All posts by Bill Pratt

Islam, Top Ten Posts of 2010

Is the Qur’an Wrong about Jesus? – #9 Post of 2010

54 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

It may surprise some Christians that the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, speaks about Jesus.  In fact, the Qur’an speaks of Jesus as a great prophet of God and records some of the miracles that Jesus performed.

However, the Qur’an denies one important event in the life of Jesus, his crucifixion.  According to the Qur’an, Jesus was never crucified by the Romans.  He was taken straight to heaven without being executed.

Herein lies a couple of significant problems, it seems, for Islam.  First, virtually every professional historian who has studied the events of Jesus’ life agrees that he was killed by crucifixion.  This fact is just not debated by any reputable scholars, as far as I am aware.

Second, we have another problem, what Jesus scholar Mike Licona calls the “Islamic catch-22.”  You see, Jesus predicted that he would die a violent death, predicted it several times.  According to Licona, “We find this reported in Mark, which is the earliest Gospel, and it’s multiply attested in different literary forms, which is really strong evidence in the eyes of historians.”

So what?  How is that a problem for Muslims?  Licona explains:

If Jesus did not die a violent and imminent death, then that makes him a false prophet.  But the Qur’an says that he’s a great prophet, and so the Qur’an would be wrong and thus discredited.  On the other hand, if Jesus did die a violent and imminent death as he predicted, then he is indeed a great prophet – but this would contradict the Qur’an, which says he didn’t die on the cross.  So either way, the Qur’an is discredited.

If the Qur’an, which Muslims claim is perfect, contains an error as egregious as denying the crucifixion of Jesus, it simply cannot be trusted to be a reliable historical document.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Church History, Eschatology, Polls, Theology, Top Ten Posts of 2010

Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth? – #10 Post of 2010

53 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Book of Revelation, according to some Christians, teaches a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after his second coming (see Rev. 20).  This will then be followed by the creation of a new heaven and new earth. This view is known today as premillenialism.

But there are other Christians, in fact, the majority, who interpret the thousand years in Rev. 20 as a spiritual reign of the church which started at Christ’s first coming and ends at his second coming.  This view is known today as amillenialism.

The proponents of both of these views have an array of arguments to support their positions, but what was the view of the early church?

It seems that up until the third century, the early church was primarily premillenialist.  Writers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian all thought the second advent of Christ was imminent and that he would inaugurate his thousand-year reign on earth.

The tide, however, started to turn with the writings of Origen in the early third century, who adopted an allegorical method of interpreting Revelation.  Origen believed that the thousand years represented a spiritual reign of the church.  His disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria, continued the attack against premillenialism and turned the eastern church away from it.

In the western church, Augustine, in the late fourth century, began to teach amillenialism, siding with the Alexandrians in the east.  His views of eschatology (the end times) were detailed in his most famous work, The City of God.

From the time of Augustine until the Reformation in the sixteenth century (~1,100 years), amillenialism was the dominant view in the church.

The story obviously doesn’t end there, but you now have a brief introduction of what happened in the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity with respect to the millennium scribed in Rev. 20.

What about you?  Which view do you think is more likely correct?  Do you think there will be a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (i.e., premillenialism) or do you think the thousand years mentioned in Rev. 20 is a spiritual reign of the church which ends at Christ’s second coming (i.e., amillenialism)?

Essential Beliefs, Evangelism, Jesus Christ, Resurrection, Salvation

What Is the Gospel?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

You would think this question would be pretty easy to answer because the gospel message is something that Christians talk about all the time.  However, it is difficult to find the gospel explained in one place within the Bible.  There is, however, one passage where the gospel is defined, and that is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, specifically 1 Cor. 15:1-8.  Here it is:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Theologian Scot McKnight summarizes some key points from this text in the December issue of Christianity Today.  First, “this is the gospel handed on to Paul (v. 3), which suggests it was the gospel the earliest apostles preached.”

“Second, the gospel saves people from their sins (v. 2-3).”

“Third, the essence of the gospel is the story of Jesus (vv. 3-8) as the completion of Israel’s story (v. 3).  Both the word Christ (Messiah) and the phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ are central to how the apostles understood the word gospel.”

So what is the gospel?  According to McKnight, “Added together, it means this: The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus.  Or, to put it theologically, it’s about Christology. . . . ‘To gospel’ is to tell a story about Jesus as the Messiah, as the Lord, as the Son of God, as the Savior.”

Gary Habermas often summarizes these verses in this way: the gospel is the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

If you’ve overlooked these verses in the past, go back and study them.  After all, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the message we are to give the world.

Atheism, Morality, Philosophy, Theology

Is God the Source of Morality?

56 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Christians assert that God is the only source of morality.  Wanting to reject this assertion, atheists sometimes offer a counter-argument which claims to invalidate the Christian God as the source of morality.

The challenge is often referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma because it was first raised in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro.  The argument goes like this.  Either something is good because God commands it, or else God commands something because it is good.

Christians have problems with both options.  If you say something is good because God commands it, then right and wrong are arbitrary.  God could command tomorrow that murder, rape, and theft are right, and that love, kindness, and generosity are wrong.  That seems bizarre; it runs counter to all of our common moral intuitions.  It also conflicts with traditional and orthodox concepts of the Christian God.  If murder and rape can be declared good, then we have no idea what kind of God we are worshiping.

On the other hand, if God commands something because it is good, then goodness exists outside of God.  The ground for morality would then be independent of God –  a stand-alone entity.  God would be subservient to this source of morality, and therefore not God at all.  The Christian God is not subservient to anything outside himself.

What is the solution to this dilemma?  Christians have split this apparent dilemma by offering a third option: goodness is part of God’s nature.  God, according to Christians, is the good.  God commands the good because he is essentially good.  His nature does not change, so he cannot declare murder to be right tomorrow.  On the other hand, morality does not exist outside of him, but as part of him.  He is only subservient to himself, which is no subservience at all.

It turns out that no dilemma really exists once you understand the nature of God.  He truly is the source for all moral values and duties.

Christmas

What Was Jesus’ Birth Really Like?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt (re-posted from last year)

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III has written a brief  article that discusses the birth narrative as conveyed in Luke 2.  Witherington reminds us that the modern version of Jesus’ birth is not exactly faithful to the biblical account.  “Like works of art that have been lacquered with coat after coat of varnish, the original stories are hardly visible any more.”

Some the key differences are the following:

  1. “Today, it is difficult to conceive the Nativity without an ox and ass, for example, although neither Matthew nor Luke mentions animals. (Rather, St. Francis, the great medieval lover of animals, is credited with building the first manger scene complete with live animals.)”
  2. “The three wise men are also permanent fixtures in our image of the Nativity, although they don’t arrive, according to Matthew 2, until several days after the birth of Jesus (the epiphany to the shepherds does, however, take place the same day).”
  3. “It is not the case that Mary and Joseph were forced to stop somewhere beside the road because Mary suddenly went into labor. Rather, Luke 2:6 tells us that ‘while they were there,’ that is, in Bethlehem, ‘the time came for her to deliver her child.'”
  4. “Luke never suggests that this birth was in any way miraculous or unusual. (The miracle is said to have happened, rather, at Jesus’ conception.)”

One of the greatest differences has to do with the actual birthplace of Jesus.  Here an extended quote from Witherington is warranted:

Where did they stay in Bethlehem? Luke tells us that after the birth, Mary put the baby in a “manger,” or corncrib, because there was “no room for them at the kataluma” (Luke 2:7)—a Greek term he uses elsewhere to mean “guest room” (see Luke 22:11). When Luke wants to speak about an inn, he calls it pandocheion (see Luke 10:34). Thus, Luke says nothing about the Holy couple being cast out of an inn and Mary having to bear the child in a barn. Historically, it is far more likely that Mary and Joseph had their child in the humble back portion of the ancestral home where the most valued animals were fed and, in the winter, housed, because the guest room in the family home was already occupied. In any case, Bethlehem was such a small village, on a minor road, that it is not even clear it would have had a wayside inn. Admittedly, Jesus’ beginnings were humble—but we don’t need to mythologize them into some story about a baby being cast out by the world.

There are lots of other interesting historical tidbits in the article, so make sure you read the whole thing.

Morality

Would You Stop Paying Your Mortgage?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I was listening to the “This American Life” podcast today and heard something that intrigued me.  The podcast recounted the story of a few NPR reporters who bought a mortgage-backed security (MBS) earlier this year.  This particular MBS is a kind of bond that bundles some 2,000 mortgages together and pays the investor (the NPR reporters) interest from the proceeds of the mortgage payments made by the 2,000 mortgage holders.

Sounds like a good deal, right?  The only catch is that this MBS was actually a “toxic asset.”  That means that a large percentage of the 2,000 mortgage holders have stopped paying their mortgage payments, and therefore the investment is highly risky.  The NPR reporters paid $1,000 for the MBS, which was originally priced at $100,000 (a 99% discount due to the risk).  These are the kind of securities that helped cause the recent world financial collapse.

The NPR reporters knew this going in.  Their goal was to buy one of these MBS’s, do some detective work to figure out who some of the mortgage holders were, and then find out why they weren’t paying.

After some initial investigation, they were able to locate an 81-year old man in Florida who had stopped paying his mortgage and agreed to talk about it.  What happened?  Well, he bought a brand new condominium in Sarasota so that he could downsize from his current home.  He took out a $300,000 mortgage on this condo only to see it quickly drop in value.  It dropped in value so much that his $300,000 mortgage was more than the value of the condo.

What did he do?  He decided to stop paying his mortgage, thus defaulting on his loan and stiffing the bank who loaned him the money and the investors who bought the MBS which included his mortgage.  The NPR reporters asked him why he stopped paying.

He answered that it was a very painful decision for him, that it went against everything he was taught growing up.  But, he claimed, he had no choice.  One of the NPR reporters challenged him, telling him that he did have a choice, that he could have kept paying.  He didn’t have much of a response, only saying that it “didn’t make sense” to keep paying.  It’s important to note that he had enough money to keep paying, but that he chose not to.  The only consequence for him is a bad credit rating, but since he is 81 years old he probably won’t need to borrow money again, so this didn’t seem so bad.

What do you think of this elderly gentleman’s decision?  Was he wrong to stop paying?  It seems that millions of other people did the same thing in the last several years as housing prices fell, thus precipitating the financial crisis.  Please vote in the poll below and then leave some comments telling us what you think.

Church History, Difficult Bible Passages

Was the Early Church Communist?

9 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the most recent edition of the Christian Research Journal, Jay W. Richards addressed this topic.  The verses that have led some to make the claim that the early church was communist are Acts 4:32-35.  But is that the correct interpretation of these verses?  If so, is communism the ideal for the church?

Richards argues against this view, giving several reasons.  First, Richards notes that modern communism, based on the writings of Marx, is about class warfare and the evil of private property.  According to Richards, “There’s none of this class warfare stuff in the early church in Jerusalem, nor is private property treated as immoral.  These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously.”

Second, communism is associated with state control of resources, but the state is not involved in the early church.  “No Roman centurions are showing up with soldiers.  No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry.  No one is being coerced.”  Again, the early church was sharing their property voluntarily, with no state involvement at all.

Third, the communal life described in Acts 4:32-35 is never prescribed for all churches everywhere.  Richards explains, “What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still very small.  Remember this is the beginning of the church in Jerusalem.”  In addition, we know that other early churches had different arrangements.  Take, for example, the Thessalonians.  Paul addresses the situation in their local church when he warns them, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”  Paul’s words hardly exemplify the ideals of communism.

Richards concludes, “The take-home lesson should be clear: neither the book of Acts nor historical experience commends communism.  In fact, full-bodied communism is alien to the Christian worldview and had little to do with the arrangement of early Christians in Jerusalem.”

To read the complete article, you need to be a subscriber to the Christian Research Journal, which happens to be one of my favorite magazines.  If you are interested at all in Christian apologetics, it is a must-read.

Religion

Is There a Pagan in the Next Cubicle?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A friend of mine recently forwarded me excerpts of an email sent around by his company’s HR department on Paganism.  The email article was entitled “The Pagan in the next cubicle (or office, or lab).”  This is a major US company with thousands of employees.  Here is what he sent me:

A Pagan employee will hold ethics emphasizing personal freedom and responsibility.

Pagan ethics allow personal freedom within a framework of personal responsibility. The primary basis for Pagan ethics is the understanding that everything is interconnected, that nothing exists alone and that every action has a consequence.

No concept of forgiveness of sin exists in the Pagan ethical system; the consequences of one’s actions must be faced. No arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.

A Pagan employee will hold a paradigm that embraces plurality.

Because Pagan religious systems hold that theirs is a way among many, not the only road to truth, and because Pagans revere a variety of deities among their pantheons, both male and female, a Pagan employee will believe that each person is free to choose his or her own destiny, and will not believe in evangelizing or proselytizing.

One advantage of this is that a Pagan employee will thrive in a pluralistic environment, eager to support an atmosphere that discourages discrimination based on differences such as race or gender and encourages individuality, self-discovery and independent thought.

A Pagan employee is also likely to have knowledge of other religions; most Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own. Because Neo-Paganism’s mainstream popularity is less than 50 years old, few Pagans were born in the faith, but those who are were likely taught about many religions as well.

Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child but rather teaching them and letting the child decide when he is of age. Despite its sometimes-misunderstood beliefs, Paganism is believed to be the fastest-growing religion today.

What can be said about this?  First of all, estimates are that about 300,000 people are practicing Neo-Pagans in the US (latest study done in 2001).  That equates to roughly 0.1% of the population, so I’m wondering why this warrants a company-wide email.  You have a better chance of meeting a space alien than a practicing Pagan.

Second, there seems to be an anti-traditional religion undercurrent in the email, based on the contrasts that are being made.  The writer approvingly notes that “Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child” and that “Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own.”

The message seems to be that teaching a child the religious traditions of his family is a bad thing, that more enlightened Pagan parents don’t do this.  Several things could be said here.  It’s highly dubious that Pagan parents aren’t teaching their children about Paganism.  At the very least, the children can see the parents practicing their religion, which is very influential in and of itself.  Secondly, if Pagan parents believe that their conceptions of reality are correct, then they would be doing a grave disservice to their children by not teaching them.  Do they want their kids to fail?  If the Pagan parent answers that they don’t have any truths about reality as embodied in their religion, that it’s all about subjective experience, then they aren’t practicing a religion after all – religions make truth claims about reality.

Third, the email commented that “no arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.”  Arbitrary rules?  Is that what the writer thinks of the moral codes of traditional religions, that they are arbitrary?  To a person who wants total personal autonomy with no restrictions, moral laws may seem arbitrary, but to the person who actually wants to live in a just society, traditional moral rules are anything but arbitrary.  The fact that most people live by traditional moral values is the only thing that allows “we don’t have arbitrary moral rules” individuals to have their personal autonomy.  They can live as parasites as the rest of society does all of the heavy lifting.

Fourth, the comment about Pagans being especially able to foster a pluralistic work environment is mystifying.  It is Christianity that has allowed pluralism in many forms to flourish in the US.  Most Christians understand that even though we wish to share our beliefs with others, they are free to reject our proselytization.  We believe that God has endowed each human with free will, the ability to love God or reject Him.  It does not, therefore, follow that non-evangelizing religious groups are more accepting of diversity in the workplace than evangelizing religious groups.

An interesting question arises, though.  If Neo-Pagans are not telling their children about their beliefs, and they are not telling other adults about their beliefs (evangelizing), then how does anyone become a Neo-Pagan?  They must be telling somebody if their numbers are growing, right?  Am I missing something?

Finally, can you imagine an email like this going out about Christianity?  No, I can’t either.  After all, Christians teach their children their beliefs, they proselytize, and they believe in actual moral rules.  Clearly there is nothing to learn from them.

Evolution, Human Nature

G. K. Chesterton: Monkeys, Dogs, and Horses Don’t Draw Pictures

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the opening pages of G. K. Chesterton’s classic The Everlasting Man , he explores the implications of prehistoric cave paintings discovered by modern-day humans.  What do these paintings tell us about primitive man?  Is he merely an advanced ape (as in the evolutionary account) or is there a real difference in kind between man and the rest of the animal kingdom?  Below is an excerpt:

But I have begun this story in the cave, like the cave of the speculations of Plato, because it is a sort of model of the mistake of merely evolutionary introductions and prefaces.  It is useless to begin by saying that everything was slow and smooth and a mere matter of development and degree.  For in the plain matter like the [cave paintings] there is in fact not a trace of any such development or degree.

Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well.  The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits; the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race horse a Post-Impressionist.

All we can say of this notion of reproducing things in shadow or representative shape is that it exists nowhere in nature except in man; and that we cannot even talk about it without treating man as something separate from nature.  In other words every sane sort of history must begin with man as man, a thing standing absolute and alone.

Chesterton published this book in 1925 in order to counter the influence of men like H. G. Wells who were increasingly characterizing man as merely different in degree from the rest of the animal kingdom.  This battle is still raging today, 85 years later.