with.

My wife and I have been married 18 years, which isn’t any kind of world record, but is somewhat impressive, given the ongoing high divorce rate in the US.  We are sometimes asked (mostly my wife) how we have kept our marriage together, and we always tell people about the same thing.  I thought I would humbly submit this advice to our blog readers.

First of all, passionate romantic feelings are not the answer.  We do have feelings for each other, but they are constantly changing, and we do not count on them to keep our marriage going.  They are too fickle.

Marriage requires that two people have a common will to be committed to each other forever, and it requires that both partners understand each other, really understand each other in a deep way.

The first requirement is the most important.  If you are not 100% committed to each other, your marriage will struggle, and possibly fail.  Most people think they are committed to their spouse, but they are really only committed as long as their spouse makes them happy (provides them pleasure).  We submit that this is nothing but selfishness, and it will not make your marriage last.  Why?  Because what makes you happy is going to constantly change throughout your life.  No spouse, on their own, can possibly keep you happy your entire life.  If you think they can, you are truly foolish.

If the answer to commitment doesn’t lie in your spouse, where does it lie?  For us, it comes from a focus on God.  We are totally committed to God, and we know he loves marriage and hates divorce.  The closer we each get to God, the closer we get to each other.  Without God being at the center of our marriage, it is doubtful we would have stayed married for 18 years.  If you and your spouse don’t have God at the center of your lives, make it so.  You must start there.

The second requirement is knowing your spouse in a profound way.  My wife and I struggled with this in the early years of our marriage.  We really did not know each other, and we really did not know ourselves.  Men often assume that their wives should just intuitively know what they need from a marriage, and women often assume that their husbands should just intuitively know what they need from the marriage.  Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way.  I had no idea what my wife wanted and she didn’t know what I wanted.  That spells disaster if it isn’t corrected.

Here is where books can help.  Below are three books that can really help you understand yourself and your spouse – what you need from the marriage.  We cannot recommend these books enough.  Even years after reading these books, we refer back to them all the time.  They made that big of an impact on our marriage.

  1. His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage
  2. The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts
  3. Men Are Like Waffles–Women Are Like Spaghetti: Understanding and Delighting in Your Differences

If you are united in your love for God, and if you make every effort to understand and then meet your spouse’s needs, you will be on the road to a successful marriage – at least that’s been our experience.  I hope it’s yours as well.

Atheism, Religion

No Surprise: Brit Teens Don't Like God

15 Comments

Roger Morris, on the Faith Interface blog, analyzes a recent study that finds British teens taking a decidedly negative view of religion.  The reason I say it’s no surprise is that I have interacted with many British adults during my career in the semiconductor industry, and the majority are apathetic or hostile toward religion.  They have clearly passed this on to their children, whom they have set adrift on a sea of moral relativism.

Check out the study and Roger’s analysis.  It’s depressing, but well worth reading.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering, Theology

Is God’s Power Limited?

29 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

The classical Judeo-Christian belief has always been that God is all-powerful, or omnipotent.  He can do whatever is actually possible to do, but not what is actually impossible to do.  We previously covered this topic in “Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can’t Lift It?”

But there are some who deny that God is all-powerful because of the problem of evil.  An all-powerful God, they say, could defeat evil, but there is still evil in the world.  Therefore, God cannot be all-powerful.

This is exactly the view that Rabbi Harold Kushner took in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.  Kushner’s son died of a horrible disease at the age of 14, and Kushner decided that even though God loved his son and wanted him to live, God could do nothing to stop the onslaught of the disease.  God is handcuffed by the laws of nature.

In essence, Kushner believed that God was either limited in power or not infinitely loving.  Kushner could not stand to worship a God who was not infinitely loving (a God who didn’t care about his son’s suffering and death), but he could stand a God who wanted goodness to reign on earth, but could not make it happen.

Contrary to what Kushner believes, there is another option.  God could be all-loving and all-powerful.  In fact, Christians believe that if God is not all-powerful, then his love is impotent.  Why should we worship a God that wills goodness but can do nothing about making sure that goodness will be victorious?  The God Kushner worships cannot guarantee that evil will ever be defeated and that good will prevail.

The true God is allowing evil for a time, but promises that in the future, all accounts will be settled.  Evil will be defeated and the suffering that humans endure in this earthly life will seem trivial.  Those that love God will spend their afterlife with him, and those who reject God will spend their afterlife away from him.

Rabbi Kushner’s dilemma is resolved by the future promises of God.  This is the blessed hope that all Christians have.

Note: If you would like to see Rabbi Kushner debate the issue of God’s omnipotence, in light of the problem of evil, with Norman Geisler, please order the DVD’s from The John Ankerberg Show.  It is a fascinating discussion.

Difficult Bible Passages

Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:2?

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

The most popular view, among evangelicals, is that the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6:2 are angels who seduce human women, the “daughters of men.”  This view, however, is highly problematic because Matthew 22:30 informs us that angels do not marry.

So who are the “sons of God?”  According to both Tom Howe and R. C. Sproul, two biblical scholars that I have great respect for, the “sons of God” are the very human descendants of Seth, who was the son that God gave Adam and Eve to replace Abel .  The “daughters of men” are the descendants of Cain, who was cursed by God for the murder of Abel.

Why do Howe and Sproul think this?  The preceding passages in chapter 4  focus on the two lines of Cain and Seth.  Cain’s descendants are wicked (note how Cain’s line ends with Lamech, who sings a song about murdering a man).  His female descendants are the “daughters of men.”  Seth’s son is Enosh,  and after he was born, “men began to call on the name of the Lord.”  Seth’s male descendants are the “sons of God,” the only hope for mankind to halt the slide into utter depravity.

So Gen. 6:2 is referring to the male descendants of Seth marrying the female descendants of Cain, marriage that would yield a harvest of greater and greater sin.  This is a continuing theme in the Old Testament where the people of Israel are warned not to marry pagans because of the religious syncretism that would surely occur.

The results of the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men” was disastrous for the human race, as humankind became so evil that God elected to bring a flood that would kill everyone except Noah and his family.

Atheism, General Apologetics, Miracles, Religion

If Only I Could See a Miracle, I Would Believe

22 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

If you are a person who says this about Christianity, excuse me for being skeptical.

God performed miracles through Moses, and yet Pharaoh did not believe.

God performed miracles through Elijah, and yet Jezebel did not believe.

Jesus performed numerous miracles that confirmed his power over sickness, weather, and even death.  Ultimately he rose from the dead.  Yet still some who saw these miracles did not believe.

God has provided plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and rose from the dead.  If you are a person who has heard the gospel message and understood it, but you continue to demand more evidence in the form of miracles, ask yourself if there isn’t another problem.

Is it possible that you just don’t want to believe?  Is it possible that no matter how much evidence you are shown, that no matter how many times God reveals himself to you, that you just will not believe?

If that is the case, search your own heart and figure out why you don’t want to believe.  Where is this barrier of belief coming from?  We can answer your questions about Christianity, but until you deal with your will, our answers will remain unpersuasive.

Islam

Is the God of Christianity the Same as the God of Islam?

37 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Imagine the following scenario: two people claim to know the same professional football player.  The football player’s name is Alex and he plays in the NFL.  The first person who knows Alex the football player describes him this way:

He is 6′ 6″ tall, he weighs 305 lbs., he plays left tackle, he is married, and he plays for the Carolina Panthers.

Now the second person describes Alex the football player:

He is 6′ 2″ tall, he weighs 256 lbs., he plays middle linebacker, he is single, and he plays for the Atlanta Falcons.

When when we started out, we were pretty confident that these two people were talking about the same Alex the football player.  Once we asked for more details, though, we quickly discovered that they are not the same person at all, but two different people.  We just needed a little more information about Alex from each person.

This is the same situation with the God of Islam and the God of Christianity.  Both are claimed to be the God of Abraham and both are monotheistic creator-God’s.  If we stop there, we might conclude that they must be the same God.

Unfortunately, there is a slight problem.  Christians believe that God is three persons in one nature, a Trinity.  The three persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Muslims flatly reject the Trinity.  There is only one person who is God, not three.

Second, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man – he is fully God and fully man.  Muslims completely reject this idea of Jesus as God-man.  They view Jesus as a mere human prophet who is less important than the final prophet, Muhammad.

There are more differences in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, but we need go no further.  Just based on the differences highlighted above, we are 100% sure that these two Gods are not the same.

One final note.  We must admit that there are some similarities in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity, and when Christians speak to Muslims about God, we can use these similarities as launching pads to share our faith.  However, just because there are some similarities, we must not fall into the trap of papering over the very real and very significant differences.  Closing our eyes to the key beliefs of these two religions doesn’t get us anywhere.

Difficult Bible Passages

What Does The Parable of the Minas Mean?

59 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Jesus frequently used parables to teach his disciples important concepts about the kingdom of God.  We, as Christians 2,000 years removed, often have difficulty interpreting the meaning of these parables.  Fortunately, with some effort we can recover the major thrusts.

The Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27) is spoken by Jesus just before he enters Jerusalem for the last time.  There are five major characters.  The characters are: (1) the man of noble birth, (2) the subjects who hated him, (3) the servant who earned ten minas, (4) the servant who earned five minas, and (5) the servant who earned nothing.

Each of these plays an important role.  The man of noble birth is clearly meant to be Jesus, himself.  He is to receive a kingdom and then return.  The subjects who hated the man of noble birth represent the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and especially the religious leaders.  The servant who earns ten minas and the servant who earns five minas both represent exemplary disciples of Jesus.  The servant who earns nothing represents an unfruitful disciple of Jesus.

With the characters identified, we can piece together the meaning of the narrative.

A man of noble birth (Jesus) prepares to travel to a distant country and receive his kingdom (the kingdom of God).  Before he leaves, he gives a single mina (responsibilities, abilities, opportunities, gospel message) to each of his servants (disciples) and instructs them to put the money to work (be fruitful with what Jesus has given them).  A delegation of subjects who hate the man of noble birth (unbelieving Jews) protest his reception of the kingdom.

Upon the man’s return (Jesus’ second coming at the consummation of the kingdom of God) he finds two servants (disciples) who invested (used their God-given abilities and opportunities) wisely.  To these, he gives cities (heavenly rewards).  The servant (disciple) who does not invest the mina (use the abilities or fulfill the responsibilities Jesus gave him) is reprimanded and has his mina taken from him and given to the servant (disciple) who earned ten minas.  Finally, the subjects (unbelieving Jews) who hated the man of noble birth (Jesus) are executed (judged) for their rejection of the king (Jesus).

There seem to be at least five major points that the parable communicates.  First, Jesus will leave his disciples for an undetermined amount of time.  Second, Jesus will return to consummate his kingdom some time in the future.  Third, disciples of Jesus who are good stewards in his absence will receive incredible rewards from him upon his return.  Fourth, disciples of Jesus who are poor stewards in his absence will have their rewards taken away and given to the disciples who are good stewards.  Fifth, those who reject Jesus as the rightful king will face a terrible judgment upon his return.

That’s my take on it, after studying it for a couple weeks and reading some good commentaries.  Anybody see something different?  What are some applications that we can take from this parable?

Abortion

Why Was the Killing of George Tiller Wrong?

9 Comments

Recently, late-term abortionist George Tiller was gunned down by an abortion opponent.  Truth be told, many in the pro-life community have a hard time feeling sorry for a man who ended so many thousands of innocent lives, but still we know that his murder was morally wrong.

A crucial question is this:  If Dr. Tiller was really a mass murderer of innocent children, then why is it morally wrong to kill him?  After all, it seems reasonable to protect an innocent child from a killer and that’s what pro-lifers call abortion – the murder of an innocent child.

I think there are several answers to this question, but I want to quote from a Stand to Reason article on this subject:

It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists. What follows is this: He would work to end the wholesale killing as expediently as possible. It doesn’t follow he would kill abortionists. It follows that he would do whatever he can to stop the killing as quickly as possible. Now, that may or may not entail the shooting of individual abortionists. The answer to that question would depend on other considerations.

What are those considerations?

Well, anyone familiar with military tactics knows how such a thing can be the case. . . . Imagine for just a minute commandos in the Second World War impersonating Nazi officers, dropped behind Nazi lines to infiltrate concentration camps. Their mission? Destroy the gas chambers. Now mingling incognito with the rest of the camp cadre, they have many opportunities to kill other soldiers, even officers. Even the Commandant. But do you kill the individual executioner or do you go after the gas chamber? In this case, it seems that killing the individual would be wrong even though he was truly murderous, because it would keep the commandos from fulfilling their larger mission. And their failure would mean more lives lost in the long run. The short term gain would be no victory because the machinery of destruction would still be in place. Do you see that?

So what is the machinery of abortion that pro-lifers should be going after?

What this illustration shows is that there is no necessary contradiction in the view that abortion is a holocaust, yet the killing of individual abortionists is properly condemned. In fact, it is precisely because we hold to the innocent humanity of the unborn that we insist on an approach to this solution that is directed at the machinery of the killing–the laws, the economics and the deep human need that makes the alternative appealing. That’s our focus.

I would add that individual Christians should not be using using illegal, lethal force when any other means are available to stop an immoral act.  Since abortion is legal in this country, then every George Tiller that is killed will just be replaced by someone else.  It is the laws of the land and court of public opinion that need our attention.  Killing abortion doctors will never, in the long run, prevent abortion.

Creation

Was There Death Before Adam?

17 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

One of the most popular arguments from young earth creationists (YEC’s) that the “days” of Genesis must be 24-hour days is that if the “days” represent long periods of time (millions or billions of years), then there must have been animal death before the Fall of Adam and Eve.  According to YEC’s, there could not have been any death before the Fall.  Because of this, they argue that old earth creationists (OEC’s), who believe the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, must be incorrect.  An old earth would necessitate animal death before Adam and Eve’s Fall.

For many years, I heard this argument and just assumed that there must be some passages in the Bible that plainly state that there was a complete absence of death before the Fall.  I never bothered to look for myself.  Then, a couple years ago, I decided to actually look up the verses that are cited to show that there was no death before the Fall.  The two most common are Rom. 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:20-22.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12)

“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:20-22)

Now, if you just read these two passages without ever having been told what they mean, it seems to me that they are clearly speaking of human death, not death of animals.  In fact, if you read these verses in context with the surrounding verses, you can easily see that the text is speaking of human sin and human death.  I cannot imagine how someone can interpret these verses to be talking about general animal death.  Animals cannot sin and animals are not redeemed by Christ, but that is exactly what these passages are referring to.  If you don’t believe me, go read the passages in context.  See for yourself.

If YEC’s want to prove that there was no animal death (OEC’s agree there was no human death) before the Fall, then they need to point to some other passages in Scripture.  Rom. 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:20-22 just do not make their case at all.

Atheism

Amusing Take On the "New Atheists"

22 Comments

I read this over on GeoChristian’s Blog.  It doesn’t advance the argument for Christianity at all, but I think it does give the reader some insight into the minds of the crop of new atheist writers who have been attacking Christianity for the last few years.

Rev. Cwirla, in his review of the Charlotte Allen article on atheism that I linked to in my previous post, summarizes the new atheist (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Myers, et al.) arguments as follows:

1.  The existence of God can’t be proven scientifically, therefore there is no God.

2.  Religious people do bad things, therefore there is no God.

3.  No one has yet to convince me there is a God, therefore there is no God.

4.  The world sucks, therefore there is no God.

5.  Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist, therefore there is no God.

Pretty good summary of the shallowness of modern atheism.