Creation, Science and God

What Is the Age of the Earth?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There is much debate among Christians about whether the universe was created in six literal days about 10,000 years ago, or whether the universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago, and the earth about 4.5 billion years ago, through the creative acts of God. Who is right?

We just don’t know. Here are some important facts to remember. Bible-believing, orthodox Christians hold both views. Both sides read the Bible using the same historical-grammatical interpretive method. There are good theological arguments on both sides. The one important difference between the two views is that the old earth view is affirmed by most relevant scientific disciplines, whereas the young earth view is not.

Since this issue is not a matter of primary doctrinal importance, both sides are legitimate Christian viewpoints.  What is important to affirm is that God created the universe out of nothing. Both sides agree on that. They just disagree about how God created and when God created.

Evil, Pain, and Suffering

Can God Use Evil?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Although God is not the author of evil, he certainly allows it. Humans routinely commit evil acts against each other. We have been sinning against God and our fellow men ever since Cain killed Abel. Given all this evil, what does God do about it?

Because of His omniscience (all-knowingness) and omnipotence (all-powerfulness), God can take the evil deeds of human beings and produce a greater good. That is exactly what he did with Joseph in the Book of Genesis. Even though Joseph’s brothers committed the evil act of selling him into slavery, God used their evil to ultimately save their family from starvation and thus preserve the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The ultimate example of God taking evil and producing good is the death and resurrection of Jesus. No greater evil has ever been perpetrated than the murder of God’s innocent Son on the cross. Yet, no greater good has ever been produced than Jesus’s atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

Can God use evil? Yes, he can and he does. In both the story of Joseph and the death and resurrection of Jesus, we see God bringing a greater good out of the evil deeds of human beings.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Sunday School

Commentary on Genesis 44-45 (Joseph Reunites with His Family)

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Background

In chapter 37, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. When we pick up the story in chapter 44, 22 years have passed, so Joseph is now 39 years old (1876 BC). So what has transpired in the last 22 years?

While serving in Potiphar’s household, Joseph is falsely accused of the attempted rape of Potiphar’s wife, and is thrown into prison. While he is in prison, he meets two members of Pharaoh’s court (chief cupbearer and chief baker) who have also been put into prison. He correctly interprets dreams for both of them.

The chief cupbearer is released from prison and 2 years later, when the Pharaoh has 2 dreams that none of his servants can interpret, the cupbearer suggests that Pharaoh ask Joseph, who is still in prison, to interpret his dreams.

Joseph tells Pharaoh that his 2 dreams mean the same thing: there will be 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph’s advice is for Pharaoh to collect 1/5th of the food in the land during the 7 years of plenty so that it can be used during the following 7 years of famine.

Pharaoh, impressed that Joseph could interpret his dreams and propose a solution to the problem, exalts Joseph to second in command over all of Egypt. This happened when Joseph was 30 years old.

When the famine begins, 7 years later, Jacob sends his sons to Egypt to buy grain because of the famine. Obviously, Jacob and his sons have no idea that Joseph is 2nd in command in Egypt. When the brothers arrive in Egypt, Joseph recognizes them but they do not recognize him. Joseph decides to test his brothers to see whether they have repented of their evil ways.

For the final test, Joseph has his steward plant a silver cup in Benjamin’s traveling bag as the 11 brothers are leaving Egypt to go back to their father, Jacob, in Canaan. When the steward stops the brothers as they are leaving Egypt to accuse them of stealing the silver cup, the brothers deny that they stole the cup and say that if the cup is found in anyone’s bag, the thief will become a slave of Joseph. The steward finds the cup in Benjamin’s bag and that is where we pick up the story in chapter 44.

Commentary

Joseph demands that the brothers leave Benjamin as a slave because of his theft of the silver cup (which belonged to Joseph). In verse 18 of chapter 44, Judah, the fourth son of Leah and Jacob, steps forward to save Benjamin’s life. Recall that Judah was also the brother that suggested they sell Joseph into slavery instead of killing him in the pit.

In verses 19-29, Judah recounts to Joseph the events that have occurred up to now. A couple years before, Joseph had demanded that the brothers bring back Benjamin with them to Egypt when they returned for more grain, as they had not brought him on their first trip to Egypt. Judah explains how painful this was to their father.

According to Judah, Jacob said the following, “You know that my wife bore me two sons. One of them went away from me, and I said, ‘He has surely been torn to pieces.’ And I have not seen him since.  If you take this one from me too and harm comes to him, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in misery.” Jacob is, of course, referring to Joseph as the son who went away and was torn to pieces.

Judah tells Joseph that if they don’t bring Benjamin home with them, Jacob “will die. Your servants will bring the gray head of our father down to the grave in sorrow.” Judah then offers to stay in Benjamin’s place.

In verses 1-3 of chapter 45, Joseph finally reveals himself to his brothers. Why? Because they passed the test. Judah had been willing to give up his life for his brother, Benjamin. Rather than allow Benjamin to become a slave, as he had with Joseph, he intervened to save his life.

When Joseph reveals himself, the brothers are terrified, but Joseph reassures them that their sin was used by God to save the family. Verses 4-7 encapsulate the central theme of the Joseph narrative: “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

God providentially turned the brothers’ evil act against Joseph into good. Joseph was now in a position to save their entire family from starvation and relocate them to Egypt where they could survive the famine. Joseph repeats the theme in Gen 50:20, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

In verses 8-15, Joseph instructs his brothers to go back to their father, Jacob, and tell him to move the family to Egypt. They will be given a region called Goshen to inhabit.

Jacob does move his family to Egypt, and that is where the Israelites will reside for hundreds of years. Although the Israelites start out well in Egypt and multiply into great numbers, the situation will reverse in time, and that is where we will pick up in the book of Exodus.

Atheism, Philosophy

Are We Just Meat Robots?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

I have an interest in psychology and behavioral economics research. That’s why I write posts on books like Predictably Irrational and Thinking, Fast and Slow. But as I read these kinds of books, I am always keeping an eye on the big question.

Will the author say that human beings are completely irrational in our  thoughts and behavior, completely rational in our thoughts and behavior, or a combination of the two? By rational I mean the use of reason, evidence, and logic to draw true conclusions about reality.

There are atheist thinkers such as Alex Rosenberg who argue that humans are completely irrational, that we are meat robots whose thoughts and behavior are 100% determined by physics. Physics knows nothing of reason, evidence, and logic. Rosenberg says that once you take science seriously, there is no other possible conclusion.

The problem with Rosenberg’s position is that it is hopelessly self-contradictory. He is saying, in essence, “I know rationally that nobody knows anything rationally.” If he knows that rationally, then his statement is false. If he doesn’t know anything rationally, then his statement is irrational and can be safely ignored.

In the world of psychological and economics literature, though, I see flirtation with Rosenberg’s position. Let’s look at two examples.

Michael Sliwinski, an entrepreneur and creator of the software application Nozbe, said this about the latest online magazine  issue of Productivity:

Reading this issue provoked deep reflection within myself, and I hope it will do the same for you, too. Practically every article shows the well-known and scientifically proved (but often forgotten) fact that psychological mechanisms—usually unconscious—rule the human world.

Sliwinski says it is a fact that “psychological mechanisms—usually unconscious—rule the human world.” Is he taking Rosenberg’s position? Probably not, but he’s leaning in that direction. If he said that only psychological mechanisms rule the human world, his position would be self-contradictory as well. There is enough ambiguity to avoid the charge of Rosenberg-ism.

Dan Ariely concludes his book Predictably Irrational:

IF I WERE to distill one main lesson from the research described in this book, it is that we are pawns in a game whose forces we largely fail to comprehend. We usually think of ourselves as sitting in the driver’s seat, with ultimate control over the decisions we make and the direction our life takes; but, alas, this perception has more to do with our desires— with how we want to view ourselves— than with reality.

Let’s stop here. Ariely is skating on the edge of self-contradiction. He says that we are pawns without ultimate control over our decisions. But clearly Ariely believes that he was not a pawn when he wrote this sentence or the rest of his book. He believes that he did have control over the decisions he made to write about predictable irrationality, did he not? If he was able to pull this off, then why can’t we?

He continues:

The point is that our visual and decision environments are filtered to us courtesy of our eyes, our ears, our senses of smell and touch, and the master of it all, our brain. By the time we comprehend and digest information, it is not necessarily a true reflection of reality. Instead, it is our representation of reality, and this is the input we base our decisions on. In essence we are limited to the tools nature has given us, and the natural way in which we make decisions is limited by the quality and accuracy of these tools.

Ariely almost goes Rosenberg on us again. He says that when we comprehend and digest information, “it is our representation of reality” and not “necessarily a true reflection of reality.” If he is saying that every time we digest information, we are not getting at true reality, then how is it that Ariely has managed to bypass this problem and get at true reality?

It is helpful to re-write his statement in the following way: “By digesting information, I have arrived at the true reality that nobody who digests information can arrive at true reality.” If his statement is true, then it is false, unless he doesn’t want to include himself in the population of all human beings.

In closing, consider the following:

  • If we are irrational meat robots, then we can’t know rationally that we are meat robots.
  • If unconscious psychological mechanisms control our every thought, then we can’t consciously (or rationally) think that unconscious psychological mechanisms control our every thought.
  • If we have no control over our decisions, then we can’t control the decision to think that we have no control over our decisions.
  • If we can’t comprehend true reality, then we can’t comprehend that true reality is incomprehensible.

Rosenberg self-contradiction syndrome is always lurking. We have to be careful not to stretch the findings of psychology and behavioral economics beyond where they should go. If you ever want to make any claim about reality that you think is true, then you cannot hold that we are merely meat robots. That, my friend, is a flagrant contradiction.

Atheism, Morality

Why Don’t We Trust Atheists?

45 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 


Atheists often complain that they experience prejudice directed at them by theists. Theists, they claim, accuse atheists of being immoral because atheists have no transcendent standard of morality. There is a level of distrust, at least for some theists, that exists.

So why do some theists worry about the ethics of atheists? Is this worry warranted?

Recently I finished a book written by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. In this book, Ariely chronicles numerous psychological studies intended to discover how human beings react to a wide range of situations (very similar to Thinking, Fast and Slow).

Ariely is very interested in business ethics and he reports on several experiments that shed some light on human dishonesty. Based on these studies, Ariely concludes that “when we are removed from any benchmarks of ethical thought, we tend to stray into dishonesty. But if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted, then we are much more likely to be honest.”

He goes on to recommend that the ethical crisis he sees in America can be turned around by people regularly reading the holy books which codify their moral values. This is because his research shows that those people who are reminded of their moral values frequently act more ethically.

There is nothing new here that hasn’t been recommended by great thinkers for thousands of years. Moral virtue is a practice. You don’t just wake up every day and act with high moral integrity. It takes effort.

Herein lies why I think atheists are not trusted. Theists wonder, “When is the atheist reading his holy book?” Never, because he doesn’t believe in holy books. Is the atheist regularly being reminded by a pastor how he is supposed to behave? Is he studying the words and deeds of moral saints? No and no. These things usually happen in religious gatherings which most atheists avoid.

Speaking personally, I don’t go more than a week without reading or hearing about moral duties and virtues because I am reading the Bible and listening to godly men and women teach the moral precepts found in the Bible. I am also watching men and women of great moral character at my church every week. I am soaking it up.

Now, before I get a bunch of nasty comments, let me say that I know many atheists who are decent, law-abiding citizens. I even know some atheists who go above and beyond to help other people. So this is not meant as some kind of blanket indictment.

But, I am asking some hard questions of atheists. If you are an atheist, when are you soaking up moral teaching? How are you learning to be virtuous? Who is challenging you, week after week, to act with the highest integrity and morality? These are important questions for you to answer. The Christian who goes to church and reads her Bible regularly has a real advantage over you.

Bible Interpretation

Does the Bible Approve Polygamy?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Some critics argue that the Bible approves polygamy because the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) had multiple wives and the biblical text does not seem to condemn their actions. This, however, is a gross misunderstanding of the Bible. Just because the Bible reports certain behaviors does not mean it approves of it.

Polygamy is clearly prohibited by God in many ways. First, we know that monogamy is the correct pattern of marriage because it was established in Genesis 1 and 2. Second, we know that this pattern was followed until the sin of Lamech in Genesis 4:23 is reported. The first polygamous husband in the Bible is a murderer! Third, the Law of Moses clearly commands, “You shall not multiply wives” (Deut. 17:17).

Finally, it is obvious from the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that polygamy is the cause of much family conflict. This is especially evident with Jacob, who has 4 wives. Because of the favoritism of Jacob toward one of his wives, Rachel, his sons end up selling one of their half-brothers into slavery! Clearly polygamy is not portrayed in a positive light in these narratives.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Sunday School

Commentary on Genesis 37 (Joseph Sold into Slavery)

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Background

As Jacob grew into adulthood, God re-confirmed to Jacob the covenant promises made to Abraham and then Isaac. Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel.  He had originally intended to only marry Rachel, but was tricked into marrying Leah by their father. Jacob also took on their maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, as wives. Through these four women, Jacob fathered 12 sons. The sons that each wife bears are summarized in Genesis 36 as follows:

The sons of Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.

The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.

The sons of Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali.

The sons of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah: Gad and Asher.

The descendants of these sons of Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel, would form the 12 tribes of Israel.

When chapter 37 begins, Jacob (Israel) has settled in Canaan where Abraham and Isaac had lived. Joseph, one of his two sons from Rachel, is seventeen years old. This places the date at roughly 1898 BC.

Commentary

Although verses 1 and 2 announce the account of Jacob, the primary actors of the following chapters are Jacob’s sons, especially Joseph. Recall that Joseph was the firstborn son of Jacob and Rachel, and that Rachel was Jacob’s most favored wife. These facts will play out in chapter 37.

In verses 2-10, we discover several reasons why Joseph’s half brothers would come to hate him. First, Joseph brings bad reports about his brothers to his father. We can imagine that Joseph was obedient and well-behaved, and did not excuse the behavior of his disobedient brothers.

Second, in verses 3-4, we learn that Jacob (Israel) openly favored Joseph over his brothers, and this fact was brought home when Israel gave Joseph, and not his brothers, a richly ornamented robe. This robe indicated that Joseph was to be given the double inheritance and receive the rights of the firstborn, even though he was not actually the firstborn son of Israel (that was Reuben).

Third, Joseph reports two dreams to his brothers. In the first dream, his brothers’ sheaves of grain bow down to his sheaf of grain. In the second dream, the sun, moon, and 11 stars bow down to him. The sun and moon represent his father and mother, and the 11 stars his 11 brothers. According to verse 8, his brothers “hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.”

These dreams indicated that Israel’s choice of Joseph as receiving the rights of the firstborn was confirmed by God. According to Allen P. Ross in The Bible Knowledge Commentary , “God’s sovereign choice of a leader often brings out the jealousy of those who must submit. Rather than recognize God’s choice, his brothers set on a course to destroy him. Their actions, though prompted by the belief that they should lead, shows why they should not have led.”

The story is now set up for what happens next. In verses 12-17, Jacob’s older sons leave to graze their flocks in a distant place called Dothan. Joseph is sent by Israel to find his brothers and report back to his father.

In verses 18-20, his brothers see him coming in the distance and plot against him. Their plan is to kill him, throw him in an empty cistern, and tell their father that he was killed by a wild animal. The oldest son, Reuben, however, steps in and convinces the brothers to throw him in the cistern and not kill him. Reuben’s plan is to come back later and get Joseph out of the cistern and save him.

At this point, it appears that Reuben leaves the brothers for a short time. When Joseph finally arrives, they strip him of his cloak and throw him into the cistern and sit to eat a meal. As they sit down to eat their meal, they see a caravan of Ishmaelite traders coming toward them; they are headed toward Egypt. Remember that Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham who was replaced by Isaac in the covenant promise.

Judah, Reuben’s younger brother, proposes that they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites instead of killing him. The other brothers, except Reuben, agree and sell him. When Reuben returns, he sees what his brothers have done, and tears his clothes in sorrow. The brothers all agree to dip Joseph’s robe in goat’s blood, take it back to Jacob, and let their father believe that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.

At the end of the chapter, we see that Jacob is inconsolable for his loss, and we learn that Joseph has been sold by the Midianites (Ishmaelite and Midianite are used as synonyms) to “Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard.”

Allen P. Ross concludes:

This is a story of hatred and deception. The brothers tried to improve their lot with their father by wicked means. Jacob himself had attempted something similar with his father. The brothers would have to learn, however, as did Jacob, that God does not continue to give His blessings to those who do such things. Their use of goat’s blood is ironic, for the skins of a goat were used by Jacob to deceive his father (27:16). Jacob’s sin of years before had come back to haunt him. The brothers’ attitude would also have to be changed by God, or there would be no nation. Here then is the beginning of the suffering of Joseph, the obedient servant. God would test his character through the things he suffered, so that he could then be exalted.

Bible Interpretation, Faith and Works, Salvation

“Inherit the Kingdom”: What Does that Mean?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 


The phrases “inherit the kingdom,” “inherit the earth,” and “inherit the land” occur several times in the New Testament (NT). Many readers assume that these phrases are referring to entrance into heaven. Theologian Joseph Dillow, in his book The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Destiny of Man, argues that this is a mistake.

Speaking of the phrase “inherit the kingdom,” Dillow writes:

We find the phrase in Mt. 25:34; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; and Eph. 5:5. In addition, the phrase “inherit the land” is found in Mt. 5:5. In each instance we find that, in order to inherit the kingdom, there must be some work done or certain character traits, such as immorality, must be absent from our lives.

The fact that such conditions are necessary suggests that the term is not to be equated with entering the kingdom which is available to all, freely, on the basis of faith alone but with something in addition to entering. Indeed, the very use of the word “inherit” instead of “enter” in these passages suggests that more than just entrance is meant.

Let’s take each of these passages and see what is being discussed in context with inheriting the kingdom.

Matthew 25:34-36 – The clear conditions for inheriting the kingdom are caring for others by feeding, clothing, and visiting them in prison.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – The clear conditions for not inheriting the kingdom of God is having the following character traits: immorality, idolatry, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, thievery, greed, drunkenness, or being a swindler.

1 Corinthians 15:50 – The kingdom is inherited by those with resurrection bodies.

Galatians 5:19-21 – The conditions for not inheriting the kingdom of God is engaging in the following acts: “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.”

Ephesians 5:5 – The conditions for not inheriting the kingdom of God is being an “immoral, impure or greedy person.”

Matthew 5:5 – The meek will inherit the earth.

So, inheriting the kingdom and inheriting the land, at least in these verses, cannot refer to entrance into heaven. If that was the meaning, then we would have a massive conflict with the clear teaching that entrance into heaven is by faith alone. Dillow offers an alternative meaning which makes much better sense of all these verses we just examined.

In conclusion, “to inherit the kingdom” is a virtual synonym for rulership in the kingdom and not entrance into it. George N. H. Peters is correct when he says, “To inherit a Kingdom, if it has any propriety of meaning, undoubtedly denotes the reception of kingly authority or rulership in the Kingdom.” All saints will enter the kingdom through faith alone (Jn. 3:3), but only obedient saints who endure, who overcome, and who perform works of righteousness (e.g., ministering to Christ’s brethren) will inherit it, i.e., rule there.

“Inherit the kingdom” is referring to rewards in heaven, not entrance into heaven.

Bible Interpretation, Faith and Works, Heaven, Salvation

What Does the Old Testament Teach about the Inheritance of the Saints?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt 


As we’ve discussed before on the blog, there are two kinds of inheritance for Christians: 1) entrance into heaven and 2) reigning (rewards) in heaven. Many evangelicals mistakenly interpret all New Testament (NT) passages about the believer’s inheritance as referring to entrance into heaven, when this is clearly not the case (see this post and this post).

Theologian Joseph Dillow, in his magnificent book The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Destiny of Man, explains that the concept of two kinds of inheritance originates in the Old Testament (OT), in particular with the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt and eventual entrance and possession of Canaan. The NT writers had ancient Israel in mind when they spoke of the inheritance of NT believers.

Dillow lays out several principles about inheritance that can be taken from the OT:

1. There is a difference between inheriting the land of Canaan and living there. The former refers to ownership and the latter to mere residence.

2. While Israel was promised the inheritance as a nation, the condition for maintaining their inheritance right to the land of Canaan was faith, obedience, and completion of one’s task. The promise, while national, was only applied to the believing remnant within the nation. Even though many within the nation were not born again, the New Testament writers use the nation as an example (1 Cor. 10:6, Gk. typos) of the experience of the born-again people of God in the New Testament.

3. The inheritance is not to be equated with heaven but with something additional to heaven, promised to those believers who faithfully obey the Lord.

4. Just as Old Testament believers forfeited their earthly inheritance through disobedience, we can also forfeit our future reward (inheritance) by a similar failure. Loss of inheritance, however, does not mean loss of salvation.

5. Two kinds of inheritance were enjoyed in the Old Testament. All Israelites who had believed and were therefore regenerate had God as their inheritance but not all inherited the land. This paves the way for the notion that the New Testament may also teach two inheritances. We are all heirs of God, but we are not all joint-heirs with Christ, unless we persevere to the end of life. The former refers to our salvation and the latter to our reward.

6. A child of Israel was both an heir of God and an heir of Canaan by virtue of belief in God and resulting regeneration. Yet only those believers in Israel who were faithful would maintain their status as firstborn sons who would actually receive what had been promised to them as an inheritance.

Dillow then connects these conclusions to the NT:

The relevance of these conclusions to the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance [in the NT] is obvious. First, if this is in fact the Old Testament view, it surely must have informed the thinking of the New Testament writers. If that is so, then many passages, which have been considered as descriptions of the elect, are in fact conditions of obtaining a reward in heaven.

For example, Paul warns the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?” If “inheriting the kingdom” means “going to heaven,” then Paul is saying no wicked person can go to heaven. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the [Calvinist] system which says that the permanently carnal Christian is a fiction.

If, on the other hand, “to inherit the kingdom” refers not to entering heaven but to possessing and ruling in the kingdom as it does in the Old Testament, then an entirely different interpretation of the passage emerges. Instead of warning merely professing Christians that they may not be Christians at all, he is telling true Christians that, if they do not change their behavior, they may be in the kingdom, but they will not rule there.

Were the NT writers concerned with people getting into heaven by expressing trust in Jesus Christ? Obviously. That is the gospel message in its simplest form. But, they were also extremely concerned about what a person who has placed his trust in Christ does with the rest of his life. How you, as a believer in Christ, conduct your life determines your rewards in heaven.

There is no point in winning the lottery if you do nothing with the money after you win. Likewise, the person who places their trust in Christ, but then fails to follow Christ for the rest of their life, is like the lottery winner who receives the check in the mail and then sticks it under the mattress.

Free Will

Is God Sovereign or Does Man Have Free Will?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt  

Some Christians believe that God’s sovereignty over events on earth means that he ignores or overrides the free will of human beings. Other Christians believe that God only makes decisions after seeing what human beings will decide, and thus he is not really sovereign over everything. Under this second view, events on earth seem to split into things God controls and things humans control.

Both of these views, however, are wrong. The biblical view is that God is both sovereign over everything, and human beings have free will. We see this illustrated in Genesis 25. In verse 23, God tells Rebekah that Esau’s descendants (the nation of Edom) will be weaker than Jacob’s descendants (the nation of Israel), indicating His sovereignty over human history.

But in verse 34 we see that it is Esau who despised his birthright. The biblical author is indicating that Esau is not some impotent pawn being pushed around a chessboard by God, but an active participant in giving up his birthright. These two verses illustrate that God is sovereign and that Esau is free to reject his birthright. Both are true.

A Christian Apologetics Blog