Month: January 2012

Marriage and the Learning of Grace

Could it be that your marriage will actually help you to learn to have more grace? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I wrote recently on Margaret Sanger and her view of sexuality after a friend shared with me a book that had been put out advancing the Eugenics view recently. In communicating with my friend late at night, I started discussing the topic of marriage and what a difference it makes.

If you ever want to learn about grace, one of the best lessons in experience that you can ever have is to get married.

When you live with someone else, like a college roommate, you can learn a lot about how you relate to other people and traits you need to work on. The difference with a college roommate is that you can by and large up and walk out if you need to and there is no lifelong commitment. Besides that, chances are that if you’re a Christian, that relationship with a roommate won’t involve sharing a bed and having sex.

Marriage is different. You marry someone for life as a start. There is no backing out once you seal the deal. Second, you marry someone of the opposite sex which means you need to learn to relate to someone who has a totally different way of thinking than you do. Third off, your relationship is far more intimate than any roommate relationship could be.

It is in this that grace is learned.

How so? In the dating period, we all put our best foot forward, but when we marry, we soon come to learn that there are a lot of negative traits that person has. Oh sure, we saw them some when we were dating, but now, they can be written large and they are before us constantly.

My wife can point it out to me when I am showing pride at times, for instance, and in the marriage relationship, I am far more aware of when I am being prideful than I was before. I find I have to constantly monitor myself even when she’s not around and ask “Am I participating in a thought pattern or activity that will make me be less the man that my wife needs and less of an example to her?”

Grace especially works when we find the other person’s faults however. It’s quite amazing that for most of us, our problems are small and simple and we can take care of them, but that other person! They have to get things right! We can put their mistakes under a magnifying glass and say that ours are not really such a big deal after all.

This can become a reality in prayer and makes me think of the passage in 1 Peter 3 about your prayers not being hindered. If my wife does something that I think is wrong, I can come to God and ask what am I supposed to do in this situation and how can my wife do whatever it is that was done?

Now I do not believe in God speaking to me, but I can often picture it as if He would say in response “And how is that different from all the times that you’ve done if not an identical a similar action to me? Are you saying that I should just overlook all you did to me and you don’t do the same for your wife?”

Ouch. That hits home. That makes grace a reality. Men. Here is the challenge to us. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church. I really don’t understand it these days when women complain about how hard the Bible is on women when we are told as men that we have to follow a command like that for our women.

Let’s face it men. A lot of times, love is work. It really is. It’s easy to be loving when your wife is in a romantic mood and she wants you to be with her. It’s not so easy to be loving when you’re in the middle of a disagreement and you’ve got that zinger on the tip of your tongue and you know you sure as heck better not say that since that will leave some serious scars.

Now to get back to both of us, women can also complain about their husbands. Mrs. Peters has her own concerns about me that she shares sometimes. I know sometimes I get so caught up in my own world that I’m not giving her the attention that I should. That is something I need to work on. A lot of men do that also with such things as the TV remote.

In all these cases, we sit back and wonder what it will take to change our spouse. We can pray for that change to happen. Now in a sense, I don’t have a problem with this. I think we should pray for the good of our spouse and even give God our input. The message that needs to be conveyed at this point is that of Gary Thomas’s in Sacred Marriage. In that book, he tells us that a lot of spouses say that a partner needs to change in the marriage. They’re absolutely right! They just have the wrong one in mind!

You can only change your spouse indirectly, but there is one spouse you can change directly, and that is yourself. If I want Mrs. Peters to do something or to have a certain kind of attitude, I try to ask myself “Am I doing this or am I manifesting this attitude?”

And thus, marriage makes it so that I have to see my own failures highlighted before my eyes. I can look at myself constantly and say “Wow. That is the way that I really am! I need to work on that!” When I see those failures in myself, on what basis can I sit in judgment on my spouse? To do such is even to treat myself as a superior, when I try to make it a constant point to say that we are life partners and she and I are on the same level.

What am I to do in all of this? Seek to be more holy. My own pastor could tell you that on the day of my wedding, a Saturday, he took me to a little room in the church about ten minutes before I walked down the aisle and said “How can I pray for you today?” I told him my honest request straight from the heart. “I need to be holy.” I understand that he even commented on that in the sermon. (OF course, I wasn’t there. We were too busy heading out on our honeymoon.)

Dying to self takes on a whole new reality when you realize there is someone else in your life who depends on you. It’s not one-way of course. Anyone who knows us would say that I depend on Mrs. Peters as well. She is my encouragement and support when the rest of the world doesn’t make sense and the one who has done the most to increase my confidence. Anyone who has known us can tell the remarkable impact that this woman has had on my life for the good.

It means also not just your sanctification but the others. Do we men have relationships with our women that she could think that she’s married to Christ? Christ was not only holy himself, but He is making His bride holy and His work is to present us to the Father blameless and without blemish.

As Christ loved the church. Remember that men?

If you’re married now and not intimidated by that, you’re not taking it serious enough.

For we men, a definite way to do that is to watch our relationships with other women. I make it a point to try to avoid even looking. Now some might say that’s paranoid. Well I would rather be that way rather than even risk anything happening in my marriage, since it all begins with what goes on in the mind.

Every action done in love also inclines one further that way. The more you act in love, the easier it is to love. The more you go against your own selfish desires, the more you are disciplining yourself to think selflessly and the more you do that, the better and better you are at being a spouse and not only at being a spouse, but being a Christian.

When those wrongs happen however, you learn to forgive. You are to forgive as you have been forgiven. This forgiveness does make one learn all the more about grace. Not only do you learn to show it, but you learn all the more about the grace that has been shown to you by God.

It’s all work, but it’s also a blessing. Marriage is a great adventure, something I want my single friends who seek to get married one day to recognize, but it’s also a lesson in holiness. The best advice I can give to you is to do all you can to work on that now.

And really, shouldn’t you be doing that anyway?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Paige Patterson is on the wrong page.

Does Paige Patterson’s opinion carry any weight in the Geisler controversy? Let’s find out as we plunge into Deeper Waters.

Looking at the latest from Geisler today, we see this:

“Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change. While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart, Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher, especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture.” (1/9/2012)

Dr. Paige Patterson
President
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Alright. What does Geisler have to say about this?

Thank God for the courage, conviction, and character of the man of God to whom the SBC owes the most for its orthodoxy on inerrancy—Dr. Paige Patterson. I Hope there is a place reserved in Nashville for a bronze statue of him. It is time for other SBC leaders to close ranks on the Licona issue.

Dr. Norman Geisler
Professor of Apologetics
Veritas Evangelical Seminary

When I see this, I think of the scene in “My Fair Lady” when Eliza returns from her successful visit to the royal event and only has her two teachers sitting together congratulating themselves on how well they did. So Geisler has found someone else who agrees with him. Impressive?

Not really.

Let’s see what the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary web site has to say about Patterson.

“A graduate of Hardin-Simmons University, Patterson also completed Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He was twice elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, serving Southern Baptists in that role from 1998-2000. During those years he appointed a committee to revise the Baptist Faith & Message, the confession most widely employed by Southern Baptists, and also presided over the historic session of the convention in which this revised confession was adopted.”

While these accomplishments can be all well and good, there is a striking omission from it. There is absolutely nothing here about being trained in NT scholarship and exegesis. Being a competent and even skilled theologian and/or philosopher does not make one an expert on NT scholarship and/or biblical exegesis.

For instance, I have had a number of people think that because I’m knowledgeable in an area and seem to be a nerd, I must know computers very well. Not a chance. I have to call someone whenever my computer is on the fritz. When I move somewhere, I have to call someone to hook up my gaming systems and anything else. I even have a problem getting the date on the blog to work. (Which made it all the more laughable when some people thought I produced the Christmas Carol video.)

Having knowledge in one area does not transfer knowledge to another. Nevertheless, let us look and see what Patterson says.

“Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change.”

Good. No problem. I agree 100% percent. I’m also wondering what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Can someone tell me where Mike has said that the account of the saints rising is both true and not true in the same time and in the same sense? Has he said the saints both rose and didn’t?

To point to the laws of logic to settle this then is useless. No one is contesting that point.

” While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart,”

Please note this language. This is speaking of Mike’s spiritual well-being and I am remembering the line of Francis Beckwith on a technique some Christians use in debate. “If you can’t beat them with logic, trump them with spirituality. Could it be Patterson saw how weak his opening statement was and switched directly to spiritual onslaught mode?

Notice that right off, the idea is that Mike is the one who has a spiritual problem. Of course, in all of this, going after another person’s livelihood and smearing their reputation by calling their orthodoxy into question and using bullying tactics is not a spiritual problem. It’s actually presenting an interpretation of the text that’s different from what we grew up with that’s the problem!

Might I suggest a unique approach to this? How about we actually study Mike’s proposal itself back and forth in a scholarly manner and see how well it holds up.

Oh wait. That was offered and turned down.

And as you should know, it wasn’t Mike who turned down an offer from Geisler to speak at a scholarly conclave. It was the other way around.

This idea of sincerity and God knows his heart is taking the debate somewhere it doesn’t belong. Note also that to say this statement about God knowing the heart automatically I take to mean “Well I think he’s living in rebellion in someway, but God knows his heart.”

“Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher”

Two mistakes here. First off, the minor one. Mike is not a philosopher. He is a NT scholar. That does not mean he does not have interest in philosophical matters, but he is not a philosopher.

To speak then of the priesthood of the philosopher is getting it wrong and no doubt, pointing back to the priesthood of the believer, but why should every believer have equal authority on what a text means? Should I turn to Mike and say “Yeah. I know you know NT Greek and all that, but I obviously know the text just as well as you do because I’m a Christian.”

No. You know the text by studying the text. The priesthood of the believer does not say anything about the competency of the one exegeting the text. It also gets into this idea that the Holy Spirit is all we need, which in turn I see as an insult to the Holy Spirit. The idea of “I don’t need to study. The Holy Spirit will tell me all I need to know.”

How would that work elsewhere?

“I don’t need to pray. The Holy Spirit expresses Himself with groans and utterances on my behalf.” (Romans 8:26-27)

“I don’t need to confess my sins. Jesus is making intercession for them.”

“I don’t need to study for this test in Seminary. The Holy Spirit will give me the answers.”

“I don’t need to go to church and hear what the preacher has to say. The Holy Spirit will tell me what I need to know.” (Of course, if your pastor has the same mindset, it might serve you well to not go to that church)

“I don’t need to go to the grocery store. The Holy Spirit will provide my daily bread.”

“I don’t need to have a job. The Holy Spirit will make sure I’m provided for.”

Yet somehow, we think biblical exegesis is an exception.

Second part. No one is calling into question the truthfulness of God’s Word. All sides I know of in this debate are saying that they believe that the Bible is without error. Here’s an important difference. If Geisler says “I believe the Bible is without error” Mike says “I think you do believe that. I just think your interpretation of it is wrong.” If Mike says “I believe the Bible is without error” Geisler writes open letters saying his interpretation is a denial. Thus, interpretation is equaling Inerrancy.

“especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture.”

And again, Mike is not doing that. Can someone tell me one time that Mike has said that Scripture is not truthful somewhere? Some of you are ready to jump up and down with the resurrected saints, but Mike is not saying the Bible is not truthful. He’s also not saying God cannot do that. He’s saying that he honestly believes Matthew did not intend for that to be taken in the sense of a straightforward report, but rather was to be read as an apocalyptic account.

So what of what Geisler says?

“Thank God for the courage, conviction, and character of the man of God to whom the SBC owes the most for its orthodoxy on inerrancy—Dr. Paige Patterson.”

Ah yes. What great courage and conviction and character. It takes great courage this day to stand with Norman Geisler after all. Geisler and Patterson both say this with comfortable teaching positions not under attack and while getting to speak at various locations. Meanwhile, Licona and company have job losses, being uninvited from conferences, and I myself being spoken of in a letter from SES on account of a YouTube video.

Let’s say this at least. At least Patterson put his name on it instead of being another “anonymous.”

Now that he has taken that step of courage, let us remember that his great threat that he could receive according to Geisler is “annoyance.”

One side causes the other side to lose income. One side causes the other side to be annoyed.

Which side takes more courage to stand on?

Note something also in all of this. Geisler speaks of this with pride, but what argument did Patterson put forward? None. All he said was that the Law of noncontradiction can’t be violated. Well I seriously doubt that he’s going to find any disagreement here with that! So what’s the point?

“I Hope there is a place reserved in Nashville for a bronze statue of him.”

Oh good grief. It’s not as if we don’t have enough hero worship going on in all of this. When I go to Geisler’s Facebook page, I see too many posters there that I am sure that if Geisler said that the sky is purple and the moon is made of green cheese, that they would immediately be shouting that from the rooftops.

“It is time for other SBC leaders to close ranks on the Licona issue.”

And to what end? What will be accomplished? Inerrancy will be saved? Inerrancy has not been under attack, but the end result of this would be that the sword of bullying is what will win the day rather than the sword of studying the text and doing exegesis.

Note also again, that there is no argument in all of this. This is getting tiring. Max, JPH, and myself all make it a point to write out arguments for why we believe what we believe on this. Do we get refutations? No. We get “Well so and so says Geisler is right!” So because X says Geisler is right, I’m supposed to drop all that I believe and jump on that bandwagon immediately? Sorry.

Also, remember what Geisler said in his third open letter where he responded to the scholars Mike listed?

“Sixth, listing some scholars who agree with him misses the point. First, as he admits, most of them do not agree with his unrecanted in-print view. Further, the fact that they say they are “in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy” misses the point entirely. For it does not answer the question of with whose view of inerrancy it is in agreement? As we all know, the term “inerrancy” can be twisted to mean many things to many people. In my “Open Letter” I affirmed only that Licona’s view was not in agreement with the ETS (of which Licona is a member) view of inerrancy as expressed in the Gundry case. Of course, one can always find a number of people with whose views on inerrancy it is in agreement. But that is not the point.”

The idea of whose view of Inerrancy is indeed the question. Interestingly, Geisler says “One can always find a number of people with whose views on inerrancy it is in agreement. But that is not the point.”

Licona lists thirteen scholars, two of whom are ICBI signers and many of whom are NT scholars. It doesn’t matter. The question is whose view of Inerrancy do they agree with?

Geisler lists Thomas Howe and Paige Patterson who are not NT scholars and we are immediately supposed to surrender.

Apparently, the idea is that the scholars that are mentioned don’t matter, unless those scholars agree with Geisler. It’s an interesting way to play the game. Simply rule out of court as wrong anyone who happens to take the position that is opposite yours and hold up all who agree with you as the real scholars.

Here at Deeper Waters, we don’t play that game. We want to see the arguments and we not only want to see them, we want to see myself, Max, and JPH answered on our counter-arguments.

But we’re not holding our breath for such to happen.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sex, Sanger, and Animism

What has Margaret Sanger to do with Animism? Let’s find out as we plunge into Deeper Waters.

My best man recently told me about a find he made on the STR blog concerning a book by Francis Galton recently released, though apparently in bits and pieces, that involves a dream Eugenics society. For many, that society would be a nightmare, but what my best man was most interested in was that despite the technology, the society happened to be animistic. This sounds like a primitive belief to many, so why would it be in such a great society?

Naturally, that gave me something to ponder, which indeed I did. I do have the fortune, or one might say misfortune, of having read Margaret Sanger’s “The Pivot of Civilization.” Sanger was the one who founded the organization today known as “Planned Parenthood” although it was originally known as “The American Birth Control League.” Indeed, that name is still in the back of my copy of the book.

Sanger was an atheist through and through, but the point we can forget is like many atheists, she was extremely religious. You might think that does not fit well, but indeed it does! Man is by nature a worshiping being and I find that sadly many atheists take the question of God even more seriously than many Christians do. At least many atheists live as if there are ramifications of the question. Many Christians seem to live as if Jesus saved them from their sins and can provide comfort, but apart from that, God doesn’t really play that big a part in the world today.

For Sanger, her religion was sex, much like the ancients of the past who used fertility rites to appease the gods. To be sure, the ancients were onto something. Let us not dismiss the pagans because they were pagans. We dare not say that the pagans loved sex too much. The problem was for them that they loved God and their fellow men too little.

The ancients believed that by using sex, they were tapping into contact with the gods. To go and have sex with the prostitute in the temple was to have sex with the goddess. In many myths, sex was a creative power whereby the gods came into being, and why should this surprise us since sex is the act whereby we repeat creation as it were bringing new life into existence.

There can be no doubt that our American society has a strong fixation on sex today, and again, why should it not? In fact, I would not say this is common to just Americans. There was a reason celibacy was practiced for years and still is today by several who are Christians, particularly in the Catholic faith. Somehow, the vow to avoid sexual intercourse for one’s life was seen as a sacrifice, and why should it be seen as a sacrifice unless it was a great good to be sacrificed? One would not think it a noble sacrifice necessarily to give up playing cards or going fishing or something of that sort, unless one was of course a gambler or a fisherman.

The problem in our society is not the proliferation of sex per se. It is really the ignorance of sex. Everyone knows the basics of sex who has come of age. We know what goes where and we know that this practice can produce babies and we know that it can spread STDs and that it is supposed to be for two people who love each other very much. (Of course, in our society who those two people can be is questioned) If we think sex education is the answer, when it comes to these questions, there is not much more to be said.

Perhaps what we need is the what of sexuality. What is sex? Could it be that the ancients were right in what they said? Could it be that Sanger was right in what she said?

Sanger had a connection with the ancients?

Why yes she did! All one needs to do is read chapter 10 of the Pivot in order to see this. For instance, consider this:

In the solution of the problem of sex, we should bear in mind what the successful method of humanity has been in its conquest, or rather its control of the great physical and chemical forces of the external world. Like all other energy, that of sex is indestructible. By adaptation, control and conscious direction, we may transmute and sublimate it.

Later she says in speaking of a book by Louis Berman she agrees with that:

Our spiritual and psychic difficulties cannot be solved until we have mastered the knowledge of the wellsprings of our being.

Yes. Those terms are being endorsed by an atheist. Sanger believed that we needed to harness the energy of sex to make man into what he fully needed to be. Make no mistake about it, Sanger took sex incredibly seriously. Make no mistake about this as well, she did not take it seriously enough.

Sanger saw sex as a way to build up man to man. We see it as a way of building up man to God, when does as He intended it to be, within the confines of marriage. Sex is to be celebrated as a gift of God. There is a reason the marriage relationship is compared to the relationship of God to Israel and Christ to the Church.

What if Sanger had seen sex in a theological light? She might have understood a lot more than she realized then. She had already cut that way out however. For her, there was nothing above. Therefore, when we look at a eugenics society based on her philosophy, there can be nothing above. There cannot be our monotheism or even the polytheism of the ancients. There can also not be pantheism as eugenics would imply some superiority whereas if pantheism is true, all is one so there can be no superiority.

Animism then I think makes sense, for if we are to bring out spiritual realities, there must be something spiritual, and if this cannot be located above, it must be located within our cosmos and bound by it. If there are to be gods and this cannot be a polytheism above, it must be a polytheism within, which would be more animistic.

And this could get us closer and closer to the ancient pagans as well. If we can allow for god concepts to come back in, we would reach polytheism. In fact, if we are fortunate, we will do this. After all, the pagan is essentially pre-Christian and is beyond the idea that only science has all the answers. He knows that there is a transcendent reality and is seeking to reach it.

Of course, this does not mean that the eugenics program is good, but if we are moved away from a scientism approach, let us not condone the evil that is done but see it as an opportunity to reach our fellow man. I would not be surprised if the bankruptcy of total secularism is nearing as it seems the new atheists could be showing.

Perhaps also then what we Christians need is exactly what Kreeft said we need in “The God Who Loves You.” We need a theology of sex. Christians need to be the ones showing the world that the world in fact does not have sexuality right and not only that, they are not enjoying it the way that they should. Instead of thinking that the popular culture has the answers on sex, the popular culture should be thinking we do. After all, we know the God who created sex. We should be the authorities.

I conclude then that the idea of this leading to animism makes sense, and what it will take is not knowledge of the mechanics of sex, but rather the God of sex.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

John’s Changed Day?

If John changed the day that Jesus was crucified on, does this count as a denial of Inerrancy? Let’s find out as we dive into Deeper Waters.

Over on Geisler’s site under the article about how the list is growing of Licona’s denial of Inerrancy, we have the following:

Now it has come to our attention that in a debate with Bart Erhman at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the Spring of 2009 that Licona asserted concerning the day Jesus was crucified that: “I think that John probably altered the day in order for a theological—to make a theological point there. But that does not mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified.” However, it does mean that the Licona believes that text is in error! This is a flat denial of the inerrancy of Scripture!

What are those last two lines?

“However, it does mean that the Licona believes that text is in error! This is a flat denial of the inerrancy of Scripture!”

Does it really?

To begin with, let’s go to the start. What does Licona say? He says that he believed John changed the date. If John changed the date, then that means that he knew what the date was. Licona then says that he believes John changed the date to make a theological point.

Note also then that that means John expects us to recognize the changed date.

If that is the case, then is John knowingly writing error?

No.

Let us consider another example in the gospel of John in comparison to some others. We have in John 2 the scene where Jesus raises a ruckus in the temple. In all the other gospels, this takes place in the Passion week. In this gospel, it takes place at the beginning.

“But Nick! Could it be that it happened twice as some think?”

Could be, but it could just be that John is changing chronology to make a point.

Is that example not good enough? Let’s go to another one then. How about the order of the temptations of Jesus? It would be interesting to see what Geisler has to say about this.

Fortunately, I don’t have to look that far. He and Thomas Howe together wrote a book on biblical contradictions and this is one of the verses they dealt with. (Interestingly, their reference to the question of John only addresses the point of being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights. It doesn’t address John’s timing.) On page 329 of “When Critics Ask” we read the following:

It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climatically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. Matthew 4:5 begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begin with a simple “and” (See NASB). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened.

Wow. So it turns out that it could be the case that for topical reasons, the order of the event was changed, but there’s no disagreement that these temptations happened, and one is still in line with Inerrancy.

Meanwhile, Licona says that for topical reasons, namely a theological point, the known date was changed, but there is no disagreement he was crucified, and this is not in line with Inerrancy?

Now someone will say “But isn’t it obvious that one does not do that when writing history?!”

Well, perhaps if you’re a 21st century American, but this is the great danger with Geisler’s approach. Geisler does not want the cultural context to be part of the interpretation of the passage. What does that mean then? The text might as well have been written in a vacuum, but you can be sure there will be a cultural context that the text is read in, and that is Geisler’s own cultural context.

The great mistake is to assume that the culture of the Bible and the way writings were written was just like ours. It wasn’t. Why should we give our culture precedence anyway? Why not 5th century Japan? Why not 12th century China? Why not 15th century France? Why not 10th century England? Why think the biblical culture was like any culture?

By wanting to avoid culture, one inevitably plugs in their own culture as if something was written without having any input from the surrounding culture, despite the use of words, idioms, and other such things that would been understood by the culture.

This is a view I call Americentrism. It is the belief that everything had in mind a 21st century American audience who thinks like we do and since we tend to be literalists, then the text ought to always be taken literally. Since we write history in a straight chronology, the ancients had to do the same.

For all this talk on literal readings however, literal does not mean what it is assumed to mean but rather it refers to taking it the way the author intended to take it. One can be sure that were the Reformers here today, they would be the ones arguing against Geisler. That does not mean they’d agree with Licona necessarily, but they would say that he needs to be shown to make his case on what the Bible teaches instead of dismissed out of hand.

So if we look at that culture and we find that history did not have to be chronological, we will find no problem. If John changed the date, then we can ask “Why?” Well he changed the date so that Jesus being crucified on Passover would be a theme. “Why that? Passover is the time we offer up a lamb without blemish to celebrate our freedom from slavery…..oh!”

There is no disagreement that this is what the gospel writers thought about Jesus. Now does that mean I entirely agree with Licona’s perspective? Not yet. I haven’t studied the issue enough to form a certain judgment.

I can also assure anyone that if Licona receives a better interpretation that fits the data, he will be one who can happily accept it. The point I wish to establish is that this does not mean that one is denying Inerrancy since this is a known change and the audience would know that John had set it at this date not to give a chronological account, but to give a thematic approach.

Perhaps some people out there need to take off the Americentric glasses.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

My Personal Confrontation

Geisler says someone personally confronted me on the video? Did they? Well let’s see today as we enter Deeper Waters.

Let’s look at the charge first:

“As a graduate of the seminary, and fellow brother in Christ, I want to inform you of a slanderous video by current SES student [name] on the internet against SES co-founder Dr, Geisler…. I am actually ashamed, saddened and embarrassed by this type of activity on [name] part. I know that I and numerous people have personally confronted [name] about such behavior and he refuses to listen.” —Southern Evangelical Seminary [SES] graduate

It would be nice to know when this happened. Unfortunately, the name has been taken down because someone might be “annoyed” so I cannot face my accuser. However, speaking as the one accused here, let’s see what happened.

First off, I did put up the link on my Facebook page. I figured the video would pop up sooner or later, so I might as well get it over with. A number of people were talking about it back and forth on my page and discussing the issues. Note this. I do not consider someone else posting on my Facebook as personally confronting me. I did not even participate in the thread at all after I got it started.

I did talk to one person on the phone and we had an agreeable conversation. He still does not like the video, but as far as I know, realizes the reasons why I do what I do and handle things the way that I handle them. Thus far on the count, we have one possible person who could have been said to have confronted me. As far as I know however, he is not a graduate of SES.

There is only one other person I can think of who called and he wished to express his concern for me in this activity and we talked back and forth about it some to which I said that I would be glad to set up an email chain between him, myself, and my ministry partner so we could discuss the issues. I do not see how it can be that a discussion of the issues means I am refusing to listen, unless the idea of refusing to listen means “I will not do what you say immediately!”

If that is what is meant, then no. I wouldn’t. I don’t believe in a knee-jerk reaction like that. We have seen in this debate what happens at times when that takes place.

However, this is also just one person then in that case and that is a highly skeptical case. This one is claiming that not only this person, but several others have confronted me on the issue. The reality is that this has not taken place.

What am I to conclude from that? Either Geisler put up information knowing to be false, or someone in support of Geisler knowingly said something untrue in order to further bring about their case. Either one of those is not a good option. Now do I understand that people have their concerns? Yes. I certainly do. I meanwhile have expressed my concerns about actions that have been done to Mike Licona and that I and others have felt the sting of as a result.

I also know that it seems several came out to condemn the video when it was made, but it seems there is no hint of repentance whatsoever from the other side on actions that endangered a man’s livelihood and ability to bring home a paycheck as well as his reputation in the Christian community. Even more concerning is the impact that this will have on Evangelicalism in America as a whole if this kind of mindset continues.

Thus, I conclude that this charge is just blowing smoke and if that is the case, then I wonder how many others could be blowing smoke as well?

But with just anonymous sources, who can say?

In Christ,
Nick Peters