In another hour, Darrell and I are off to see Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona debate the following topic: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From the Dead?
The debate starts at 7 PM tonight at Southern Evangelical Seminary. We’ll give you a rundown in the next couple of days.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Many Christians cringe in horror when they hear the word theology. They think of complex and boring doctrines that just don’t matter to the average Christian. After all, they think, I have the Bible and that’s all I need.
But what is theology? Theology, in its simplest meaning, is a rational discourse about God. Theology covers a broad range of topics: the Bible, creation, sin, salvation, end times, the church, and the attributes of God.
That last topic, the study of the attributes of God, is known as theology proper. But why bother studying theology?
There are several good reasons why we should study carefully the attributes of God. First, as A. W. Tozer once wrote, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” According to Tozer, “No people has ever risen above its religion.”
Second, “The mightiest thought the mind can entertain is the thought of God.” Since God is the ultimate being in existence, then our concept of Him will necessarily be the highest conception of anything we can conceive of. Sh0uldn’t we get this conception right?
Third, “There is scarcely an error in doctrine that cannot be traced back to false beliefs about God.” Every heretical offshoot of Christianity is characterized by incorrect conceptions of God. It always starts there.
Fourth, “Until a man sees a vision of God high and lifted up, he cannot understand the gospel.” Why is that? Because the gospel proclaims that Jesus had to die to reconcile us to God. The reasons Jesus had to die are God’s total moral perfection, holiness, and justice. If you do not understand these things about God, then the atoning death of Jesus makes no sense.
Fifth, we cannot recognize false gods until we know the true God. There are numerous religious groups out there claiming to be Christian or claiming to be compatible with Christianity. How can you tell which are and which are not? You must understand who the God of the Bible really is, and that is what theology teaches you.
Sixth, and finally, you will never find ultimate satisfaction in anything less than the Ultimate, who is God.
For all of these reasons, I commend the study of theology to you. If you truly want to know God, then what are you waiting for?
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Let’s define free will first. I define free will as the human ability to make contrary choices or decide between multiple options. Free will is the power of self-determination. It gives human beings the power to make real moral decisions.
Some Christians deny that humans have free will because they say it diminishes God’s sovereignty. If humans have the ability to choose, then God cannot be in control of human choices, they argue. But this is just not so.
God could have created humans with the power of free will, and also have known from the beginning of time exactly what humans would do with their free choices, because everything that humans will do pre-existed in the mind of God “before” it was actualized by God. God wrote us in as characters in a cosmic drama, but as characters who make real choices. We are not rocks or robots, but people with free will.
Since God is the cause of free will in humans, then he absolutely has complete control over it in the sense that nothing has happened or will ever happen without his knowledge and determination. God knowingly determines and determinedly knows every choice we will ever make. Does this take away free will?
No. Throughout church history, the majority view has been that God is sovereign over everything and that man is free. During the Reformation, some of the reformers took the position that man cannot be free because it necessarily follows that God is not sovereign, but as we’ve seen, that is not true. God is still in control, even with free creatures wandering around. Even today, most Christians still hold that man has free will.
How exactly does God have control over everything, but humans possess free will? Bottom line: we don’t know exactly how this works because we are dealing with a being, God, who exists outside of time and space. God’s interactions with humans will necessarily remain mysterious, but the Bible clearly teaches both the sovereignty of God and man’s free will. A sound Christian theology will retain both of these teachings.
We just passed a major milestone in our short blogging history: 10,000 hits!
Our readership has steadily grown since we started this blog four months ago, and for that we thank God. I know that many of you come back to the blog regularly – some daily, some weekly. Darrell and I have been truly awestruck by the wonderful response we’ve received from all of you.
We will continue to write blog posts that we wish others had written when we were searching for answers in our lives. We will continue to keep the posts short, and to the point. Our goal is to pass on important information in as few words as possible.
There are many other blogs and websites out there that deal with Christian topics, but we believe none of them focus like a laser beam on giving you answers to tough questions about the Christian faith in a compact and concise form so that you learn what you need to know quickly, without having to read lengthy posts or articles. There is, of course, a need for lengthy, detailed treatments of the issues we cover, but that is not what we do. We will leave that to others, many who do it extremely well.
What can you do for the blog? If you enjoy the blog, please keep coming back and commenting on blog posts. We love feedback, even from those who disagree (those who disagree really keep us on our toes!). Second, if you enjoy the blog, please tell people you know about the blog. Spread the word.
If you are interested in some other stats for the blog, here are a few:
Total number of posts: 113
Total number of comments: 642
Average daily hits: 37 (in Dec 2008), 75 (in Jan 2009), 96 (in Feb 2009), 150 (in Mar 2009)
God bless all of you and thanks again for your support!
Post Author: Bill Pratt
Young earth creation organizations have written many books and published numerous articles over the years presenting scientific evidence to prove that the earth is young (6,000 – 10,000 years old). Several years ago, when I read these books and articles, I found many of them to be convincing.
But, I wanted to hear both sides so I started reading opposing viewpoints from scientists who believe the earth is older (4.5 billion years old). Inevitably, these other organizations who believed in an old earth countered and refuted virtually all of the young earth arguments. Now, this wasn’t surprising, and you could always go back to the young earth side to find refutations of refutations, and so on.
Although I have a degree in electrical engineering, I am not an expert in radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, or any earth sciences. But what I found is that the virtual unanimous consensus of all branches of science that study the age of the earth and universe agreed that the earth is old. This included Christians and non-Christians.
I realize that truth is not determined by a vote, but to have so many different disciplines agree on the age of the earth is something to think about. But I still figured that maybe they were all wrong, until I heard something that surprised me.
If the scientific arguments of young earth creationists were truly persuasive, then they should have convinced at least some scientists, apart from the Bible, of their viewpoint. After all, scientists will eventually listen to presentations of strong evidence. But according to young earth creationists, no scientist, as far as they know, has ever been convinced of a young earth by scientific evidence alone.
According to Dr. John Ankerberg, who was a young earth creationist earlier in life:
When I was arguing for the young earth view in the early years of our television ministry, I remember when my friend Dr. John Morris, the President of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and one of the world’s largest young earth organizations, was being interviewed on KKLA radio in Los Angeles. He was asked, “Had he or any of his associates ever met or heard of a scientist who became persuaded that the universe or earth is only thousands of years old, based on scientific evidence without a reference to a particular interpretation of the Bible?” Morris’ answer was no, he had not.
Ankerberg continues:
Later, Duane Gish, also of ICR, was asked the same question. I was interested in his answer as I had invited Dr. Gish to be my guest in the very first debate I held on science and the Bible. I had arranged for him to debate Dr. Vincent Sarich, who was the Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley and an evolutionist. When Dr. Gish was asked if he knew of any scientist who had ever been persuaded by the scientific evidence that the universe or the earth was 6,000 years old, he also said no.
My conclusion from these statements is that the scientific evidence for a young earth is significantly weaker than that for an old earth and that the refutations of the young earth evidence by old earthers is probably more trustworthy.
It seems that unless you start with a 24-hour interpretation of the “days” in Genesis, an interpretation that is highly disputed among conservative evangelicals and other conservative Christians, you will not arrive at the young earth position by studying science alone.
The science just does not back up the young earth position, and until young earthers are able to convince scientists based on scientific arguments alone, their position will remain less convincing to me.
All one needs to do is study Peter Singer, the eminent ethics professor at Princeton University. He is one of the few who have actually taken atheism to some of its uncomfortable conclusions (I think Nietzsche also did this in the 19th century). Check out this post over at GeoChristian to find out what Singer believes. It’s quite eye-opening.
OK, Vermont, what gives? Last place? I don’t recall the characters on Newhart being anti-religious… Check out this poll for some interesting data.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
No, even though I often hear Christians talk as if it does. Many believe that if you interpret the “days” in Genesis to be long periods of time and you accept the current scientific consensus that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, then you are “siding” with evolution.
The ironic thing is that when scientific evidence started showing that the universe is only billions of years old and not infinite, some bemoaned the fact that there just wasn’t enough time for the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to work. They had been assuming a practically infinite amount of time. Billions of years was not a boon to evolution; it was a serious problem!
In fact, one of the greatest challenges for Darwinian evolution in the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion, where over 95% of known animal phyla suddenly appeared over a period of 5 to 10 million years. According to the fossil record, evolution had to work in an extremely short period of time for these animal phyla to appear, so the situation is even worse than billions of years – they have to deal with only millions of years!
Bottom line: whether it is thousands of years, millions of years, or billions of years, it doesn’t matter. The random process of Darwinian evolution needs far more time to manufacture the biological complexity and diversity we see on earth. Whether evolution is true or not has little to do with the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years.
When thinking about creation, learn to decouple evolution from the age of the earth. They are two completely separate issues that need not be considered together. It absolutely does not follow that a 4.5 billion year old earth or 13.8 billion year old universe lead inexorably to the truth of Darwinian evolution.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
In this series of posts, we are looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word yom as it is used in the first chapter of Genesis. Does yom refer to a 24-hour day or to a long period of time?
Today we will review two final arguments from young earth creationists who assert that the 24-hour “day” is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1. Again, we will use material from Norman Geisler’s systematic theology, volume 2.
First, young earth creationists accuse old earth creationists of actively supporting Darwinian evolution by interpreting long periods of time in Genesis.
It is well known that the theory of evolution (or common ancestry) depends on very long periods of time for life to develop from a one-celled animal to human beings. Without these long periods of time, evolution would not be possible. Thus, it is argued by young-earthers that granting long periods of time is an accommodation to evolution.
This is an important argument that persuades many Christians, so how would old earth creationists respond?
In response to this charge, it must be observed that allowing for long periods of time for the development of life came long before the idea of evolution. Augustine (354–430), for one, held to long periods of time for the development of life (CG, 11.6). Also, even in modern times, scientists had concluded that long periods of time were involved before Darwin wrote in 1859. Furthermore, long periods of time do not help evolution, since without intelligent intervention, more time does not produce the specified complexity involved in life. Natural laws randomize, not specify. For example, dropping red, white, and blue bags of confetti from a plane at 1,000 feet in the air will never produce an American flag on the ground. Giving it more time to fall by dropping it at 10,000 feet will diffuse it even more.
The truth is that old earth creationists challenge the ideas of Darwinian evolution just as much as young earth creationists. Neither group believes that evolution, alone, can explain how all of the diverse plant and animal species arrived on earth. Both sides believe that evolution can explain limited change within species, but above the species level the evidence thins out rapidly.
Here is one final argument for the 24-hour “day” view.
Mark 10:6 affirms that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. According to this text, “At the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” If God created humankind at the beginning of Creation, then they were not created at the end of millions of years, as the old-earth view contends.
The response is fairly straightforward:
First, Adam was not created at the beginning but at the end of the creation period (on the sixth day), no matter how long or short the days were.
Second, the Greek word for “create” (ktisis) can and sometimes does mean “institution” or “ordinance” (cf. 1 Peter 2:13). Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, it could mean “from the beginning of the institution of marriage.”
Third, and finally, even if Mark 10:6 is speaking of the original creation events, it does not mean there could not have been a long period of time involved in those creative events.
Thus concludes an introduction to some of the most popular young earth arguments and responses to them. In future posts, we will look at further lines of evidence from the old earth creation side. There is much more to be said about the old earth view, and considering that this view is rarely heard within the evangelical community, we should study them here.
Post Author: Bill Pratt
It is not to get what we want, but what God wants.
It is not to convince God to change his mind, but for him to change our minds.
It is not to have our will done in heaven, but for God to have his will done on earth.
Prayer is the means by which we praise God for who he is, ask him for forgiveness, and thank him for everything he’s given us.
We are to bring all of our concerns to him, but we know that what we want is not always best for us or for anyone else. That’s why Jesus said, “Not my will, but yours,” when he was praying to the Father.
As my wife likes to say, God is not a genie in a bottle. He doesn’t operate by our commands. He has a long-term plan for the earth and all its inhabitants.
When we pray, we’re not trying to change his plans. He is changing ours.