All posts by Bill Pratt

Cross, Jesus Christ

Did God Kill His Own Son?

23 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Often I hear non-Christians characterize the Christian God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross.  Jesus, they claim, was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the bizarre requirements of his sadistic father.  “I cannot,” they say, “worship a God that would kill his own son!”

The first few times I heard this complaint against God, my first reaction was disbelief at how twisted an interpretation of Christianity this was.  But then I thought, “How would I answer this charge against God?”

The answer is simple.  Jesus was not forced to die by his father.  He willingly laid down his life in the supreme act of sacrifice for mankind.  How do I know this?  Well, I read the Bible, unlike those that level this charge.

The Gospel of John provides the answer in John 10:11-18:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.  The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.  I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — just as the Father knows me and I know the Father — and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.  The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Sadistic God killing his son?  Not even close.  As the Good Shepherd, Jesus lays down his own life for his sheep.  A greater sacrifice has never been known.

Difficult Bible Passages

Can a Person Be Saved After He Dies?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are two difficult passages in 1 Peter  (3:19 and 4:6) that seem to indicate that this may be possible.  I have read a number of interpretations of these verses, but there seems to be no consensus.  However, almost every commentator I read agrees that these verses are not teaching that salvation after death is possible.  Below are some extended quotations from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s text on Bible difficulties:

With regard to 1 Pet. 3:19,

The Bible is clear that there is no second chance after death (cf. Heb. 9:27). The Book of Revelation records the Great White Throne Judgment in which those who are not found in the book of life are sent to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15). Luke informs us that, once a person dies, he goes either to heaven (Abraham’s bosom) or to hell and that there is a great gulf fixed “so that those who want to pass” from one to the other cannot (Luke 16:26). The whole urgency of responding to God in this life before we die gives further support to the fact that there is no hope beyond the grave (cf. John 3:36; 5:24).

There are other ways to understand this passage, without involving a second-chance at salvation after death. Some claim that it is not clear that the phrase “spirits in prison” even refers to human beings, arguing that nowhere else is such a phrase used of human beings in hell. They claim these spirits are fallen angels, since the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20; cf. Gen. 6:1–4). Peter may be referring to this in 2 Peter 2:4, where he mentions the angels sinning immediately before he refers to the Flood (v. 5). In response, it is argued that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30), and they certainly could not intermarry with human beings, since angels, being spirits, have no reproductive organs.

Another interpretation is that this refers to Christ’s announcement to departed spirits of the triumph of His resurrection, declaring to them the victory He had achieved by His death and resurrection, as pointed out in the previous verse (see 1 Peter 3:18). Some suggest that Jesus offered no hope of salvation to these “spirits in prison.” They point to the fact that the text does not say Christ evangelized them, but simply that He proclaimed the victory of His resurrection to them. They insist that there is nothing stated in this passage about preaching the Gospel to people in hell. In response to this view, others note that in the very next chapter Peter, apparently extending this subject, does say “the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (see comments on 1 Peter 4:6). This view fits the context here, is in accord with the teaching of other verses (cf. Eph. 4:8; Col. 2:15), and avoids the major problems of the other view.

With regard to 1 Pet. 4:6,

It should be noted, first, that there is no hope held out anywhere in Scripture for salvation after death. Death is final, and there are only two destinies—heaven and hell, between which there is a great gulf that no one can pass over (see comments on 1 Peter 3:19). So, whatever preaching to the “dead” may mean, it does not imply that one can be saved after he dies.

Second, this is an unclear passage, subject to many interpretations, and no doctrine should be based on an ambiguous passage like this. The difficult texts should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones and not the reverse.

Third, there are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of 1 Peter 3:19 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4 and Gen. 6:2). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (1 Peter 4:6), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. 1 Peter 3:18).

I would echo what Geisler and Howe say.  Difficult texts should be interpreted in light of plain texts.  As modern interpreters, we have lost the precise meaning of these two verses, so they are quite difficult to nail down.  Having said that, it would be a huge mistake to hold out hope for a second chance after death, based on these two verses.

Books of the Bible, Salvation

Does God Really Hate Esau?

97 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'”  Since when does the God of love hate people?  This verse, coupled with the rest of Romans 9, has led many to believe that God does not love all people, at least with regard to their eternal salvation.  He seems to arbitrarily choose some people for salvation and some people for damnation.  But must we interpret this verse in that way?

I think the answer is “no.”  A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history.  Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation.  According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals.  Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved.  Individual salvation has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality.  Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.”  Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

God does not hate anyone, but he does bless some nations more than others.

Morality

Christians and Obama

27 Comments

Many of my evangelical friends have fretted over how Obama received support from Christians in the recent election.  One of our blog readers, Kay, has mentioned her dismay about this many times and asked how we, as Christians, should respond.

Before I say just a few words about our response, I wanted to give you the facts about how religious groups voted in the previous election.  This chart comes from an article in  a March 2009 First Things magazine, written by John C. Green.

Election Chart

After a quick perusal of the chart, you can see which groups shifted support to the Democrat, Obama.  Evangelicals, as a whole did not support Obama, and there was no significant move from the 2004 election.  The two groups that registered significant changes from the 2004 election were conservative Catholics, who swung 17 points from 2004, and ethnic Protestants (primarily Hispanics) who swung 27 points from 2004.

Read the First Things article for some insight into these shifts, but conservative Catholics and Hispanic Protestants were the two major changes from the 2004 election.  They helped Obama win the election.

Now, how should we respond?  I believe we are to respect the office of the President and we are to love and pray for the President.  God has placed him in authority over our nation, and as Christians, we are to respect the authority of those placed over us.

However, where he promotes ideas that are clearly unbiblical, we are to oppose him.  The ultimate authority to whom we answer is God, and where Obama disagrees with God’s word in the Bible, we are to align with God, not Obama.  I fear that the many Christians who voted for the pro-abortion Obama will have some serious explaining to do when they face God.

Our disagreements with Obama must be carried out within the current legal system.  The only time Christians should actually break laws in civil disobedience is when the following four criteria are met:

  1. When the laws are clearly counter to God’s word
  2. When the laws command us to do evil
  3. When the laws negate freedom
  4. When the laws are religiously oppressive

When we engage in civil disobedience, we must refuse to obey the law in a nonviolent way and we must accept the consequences of our disobedience.

Now, not all Christians agree with this viewpoint on civil disobedience, but I think that the Bible supports this position.  If you have a differing viewpoint, let us know, and we can discuss.

Morality, Philosophy

Where Is European Morality Headed?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

We have discussed, on this blog, the idea that a person’s religious beliefs and worldview have a direct effect on their moral behavior.  Worldviews not only affect people, but entire nations.  In the March 2009 publication of First Things, Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote a brilliant article which examines the decline of European morality.  Here is a powerful excerpt:

Over time human rights, now almost universally accepted among Europeans, will themselves come to be seen as so many arbitrary constructions that may, on utilitarian grounds, be revoked—because there is nothing intrinsic about human beings such that they are not to be ill-treated or violated or even killed. Even now, many do not want to be bothered with the infirm elderly or damaged infants, so we devise so-called humane ways to kill them and pretend that somehow they chose (or would have chosen) to die. Elderly patients are being killed in the Netherlands without their consent. A new protocol for euthanizing newborns with disabilities is institutionalized in the Netherlands, and the doctor who authored the protocols, Eduard Verhagen, tells us how “beautiful” it is when the newborns are killed, for, at last, they are at peace.

The Australian utilitarian Peter Singer predicts confidently that the superstition that human life is sacred will be definitively put to rest by 2040. It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that by that moment “life unworthy of life” will routinely be destroyed—in the name of liberal humanitarianism and compassion, and even cost-effectiveness, rather than the triumph of a master race. It is a softer nihilism than the past’s, but it is nihilism all the same.

In an interview for a British magazine during the summer of 2005, Singer said that if he faced the quandary of saving from a raging fire either a mentally disabled child, an orphan child nobody wanted, or normal animals, he would save the animals. If the child had a mother who would be devastated by the child’s death, he would save the child, but unwanted orphans have no such value.

This is the entirely consistent result of the view that human life no longer possesses an innate dignity, that we are only meat walking around, and we can be turned easily into means to the ends of others, just as we may turn others into means to our ends. It is the old master-slave scenario come to life, even as we congratulate ourselves on our enlightenment.

Ideas matter, and Europe is headed down a depressing path.

Pantheism, Theology

Is the Natural World Part of God?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Sometimes Christians say things like, “When I see a beautiful flower, I see God.”  It is a common experience, when witnessing a thing of great beauty, to comment that it reminds one of God.  In fact, this sense of God’s presence is part of the blessing of being a Christian.

However, Christians need to be careful about what we mean when we wax eloquently about God and nature.  The Bible teaches that God created the world and is distinct from the world.  God is not identified with the world.

Pantheists (e.g., Hindus and New Age believers) believe that God and the world are actually one and the same.  God is the world.  The world is God.  The whole world is composed of God, so God is not distinct from the world.

Christians reject this idea of God being identified with the world, because we believe he transcends the world.  He is above, beyond, other than, and more than the world.  If God is identical to the world, then he cannot be infinite in being because he would be limited by space, time, and matter – the things that constitute the world.

Although we believe that God is intimately related to the world and present to all parts of the world equally, we reject the idea that God is the world.  This idea is completely foreign to Scripture.

Atheism, Religion

Does Religion Kill?

22 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There is no doubt that religious people throughout history have killed people, at least partly because of their religious beliefs.  Even Christians have been guilty.

But many prominent atheists accuse religion, and especially Christianity, of mass killings and argue that if the world could rid itself of religious belief and turn to atheism, we would create a true utopia.  If only we could escape the fairy tales of religion, society would vastly improve and the killing might stop, or at least greatly decrease.

But wait a second.  There have been atheist governments who believed in science and reason, and looked with scorn upon organized religion.  What was their track record?  Instead of guessing what the results might be, let’s look at history.  Following is a book excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson, that I found at Truthbomb Apologetics:

Religion the greatest danger to world peace? Think again

Contrary to what anti-religious zealots such as [Sam] Harris assert, throughout history far more lives have been snuffed out by faith-hating fanatics than by religious believers.

Historical demographers estimate that, in the 350 years between 1478 and 1834, the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the execution of between 2,000 (Encyclopedia Britannica) and 32,000 people (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.)

That works out to about ninety-seven people a year- a ghastly number, to be sure, but a far cry from the “millions” routinely cited by secular fundamentalists.

As for the “witch hunts,” another example Harris and others give as irrational religious fanaticism, the British historian Norman Davies estimates 50,000 people, primarily women, were executed as witches over a four-hundred year period-an average of about 125 a year.

Yet as horrible as these examples of religious intolerance may be, they pale in comparison with the single-minded, bloodthirsty, satanic fury unleashed upon the innocent by secular fundamentalists-those militantly atheistic regimes that sought to expunge religious belief and “bourgeois” morality represented intolerable obstacles to social progress.

According to research conducted by the political scientist Rudolph Rummel at the University of Hawaii, the officially atheist states of the Communist bloc committed more acts of genocide than any societies in governments in the twentieth century-communist, socialist, fascist-equals about 170 million.

  • USSR: 61 million people murdered 1917-1987
  • Communist China: 35,2 million people murdered 1949-present
  • Mao’s army: 3.4 million people murdered 1923-1949
  • Nazi Germany: 20 million people murdered 1932-1945
  • Communist Poland: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1948
  • Communist Cambodia: 2 million people murdered 1975-1979
  • Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1975
  • Communist Yugoslavia: 1 million people murdered 1944-1987
  • Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution: 1.4 million people murdered 1900-1920
  • Turkey:1.8 million people murdered 1900-1918
  • Pakistan: 1.5 million people murdered 1958-1987
  • Japan: 5.9 million people murdered 1936-1945

…Rummel’s conclusion is as shocking as it is inescapable: War wasn’t the most deadly evil to afflict humanity in the twentieth century. Government was! And not just any government, but atheist government.

As a result, ordinary people-whether religious or not-might be forgiven their general skepticism when today’s secular fundamentalists talk about the “intolerance” and “violence” of biblical religion or the people who believe in it.

In terms of raw numbers-which is the only kind of evidence that rationalists such as Harris claim to accept-the evidence is incontrovertible: Freed of any moral restraint, believing that the ends justify the means, scoffing at the notion that they will ever answer to a power higher than themselves, the murderous dictators of atheistic regimes feel little hesitation in committing mass murder if they believe it will advance their more “rational,” more “scientific” social aims.

Now, I don’t believe that an atheistic government is always going to cause this kind of bloodshed, but I think it is time to drop the argument that Christians, in the name of religion, commit mass murder, when the evidence squarely rests on the other side.

Theology

Why Should We Trust God?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are many passages in the Bible that speak to this issue, but I want to explain it in simple theological terms.

First, God is omnibenevolent (all-good).  That means that he desires our highest welfare.

Second, he is omniscient (all-knowing).  That means he knows everything that is possible to know.  He has all the information he needs about us – our past, present, and future.

Third, he is omnisapient (all-wise).  Wisdom refers to God’s unerring ability to choose the best means to accomplish the best ends in our lives.  He makes no mistakes.

Fourth, he is omnipotent (all-powerful).  He has the power to accomplish the best ends for your life by the best means for your life.

With these four attributes, you, as a believer, can completely trust in God.  He desires your best, he knows what you need, he knows the best way to accomplish it, and he has the power to make sure it happens!

Rest assured in God, because there is nobody else like him.

Jesus as God, Jesus Christ, Theology

Did Jesus Claim to be God? Part 7

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are at least six ways that Jesus claimed to be God.  The sixth way is that Jesus Claimed to Be God by Requesting Prayer in His Name. Again, I will draw heavily from Norman Geisler’s Volume 2 of his Systematic Theology series.

Nobody before Jesus, among Hebrew prophets, ever insisted that people pray in his name.  But that would all change when Jesus entered the scene in ancient Judea and Galilee.

Jesus not only asked people to believe in Him and obey His commandments, but He also asked them to pray in His name: “And I will do whatever you ask in my name.… You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:13–14). “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you” (John 15:7). Jesus even insisted, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The disciples responded by doing just what Jesus told them.

The disciples not only prayed in Jesus’ name (1 Cor. 5:4) but also prayed to Christ (Acts 7:59). Jesus certainly intended that His name be invoked both before God and as God in prayer.

This ends the series of evidences for Jesus claiming both directly and indirectly to be God.  We have yet to cover all of the words of his apostles about his deity.  That will follow in another series of posts.

But before going there, it is fitting to end this series with some words from C. S. Lewis about Jesus’ deity.

Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God.  He claims to forgive sins.  He says He has always existed.  He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.  Now let us get this clear.  Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it.  But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God.  God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who made it and was infinitely different from anything else.  And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

You either believe Jesus or you don’t, but please don’t think that you don’t have to make a choice about him.  If he really is God, then you owe him your very life.