Category Archives: Theology

Philosophy, Theology

Can Words Describe God? Part 1

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently some of my skeptical friends who frequently comment on the blog raised a very important issue: how do we use language when talking about God?  Is God so transcendent that our words communicate nothing about him?  Is the Christian God so “other” that words completely fail us?

There seem to be three options about God-talk.

First, that it is equivocal (totally different from the way God really is).  According to theologian Norman Geisler in his Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, “Equivocal God-talk leaves us in total ignorance about God. At best, one can only feel, intuit, or sense God in some experiential way, but no human expressions can describe what it is that is being experienced.”

This option has several problems.  Geisler clarifies, “First, it is self-defeating, since it affirms with human language about God that we cannot affirm anything about God. Religious mystics certainly write books about God. In brief, any attempt to express the equivocal view about God implies that some non-equivocal language about God is possible.”  Total agnosticism about God, in other words, is self-defeating, as soon as the agnostic says anything about God.

“Second, the Bible declares that God can be described in human language. Indeed, Scripture as a whole is an attempt to inform us about God and to evoke a response from us.”  Equivocal God-talk is totally contradicted by Scripture, where the writers clearly believed they were communicating truths about God.

“Third, there is a continual and consistent tradition in orthodox theology from the earliest centuries to the present that assumes human language can express truth about the transcendent God. This is manifest in the great confessions, creeds, and councils of the Christian church, to say nothing of all the theological treatises of the great Fathers of the church from the second century to the present.”  The history of the church demonstrates that even the earliest believers thought they could use language to talk about God.

For these reasons, equivocal God-talk must be rejected.

The second option for God-talk is that it is univocal (totally the same as God really is).  This view claims that the words we use can be applied directly to God, in the same exact way we would apply those words to finite creatures, such as human beings.

This option also has problems.  Geisler explains, “First, how can our understanding of God be entirely the same as God’s (i.e., univocal)? Our understanding and expressions are finite, and God’s are infinite, and there is an infinite gulf between finite and infinite. As transcendent, God is not only beyond our limited understanding, but He is also beyond our finite expressions.”  Because God’s nature is understood to be infinite in being, we cannot use finite language to capture exactly who God is.

“Second, the Bible makes it clear that God is far above our thoughts and words. As the prophet Isaiah aptly put it, “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ ” declares the LORD. “’As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’ ” (Isa. 55:8–9). For a mortal human being to know as God knows, he would have to be God, since only God knows infinitely.”

For these reasons, univocal God-talk must be rejected.

That brings us to the third option, that God-talk is analogous (similar to the way God really is).  This seems to be the only alternative if we are to avoid self-defeating skepticism (equivocal God-talk) on the one hand, and avoid lowering God to the level of finite beings (univocal God-talk) on the other hand.

In the next post, we will discuss in more detail what analogous God-talk is and how Christians use this kind of language to speak about God.

Church History, Essential Beliefs, Jesus as God, Theology, Trinity

What Were They Arguing About at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325?

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In A.D. 325, an ecumenical council of Christian bishops gathered to discuss a theological issue that was tearing apart the unity of the church. A common misconception about this council was that the argument was over whether Jesus was God or man. In fact, this idea has become so popular that one of my skeptical friends, who usually knows his stuff, made this mistake recently in a discussion we were having.

He said, in effect, that the church was arguing about whether Jesus was a man or God all the way up to and including the Council of Nicaea. This view, however, is completely false.

The two major positions presented at the council were proposed by Arius and Athanasius. Arius believed that Jesus was created by God the Father in eternity, but that he did not share eternality with the Father. Athanasius believed that Jesus and the Father both existed from eternity, that one never existed without the other.

Please note that the issue was not about whether Jesus was merely a man or God, but what kind of God Jesus was. Both parties agreed he was divine, that he was much more than a mere man, but they disagreed about how he was divine.

The council sided with Athanasius against Arius, declaring that Jesus always existed along with the Father. The debate about Arianism, however, did not subside until the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 provided further clarification of the terms used at Nicaea and united the church around its understanding of the nature of Christ.

Jesus as God, Jesus Christ, Theology

If Jesus Is God, Why Did He Get Tired?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If Jesus is God, and God is uncaused, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal (and lots of other things), then don’t we have a problem with Jesus being a real man who lived in 1st century Palestine?  After all, Jesus grew tired, but God doesn’t get tired; Jesus sometimes didn’t know things, but God knows everything; Jesus died, but God can’t die; Jesus has a human body, but God doesn’t have a body.  I think you get the point.  How does the Christian church deal with this problem?

Well, before we get to the Christian church, one approach that has been taken by some religious groups over the last two millennia is just to give up on the idea that Jesus is God.  If he is less than God, then all these questions go away.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are two groups that took this approach, but they are just the latest in a long line.  The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the Bible’s clear teaching that Jesus is God (see the series of posts on how we know Jesus is God).  So this approach fails to take seriously the biblical data.

The approach that the Christian church has taken is to accept the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus is both God and man.  In the early church, there was a couple centuries of debate about how this works, until the Council of Chalcedon came together in AD 451 to settle the issue.  Here is the creed that resulted from the Council:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

What does all that mean?  It means, among other things, that Jesus is one person composed of two natures: human and divine.  The creed repeats the words Godhead and Manhood several times to hammer the point home.  So, whenever we ask any question about Jesus, we have to specify whether we are asking about his divine nature or his human nature.  In his divine nature, he is omniscient, eternal, and uncaused.  In his human nature, he was tired, he needed food, he didn’t know everything, and he even died.  Two natures, two sets of questions about Jesus.

The church never went so far as to try and explain how exactly Jesus’ two natures interacted; they set boundaries around what was acceptable, based on Scripture, and captured it in the above creed.  Many theologians have attempted to go further with this doctrine and explain in more detail how this is possible, but these details, to my knowledge, have never been formally adopted into creeds of the church.

Abortion, Faith and Works, Morality, Sin, Theology

Are All Sins Equal? Part 2

9 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

So we’ve seen that the Bible does teach that some sins are more serious than others and that some virtues are greater than others.  There is a moral law hierarchy.  But what does this practically mean?

First, let’s look at debates over public policy.  When determining where to focus your efforts on a particular law, you must consider its seriousness.  A great example is abortion.  Many Christians focus on the abortion issue because it is such a serious moral failure in our country.  Abortion kills over a million lives every year.  Taking innocent human life is pretty high up the moral law measuring stick.

Some people ask why Christians aren’t more outspoken about global warming.  My answer to that question is, “The death of millions of innocent babies today is far more serious a moral issue than the possible rise in temperature of the earth over the next 100 years.”  The consequences of global warming are surely speculative and uncertain, as any future prediction of ultra-complex climate activity must be, whereas we have a definite problem, abortion, staring us in the face today.

We have to make these kinds of decisions all the time.  What are the most serious moral issues of the day for our nation?  If we just say that all moral issues are equal, we are unable to focus our efforts on what matters more.

Second, what about the Christian life in particular?  In this life, the worse we sin, the more out of touch with God we are.  As my wife likes to say, “God keeps us from sin, and sin keeps us from God.”  If you, as a Christian, are engaging in adultery, then clearly this sin will have greater effect on your walk with God than if you once neglect to call your mother to wish her “Happy Birthday.”

Paul taught that a particular kind of sexual immorality (a man having sexual relations with his father’s wife)  should cause the expulsion of the man committing this sin (1 Cor. 5), but he didn’t write a letter demanding expulsion for someone scrawling graffiti in the streets of Corinth.  Graffiti may be a sin, but it is less serious than sleeping with your father’s wife.  Different sins demand different punishments.

There are also rewards in heaven for the Christian, based on her moral behavior in this life.  In 1 Cor. 3 Paul teaches that the good works we bring to God after we die determine our rewards in heaven.  Some of our works will be so worthless that they will be “burned up.”  Those works of high quality will survive the flames.  The kinds of moral actions we pursue in this life matter for eternity.  The Bible seems to teach that the quality of our good works on earth will determine our ability to enjoy heaven.  Again, our sins and our virtues matter for eternity.

So, how can we summarize?  All sins are equal in that they condemn us before a perfect God.  This is an important point to make when we are evangelizing the lost.  But all sins are not equal when it comes to public legislation, temporal punishment and praise, sanctification (our walk with God where we become more like Christ), and eternal rewards.  When we talk about sin, let’s make sure we consider the situation and apply the correct teaching.

Morality, Sin, Theology

Are All Sins Equal? Part 1

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In a sense, yes, but in another sense, no.  Evangelicals often point out that all sins will send you to hell, that God demands moral perfection, so whether you steal a stick of chewing gum or murder your spouse, both sins will equally damn you.  This is really just a way of explaining that all mankind sins, and thus all mankind is in need of a savior from that sin.  It is, in other words, an evangelistic appeal more than anything else.

But when we talk about sin, we’re not always evangelizing.  Sometimes we’re admonishing Christians who are already saved, and other times we’re debating public morality in the context of legislation.  In these cases, stating that all sins are the same is hardly helpful.

Leaving the issue of evangelization aside, we all intuitively know that some sins are worse than others.  Look at our legal system.  The punishment for stealing a stick of gum is quite different from the punishment for killing your spouse.  There is a wide range of punishments, from a $100 fine to the death penalty, all depending on how serious your crime is.

When we punish our children, the same rule applies.  Little Johnny may be grounded for several weeks if he makes an “F” on his report card, but he may only be sent to his room for an hour for swatting his sister on the back of the head.  Again, Mom and Dad know that all sins are not the same.

But what about the Bible?  Is there support for the view that all sins are not equal in Holy Scripture?  Yes, actually there is.

Let’s look at the words of Jesus.  In Matt. 23:23, Jesus scolds the Pharisees for neglecting “the more important matters of the law.”  If there are more important matters of the law, than there are less important matters of the law, and thus a moral law hierarchy.

In Matt. 5:19 Jesus refers to breaking the  “least of these commandments,” again indicating a hierarchy.

In Matt. 22:34-40, an expert in the law asks Jesus about the greatest commandment.  Jesus’ response isn’t, “Silly man!  All of the laws are equal!”  No, he tells him that the greatest command is to love God and the second greatest command is to love your neighbor.  Clearly the man who loves his neighbor but does not love God is committing the greater sin.  God comes first.

In John 19:11, Jesus tells Pilate that “the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”  If there is a greater sin, then there must be lesser sins.

What about the apostle Paul?  He says in 1 Cor. 13:13 that the greatest virtue is love.  If there is a greatest virtue, then there must be lesser virtues.  Paul also tells Timothy in 1 Tim. 1:15 that Paul is the worst sinner.  But if all sins are equal, then there can be no worst sinner.

In 1 John, the apostle John informs us that there is sin that leads to death, and other sins that do not lead to death.  Clearly some sins are worse than others.

In part 2 of this post, we’ll look at the practical consequences of some moral laws being greater than others.

Free Will, General Apologetics, Mormonism, Philosophy, Theology

Can God Know Our Future Free Actions?

48 Comments

Post Author: Darrell

I recently had a conversation with Seth over on Markcares’s blog regarding God’s foreknowledge. Seth believes that man’s freedom is incompatible with God’s foreknowledge. As a result, he believes that God cannot know the future. Here are a couple of his comments.

A being is not “free” unless capable of acting otherwise than he ultimately does act. By definition, you cannot predict such a being’s choices.

An all-powerful God is no more capable of pre-determining a free choice than he is capable of creating a rock so large he cannot lift it.

First, allow me to say that I agree with Seth’s point that a being is not “free” unless he is capable of acting otherwise than he ultimately does act. However, this begs the question whether God’s perfect foreknowledge means that man cannot act otherwise.

If two positions are logically incompatible, then there is absolutely no way that both can be true at one and the same time. Therefore, if God’s foreknowledge and man’s freedom are logically contradictory, there is no way to explain how the two can both be true at one and the same time. If there is even one way in which these two positions can coexist, then the charge that they are logically contradictory fails.

The classic Christian position is that God exists outside of time, i.e., He is eternal. As a result, He does not view time in a linear fashion of yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows. Rather He sees time in one eternal now, being eternally present to all moments of time. This position allows God to see and know the future free acts of humans while not in any way violating their free choice.

As a helpful analogy, consider how well parents know their children. As a father, on many occasions I have been able to predict precisely what one of my children will do when faced with a certain situation. Did my foreknowledge of their future actions take away their freedom of choice? Of course not!! I had knowledge of what their future free actions would be; however, they made the choices themselves. If I as a finite time bound being have been able to do this a few times, imagine what a perfect, omnipotent, and infinite being existing outside of time is able to do.

Another problem with Seth’s position is that it contradicts the fact that God has prophesied the future free acts of humans beings repeatedly in the Bible. Consider the following prophesies given hundreds and sometimes even thousands of years before they occured.

1. That Jesus would be born of a virgin (Is. 7:14) – How did God know that Mary would remain a virgin after she was told she was pregnant?

2. Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) – How did God know exactly where Mary and Joseph would go and when they would go there?

3. Jesus would be rejected by the Jewish people (Ps. 22 and Is. 53) – How did God know that an entire race of people would reject Him?

4. Jesus would have His hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22:16) – How did God know that this is how His captors would kill him?

5. Jesus would be crucified with thieves (Is. 53:12) – How did God know that thieves would be in prison at the same time as Him and that the Romans would choose to crucify them along side Him?

6. Jesus’ side would be pierced (Zech. 12:10) – How did God know that they were going to do this?

7. Jesus would be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Is. 53:9) – How did God know that a rich man would be willing to do this and that the Romans would allow it?

8. The Roman soldiers would cast lots for His garments (Ps 22:18) – How did God know that the soldiers would even want to do this much less do it?

The Bible promises us that God is all powerful and tells us that we, as Christians, are in His tender care. What a wonderful promise!! He has perfect knowledge of all, and in Him we can find rest, knowing that our future is in His all loving and all powerful hands. All praise be to our Savior!

Darrell

Philosophy, Theology, Top Ten Posts of 2009

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can’t Lift It? – #1 Post of 2009

135 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This is a common question that is asked by those who misunderstand the nature of God’s omnipotence.  Another humorous way of asking this question is: Can God make a sandwich so big he can’t eat it?  (I owe that jewel to my friend Greg).

When Christians claim that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), they do not mean that he can do anything.  We mean that God can do anything that is actually possible.  God’s omnipotence exists in concert with all of his other attributes, not as a stand-alone attribute.  Therefore, when we don’t understand the other attributes of God, we get stumped by questions like this.   Here is a brief list of some things God cannot do, based on his other attributes:

  1. cease to exist – a being whose very nature is being cannot cease to be; that’s impossible
  2. love evil – a being who is all-good cannot love evil; that’s impossible
  3. make a copy of himself – God is infinite, and two infinite beings cannot exist; that’s impossible
  4. change his nature – an unchanging (immutable) being cannot change; that’s impossible

So why can’t he make a rock so big he can’t lift it?  Simple.  God is infinite, and there can only be one infinite being (see number 3 above).  If there were two infinite beings, then neither would really be infinite because they would each be limited by the other.  But an infinite being has no limits, so they can’t both be infinite.

If a rock is created that cannot be moved by an infinite being, then that rock must be infinite.  But if we have an infinite being and an infinite rock, we have two infinite beings.  That is, as we said a moment ago, a logical impossibility.

Once we understand what infinity means (without limit) and once we understand that God cannot violate the laws of logic (which are based on his own nature), then we can easily understand how God cannot make a rock so big he can’t lift it.  It’s like asking one infinite being to create another infinite being.  Not possible!!

Bible Interpretation, Creation, Essential Beliefs, Evolution, Human Nature, Theology

What Do God and Science Have to Do with Each Other?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Ever since I became an evangelical believer in Christ, about 12 years ago, I have noticed that there is uneasiness among my evangelical brothers and sisters with certain fields of science.  This uneasiness, I quickly learned, has much to do with the age of the universe and the origins of mankind.  There are other areas, as well, but those are the two primary areas of dispute.

Because of the perceived hostility of science toward basic beliefs of Christianity, some evangelicals have forsaken science altogether.  So what I want to address today is what science and God have to do with each other.

Christians have long recognized that there are two ways that God communicates with mankind: special revelation and general revelation.

Special revelation is what is communicated about God through the incarnation of Christ and the Bible.

General revelation is what is communicated about God through the natural world, including physical nature, human nature, and human history.

Science offers a method for observing and then explaining facts about the natural world, so science is the study of God’s general revelation.  Christians that forsake science are, in effect, dismissing God’s general revelation.

Why?  Because they feel that the findings of science contradict the teachings of Scripture (special revelation).

But the answer is not to throw out one of God’s revelations.  In cases where general and special revelation overlap, we must examine our fallible interpretation of Scripture and compare it to our fallible interpretation of scientific findings.

You see, the Bible is infallible, but our interpretation of it is not.  Likewise, God’s revelation about himself in nature is infallible and will never contradict his revelation in Scripture.  But our interpretation of general revelation is not infallible.

What do we do when our fallible interpretation of science conflicts with our fallible interpretation of the Bible?  We seek the interpretation that seems more certain and we go with that.  If the special revelation interpretation seems more certain than the general revelation interpretation, then we go with special revelation.  If the general revelation interpretation seems more certain than the special revelation interpretation, then we go with general revelation.  We can’t just assume one is always right and the other always wrong.  That will lead to error.

Notice that this method of seeking the right interpretation requires the Christian to study diligently the Scriptures and the findings of science.  We cannot just study the Bible, but we must also dig into science if we want any hope of finding the answers to these tough questions where science and the Bible seem to conflict.

Fortunately, these perceived areas of conflict are few, and usually do not have to do with essential doctrines of Christianity.  However, they are still important and we owe it to God to honestly and earnestly seek the answers.

Essential Beliefs, Faith and Works, Salvation, Theology

Do Catholics Affirm Justification by Faith Alone?

29 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most remarkable lectures I ever heard at an apologetics conference was a Friday morning session with Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College.  Kreeft is a highly respected Catholic scholar who has taught at BC for many years and written more than 60 books.

Kreeft’s lecture focused on his desire to see Roman Catholics and Evangelicals move toward unity, certainly a worthy goal as long as we’re not compromising any essential doctrines.  But what I wasn’t expecting to hear was his statement that Catholics now agree that justification is by faith alone.  Yes, you read that right.

Kreeft explained that in 1999 the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation jointly issued a declaration on the doctrine of justification, the central issue of the Reformation.  In 2006, the World Methodist Council also voted to affirm this declaration.

In this declaration, the Catholic Church agreed that justification is by faith alone and it withdrew the condemnations of the Council of Trent toward those Protestants that affirmed justification by faith alone.  Kreeft explained that the Council of Trent was condemning the idea that works are not part of the totality of salvation, which is composed of justification, sanctification, and glorification.  Luther, on the other hand, was specifically speaking of justification, not sanctification and glorification, when he said works were not involved in salvation.  So the Council of Trent misunderstood Luther, according to Kreeft.  It took 400 years to figure this out, but better late than never.

During Q&A, Kreeft was quick to add that there are many other areas of disagreement that need to be discussed among Catholics and Protestants, but he believed that if Catholics and Protestants can come to agreement on the doctrine of justification, which was the defining controversy of the Reformation, then there is hope to come to agreement on other issues as well.

I have read the declaration and I believe Kreeft’s interpretation of it is indeed correct.  I invite all who are interested in this issue to read the declaration.  It is not that long and can be read by someone who is moderately familiar with theological terminology.  Also, to preempt fruitless discussion, I would ask that folks not comment or jump to any conclusions about this issue until you have read the declaration yourself.  I am very curious to hear reactions from both Catholics and Protestants alike.

Books of the Bible, Theology

Did Jesus Want Us to Think?

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

According to Martin Lloyd-Jones, the answer is “yes.”  Below is a quote from Lloyd-Jones where he is commenting on Matt. 6:30, from the Sermon on the Mount.  He argues that Jesus’ words indicate that he expected his listeners to be actively using their minds to make logical deductions from the evidence around them.  The source of this quote is Tim Challies’ blog.

Faith according to our Lord’s teaching in this paragraph, is primarily thinking; and the whole trouble with a man of little faith is that he does not think. He allows circumstances to bludgeon him. …

We must spend more time in studying our Lord’s lessons in observation and deduction. The Bible is full of logic, and we must never think of faith as something purely mystical. We do not just sit down in an armchair and expect marvelous things to happen to us. That is not Christian faith. Christian faith is essentially thinking. Look at the birds, think about them, draw your deductions. Look at the grass, look at the lilies of the field, consider them. …

Faith, if you like, can be defined like this: It is a man insisting upon thinking when everything seems determined to bludgeon and knock him down in an intellectual sense. The trouble with the person of little faith is that, instead of controlling his own thought, his thought is being controlled by something else, and, as we put it, he goes round and round in circles. That is the essence of worry. … That is not thought; that is the absence of thought, a failure to think.