Month: January 2013

Book Plunge: Jesus, The Miracle Worker

What do the miracles of Jesus mean? Le’ts talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My Master’s research is on miracles. One book recommended to me (And if anyone has any other recommendations feel free to give them!) was Graham Twelftree’s “Jesus: The Miracle Worker.” This one was published in 1999 long before Craig Keener’s excellent work on the topic of miracles, yet they handle quite different themes, meaning the two work together very well.

Keener’s book dealt largely with modern accounts of miracles and asking if they are still going on today. Twelftree’s deals with the accounts of the biblical material and is not really interested in if miracles are happening today, although he does indicate that the biblical writers think that miracles should be going on today.

Early on, Twelftree does have a section dealing with Hume, which is an essential for most any work on miracles today. The arguments are simple, but I think in many ways effective. Twelftree does realize that this is not his area and does have sources in the back to help the reader with further study.

Then, he takes us through the gospels where we look at each in turn and look at each miracle that Jesus does. It has been said before that Twelftree argues the strongest case for the deity of Jesus can come from the gospel of Mark. Some readers might be surprised at that, but throughout Twelftree’s book, he does argue that Mark saw Jesus acting as God doing miracles. Whether this is the book the person who told me that had in mind or not, I cannot say, but it is a strong case. It is difficult to think about looking at miracles the same way again after this.

Then, we get into historiography and this is some of the most fascinating material. My father-in-law had warned me that when you get into historiography, that it is a very appealing area and one you can lose yourself in. He’s right. It’s quite fascinating when you see discussion back and forth on whether this passage is historical or not.

I like in this that Twelftree does present a real approach. He is not simplistic enough to say “It’s in the ‘Word of God’ so we know it happened.” In fact, when he speaks about the “Word of God” he uses quotation marks in describing the people who hold to a theory like that so much that they do not allow the Bible to be investigated. I do not doubt Twelftree sees Scripture as God’s Word, but the point he wants to make is that it is not an idol.

So there are places in there where he lists reasons and says “This is why we can say this traces back to an event in the life of Christ.” Then there are places where he says “We can’t be too certain here.” This is a wise move. Let’s suppose you’re like me and do believe that both the wedding of Cana miracle happened and that the resurrection of Jesus happened.

Which one could a stronger case be made for?

Without a doubt, it’s the resurrection. Most of us accept the wedding account because we accept the resurrection account. Of course, if we are wrong about the wedding, then we are wrong, but it does not mean that we will throw out the resurrection. Each account of a miracle should be handled on its own terms. (Do we need to be reminded on this blog that not all miracle accounts are equal?)

Twelftree also lists the miracles by type such as blindness, raising the dead, paralysis healing, nature miracles, exorcisms, and then anything that doesn’t fit into those categories to see what we can gleam about them that way and discuss their historicity. He then gives us a look at what this means about how Jesus saw himself and what we can say about the historical Jesus.

For those interested in miracles, this is a fine work to read alongside of Keener’s book on the topic. In fact, just this morning I started reading Mark again and could not help but see the miracle accounts differently after just reading this book, and of course, that means more abundantly.

I highly recommend this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The book can be purchased here

What Do Pagans Want?

Everyone wants forgiveness. Right? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A few nights ago, Allie and I were having some talk at night about salvation. I had told her it always helps to think about salvation more so we can realize what we have. I try to follow my own advice, so when I went to sleep that night, I decided to think about it as well and before too long, my mind reached a question that I’ve been pondering.

When we talk about salvation, we talk about how we are forgiven, and we are grateful to be forgiven. However, I thought about the idea of the Christians going out and preaching a message of forgiveness and then realized what was going on. Why should I think that the pagans at the time were really wanting forgiveness?

One of the great dangers we have in our day and age is to transplant our values today onto those of the past. Today, we all talk about guilt and knowing that we’ve done wrong. In fact, this is how an argument like “The Way of the Master” (I prefer to call it “The Way of Disaster”) begins. It is the goal to get someone to realize that they’ve done wrong and that they need forgiveness.

Naturally, there are problems with it. After all, in our day and age of moral relativism, it can be difficult to get some people to think they’ve really done something wrong. If they can do that, it’s something to get them to think they’ve offended God. If you do that, to which you still have to first establish His existence to people, it’s another step to get them to think that they need forgiveness instead of God just letting it slide. Even still, you would have to show that that forgiveness is in Christ which means an apologetic for the resurrection.

I could be odd, but maybe it would be best to just start with the existence of God and the resurrection.

In fact, let’s put the situation into the mindset of the ancient world. What if the first Christians had gone to the pagans and said “Good news! Forgiveness is available!” The pagans would probably have wondered the same thing. Why do they need forgiveness? There would have been no thought of “Going to Heaven when you die.” The pagans did not have much of a view of an after-death. Of course, there were some ideas, but the greater focus was the good life here and now. Resurrection was definitely not in the picture.

Nor would they have thought in terms of sins. Sacrifices could be offered, but these were usually in a form of appeasement. If you want the blessings of Poseidon as you travel on the sea, you make an offering to him. If you want the favor of the emperor, you would do the same thing.

I started going to Bible programs then and doing searches through books of the NT and found surprises. The gospel of John only mentions forgiveness in one part, and that’s in John 20. Galatians, which is all about salvation for us, did not have mention of sin or forgiveness. Now to be sure, it talks about grace and the works of the flesh, but it’s amazing how rarely some of these terms show up in comparison to what we’d think.

Now of course, this is not to say forgiveness is not part of the proclamation nor is it saying that the Bible does not teach forgiveness of sins. It is not even saying forgiveness is unimportant. It certainly is. Forgiveness is an awesome event and it is something that we all need, but not all realize they need it.

So what are some other reasons why someone could become a believer? One aspect could be appeasement. This could contain an aspect of forgiveness to it, but the idea was that if one wanted the favor of YHWH, one would have to become a follower of Him and one would have to do this through Christ. This could be what Paul is getting at more with his message of repentance in Acts 17 on Mars Hill. Paul there works to show the grandeur of God in response to the idols of Athens and then ends by saying God is going to judge.

It could be the goal of honor. One wanted to give honor to the person who had bestowed a good blessing. This could be what Paul is pointing at as well when he speaks in Lystra in Acts 14 and says that God shows his blessing and gives an illustration of the weather cycle for that.

There could be several other reasons that have not been thought of yet. What am I really getting at? When we give the gospel, if we are to be effective, we have to show people how it does apply to their lives. If they don’t think they need forgiveness, we might have to go another route. Of course, some people do welcome the forgiveness message eagerly, like Hindus in India who would love to escape the circle of Karma. The message of salvation is about favor with God and forgiveness is one aspect of that, though it is of course an important one.

This could lead us to have a richer appreciation of our salvation. Our salvation means more than that we are forgiven. It means that right now, we are taking part in the Kingdom of God. It means that He is ruling now through Christ and has offered us all a chance to take part in that. If our salvation is so great to us, and it is and should be, we can think of the many different ways it applies.

In our witnessing today, we must remember that we live in a similar situation. Not everyone thinks about forgiveness. It’s true everyone needs it, but not everyone realizes it. We could be making our task more difficult than we realize with many of our modern evangelism tactics. Perhaps we should try the strange idea of finding people where they are and showing them how the gospel works in their lives.

I know it’s strange, but it could work.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

 

Book Plunge: The Destruction of Jerusalem

What hath 70 A.D. to do with Christianity? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Awhile back I posted on Jehovah’s Witnesses and Doomsday and stated that I am an orthodox Preterist in that post. What that means I believe that much of prophecy has been fulfilled, including the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. I look forward to the bodily return of Christ and the bodily resurrection from the dead. It’s my thinking that God will redeem the Earth for man to live on forever with Christ ruling as king.

Being an owner of a Kindle now, one advantage is that old books are so easy to come by. You can get several for free. The one I’m reviewing today is not free, but recently a Christmas gift didn’t work out and I was told in exchange “Get on Amazon and buy within this price range.” So I did. One book I got was one that my friend DeeDee Warren, of the Preterist Podcast, recommended to me. It’s called “The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistable Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity”, by George Holford

Something else important about this book. It wasn’t free. Many old books are, but it wasn’t. I suspect it’s because it is reprinted a number of times. In fact, the original one was written in 1805. This is not a new idea that is being presented. If anything, the futurist idea that is most common today is the new kid on the block. In responding to objections even, Holford doesn’t even mention anything about not taking the text literally or something of that sort. There is no mention of a futurist idea.

What do we have instead? We have a description of the destruction of Jerusalem. Our main source if Josephus, but Holford gives a good basic run down. I can warn people that if you are squeamish, this is not the book for you. In fact, if you are really that bad, this might not even be the blog post for you. We can look and say “Jerusalem got destroyed. Was it really that bad?”

Let’s see. Blood pouring through the temple. Trees being cut down just so everyone could be crucified. Bodies being cut open just so that thieves could get to the precious metals that people swallowed hoping to pass out through their system later. Mothers having to cook their children just so that they could have something to eat.

Yes. It was that bad.

And that’s just a minor sample of it.

So what has this to do with Christianity being true?

All of this was prophecied by Jesus. Jesus was seen as just a carpenter’s son. He was not a statesman or a politician. He was a teacher and yet, he made this prophecy. What it says about Him then is that He had divine knowledge about what would happen, which was never amended with “Thus says the Lord.”

Instead, Jesus spoke as if in the place of God. Why was the temple destroyed? Because Jesus was the Messiah and in rejecting Jesus, the Jews at the time broke the covenant with YHWH and thus, He abandoned the temple and left it to be destroyed by the Romans.

This would mean that Jesus was who He claimed to be and the charge of rejecting Him was incredibly serious. Of course, Holford deals with objections to his idea such as maybe Jesus was just fortunate or maybe the accounts were written after the events took place. For the latter, we today have the blessing of further scholarship which can make a powerful case that the accounts are indeed written before the fall of Jerusalem.

A negative point is that Holford does make a point about Israel not being reinstated until they repent. Unfortunately, they have been reestablished as a nation. It is my contention that this has zip to do with prophecy. Why? Check the OT. The requirement for returning to the land and restoring the covenant was national repentance. Has anyone seen repentance on the part of Israel on a national level and them turning to their Messiah?

As an aside to this, I will stress that I do support the nation of Israel still, but not for theological reasons. I support them for political reasons. I see Islam as a threat and I see Israel as a buffer to them over there. I don’t center all my policies on Israel, but I certainly don’t think America should abandon such a strong ally.

Also, I think if you have a good defense of the resurrection, that would be an excellent supplement to this book, but I would hope something like this could at least open the door to the possibility that maybe Jesus had some divine insight and maybe if Jerusalem was destroyed in this way, the claims should be taken seriously.

Skeptics need to read this book in order to get an understanding of what exactly happened and consider the possibility that maybe prophecy be real. This is especially true in a day and age where so many skeptics say “Jesus could not have been the Messiah since He even got wrong the time of His return.” (I would contend He said zip about His return. He was talking about His coming to His throne.)

Futurists should read this book in order to consider the possibility that maybe the Preterists have a point. I meet too many futurists who think they don’t need to read anything on Preterism because we don’t take the Bible literally there and so it’s ipso facto absurd. (For interpretation, the best resource is Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar.) If you have a view you think is true, you should have the courage to read one who disagrees.

Preterists need to read this in order to have a good explanation of why this is so important. One blessing with this is our futurist friends can read this book in a day. I did. In fact, it’s just 69 pages long. You could read it in a couple of hours. Also, if you are unfamiliar with DeeDee Warren who recommended this book, I will include a link to the Preteristsite which also has a link to the Preterist Podcast.

I highly recommend this book. It’s a good short read that would be a complement to any library.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The book can be found for sale here

The Preteristsite can be found here

Book Plunge: The Closing of the Muslim Mind

Is there any way to penetrate it? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, a friend of Deeper Waters got a new Kindle and sent me his old one. In it, I found some books he’d already included, with some being on Islam. One book on the list was “The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created The Modern Islamist Crisis.”

In my years of apologetics, I have debated several kinds of people. I have debated Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Christians on disagreeing issues, and no doubt several others. Yet I have been constantly dumbfounded by what I see coming from Muslim debaters.

Is it because their arguments are so good?

No. It is because generally, they are consistently so terrible.

This is not to say that there aren’t intelligent Muslims out there who can make arguments. There are. It is to say that there is a general trend in this area. The reasoning, or lack thereof that I see, is just simply stunning. It is difficult to get a Muslim to follow an argument, to see how to analyze claims, and quite often a Muslim has taken the most simplistic arguments, claimed the opponents were unable to refute them, and then gone off crying victory.

An example of this is debates I’ve had lately on textual criticism. 1 John 5:7 is trotted out as not being authentic (Which I agree with) and therefore, the text is corrupt and there’s no argument for the Trinity at all. Now it could be the Trinity is wrong for the sake of argument. It could be for the sake of argument that the text is corrupt. A simplistic argument like this does not show it. In fact, when I tried to debate my opponent on this one I asked him if he knew what a gloss was only to get the answer “gloss?” In other words, we have people arguing on the basis of textual criticism and it is clear, they have no idea what it is. Instead of seeing arguments, I consistently see just YouTube videos. The only people cited as sources are people like Deedat and Naik.

Keep in mind also, Islam is a faith that denies that Jesus Christ was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the surest facts of history. If you go to NT scholars and deny that Jesus was crucified, you will not be treated seriously. You will be seen as a joke amongst them.

Yet in the past in history, there were Muslims like Avicenna and Averroes. These were giants of intellectualism who should be seen as the people that Muslim apologists would want to emulate today. The sad part is few if any have probably heard of them and those who have would most likely consider them heretics.

Reilly’s contention in the book is that this is a result of a war between the Ash’ari school of Islam and the Mu’tazila school. The former held that the Koran was uncreated. The latter held that it was created. The former school is the school that won out with such writings as “The Incoherence of the Philosophers.”

What happens as a result? There is a bifurcation in Islam between faith and reason. Allah becomes a will. Occasionalism reigns, which means that Allah becomes the direct cause of everything. There can be no natural law because that would imply that humans can reason to truth apart from the Koran. There can be no science because that would lower Allah and make him work through intermediary causes. The reason things work is because it is the will of Allah. The reason for a moral law is that it is the will of Allah.

And we wonder why it is so hard to spread Democracy to a Muslim country.

Furthermore, if reason will not work, then what is left? Violence. You cannot use peace. You must use the sword. Reilly gives several quotations that explain this. It is an in-depth look at the history of Islam and the way it is today. Reilly wants to know why Muslim countries aren’t flourishing. Why are we not seeing profound science, literature, and economic developments in Muslim countries? It is because of the theology at the heart. Note he does not say it is because of the Koran. He does not say it is because of Allah. He does not say it is because of Muhammad. He says it is because of a certain understanding of Islam.

Now in saying all of this, I 100% agree that Islam is a false faith. I do not think Muhammad was a prophet for a second. Still, I do not worry about what Jews will do in the future. I do not worry about Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Buddhists or Hindus. I do about Muslims. Why? Because of what I see going on today with the rampant violence, and this book does a great deal to explain it. I have great concerns over a position where reason is not used. (I also have great concerns when Christians take the same mindset)

Hopefully, as Reilly argues at the end, we can see some reform in the Islamic faith so that they will return to a way of reason. Perhaps they will still hold to the Koran. I would love to see them come to Christ instead, but if they hold to the Koran, at least there will be reasoning about it and not a total commitment to violence. Perhaps. There are some lights in the Islamic world wanting to lead the way. Let’s hope they are not snuffed out.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Robert Reilly’s book can be found here

Why I Encourage Waiting Until Marriage

Is it harmless to have you fun before you say “I do?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, at Reclaiming The Mind, Michael Patton posted on the topic of if the Bible condemns pre-marital sex. His idea was “Yes.” Then shortly after that on TheologyWeb someone shows up who in the midst of his posting saying he is a Christian, starts saying Christ has no problem with sex before marriage and that the legalism of Christians on the issue is sickening. (Wouldn’t surprise me from what I saw if the guy was really an atheist.) There are a number of Christians who have questions on this issue. I figured I should throw in my own two cents.

To give a personal background, when I first lived in Knoxville, I had a circle of friends and around me, I saw people getting married. I was in a position of wondering if it’d ever happen to me. Many people I chatted with online knew that this was my perennial question. It was the great sadness I had in my life. When I went to Charlotte and got on Facebook while there, I saw many people I went to high school with had married and were having kids as well.

Ironically, I formed a new circle of friends, many of whom were in my wedding party. As it turns out, this time, I was the first one in my circle to get married. Allie and I have been married for nearly 2 and a half years. I was 29 when we married and she was 19. (I waited a long time. I tell her often she’s fortunate that she got something many girls dream about, a good husband, pretty much right out of high school) Add in that we both have Asperger’s, and that makes things even more interesting.

Sex is definitely an important part of a marriage. Some people might suspect that I’m going to say what some Christians give the impression of. Sex is something dirty and you shouldn’t think about it.

Um. No.

I’m a married man. I consider that practically blasphemy to say that about sex. It’s something special and awesome and wonderful. God created it. It was all His idea. He designed the parts, the system, and even the engine that runs it. The pleasurable aspect of it, He made for us.

Yes. God intends for us to enjoy this.

I also don’t want to say the usual stuff that we get. Most often we are told “You could get STDs,” or “You could get a girl pregnant or get pregnant yourself” or “You will have guilt for what you did.” First off, it’s true that you could get an STD or pregnancy outside of marriage could result, but what if that was eliminated, and to an extent it can be. Does that mean we no longer have an argument? Our stance must be on moral grounds and not just practical grounds.

As for guilt, some people do have guilt. Some don’t. We do a great danger to those who don’t because they could say “Wow. I had a really good time. The church was wrong about this. I wonder what else they’ve been wrong about as well?” After all, if guilt always resulted from doing something wrong, our society would not have the sin problem to the extent that it does. (Note that not feeling guilty does not mean one has not incurred actual guilt before God)

So now, eliminating STDs, pregnancy, and feelings of guilt, is there any reason to not have sex before one is married?

Yes. Yes there is.

To begin with, our society has its view of sex very much wrong. When we watch a TV show or a movie for instance, it’s usually just what every person is thinking about entirely 24/7. The media doesn’t seem to show all the other aspects of sex that can happen. It seems foreign to them that a woman might not be turned on immediately but needs to be loved over time. It seems to forget that men can also want some emotional closeness and that one does not just play the sex card every time as if every man will be immediately subservient to that. Watch just the media and you can get the idea that we’re all just big bundles of hormones walking around waiting for our next fulfillment.

Yet even still there is an inconsistency. One can find a prostitute as a shameful place to have in society, but one does not seem to find that sleeping around personally is. If anything, it would seem at least the prostitute who is just giving out sex could be said to at least be making money out of the deal. When I see this, I just cannot figure out the irony of it all.

Also, there is a tendency to view the person as just an object. For we men, it can be that a woman could be seen as nothing more than a means to have sexual release. C.S. Lewis once wrote about a man with strong sexual desire and how it would be said “He needs a woman.” Lewis responded that’s the last thing he needs. If he found a real woman, he wouldn’t know what to do. He just wants sex and a woman happens to be the apparatus by which he desires that. We men in marriage need to be on guard against this attitude.

Now someone can say “Well you wouldn’t drive a car without taking it for a test drive would you?” No. You wouldn’t, but this gets to the problem as it is treating people as if they were mechanical and dare I say it, treating sex as if it was nothing but a mechanical process. Of course, there is nothing wrong with technique and such, but this is not just two physical objects coming together. This is two persons, persons with wills and emotions and desires.

When you take the car off the lot to test it out, the car is not thinking “Oh my. I’d better do good for this driver.” The car is not worried about its performance. The car has no pressure. If you reject it, the car does not pine away in the dealer’s lot. The car does not have fear for the next person to come along wondering if it will be rejected again. The car is just still right there and neither knows nor cares.

It’s usually interesting that most people see themselves as the driver instead of the car. Implicitly, the other person in that case is being watched to see if they please you.

In marriage on the other hand, it becomes different. Yes. We men want our own pleasure very much, and to an extent there is nothing wrong with that. We need to know what we like as well so we can tell our wives, but many men will also say, and I would agree, that there is something unsatisfying if we don’t think we’re pleasing our wives at the same time. We’re not just focused on us. We’re focused on making our wives know how much they mean to us, and bluntly, for us, this is one of the best ways we know how to do it. (I understand that Gary Chapman, author of The Five Love Languages, has said that this is the sixth love language every man speaks.)

The difference is we have that trust built in beforehand through the covenant that has been made. There is no pressure to perform. There is, of course, or should be, desire to perform and to perform well. It is not for fear of rejection in marriage, or at least it shouldn’t be, but for a desire to build up that trust.

Besides, how much can someone be trusted when they seek total and complete vulnerability from you, but are not willing to make a commitment to you in marriage. “Well they will in the future!” Okay. If they will in the future, and you’re certain of that, then what’s the harm with waiting for that commitment?

Of course, that is a struggle and a battle. Allie and I dated for less than a year, but it was a battle until then. She knows I was very hesitant about physical touch. I was always afraid to go too far. I am not for a moment denying that this is a struggle for people who are not married and for people who are in a dating relationship. In fact, that’s good and normal. Sexual desire is a good and healthy thing.

It’s just that sex is something incredibly powerful and explosive. It is a little dynamite in a marriage relationship that adds a powerful spark. For my friends who are single, yes, this is something that changes your life. I tell people that the reason I have so much confidence now as opposed to the way I was before marriage, is because of the validation that I have in marriage. It is like nothing else. It is the strongest way I can be told “I love you.” Men and women both want romance. We just want it in different ways, and we men definitely need to realize especially that women are creatures that need and deserve romance and not just objects to turn off and on for our pleasure.

In the marriage covenant, this becomes something that solidifies the relationship and strengthens it. The deeper bond that comes produces love as the man and woman see each other in a different light. They start responding to each other differently than they did before. In public, one can think they know their spouse in a way no one else does.

Because of this, each person then seeks to please the other more and more and put to death their own desires, and that can be a battle. There are many times, for instance, that one can be in an argument with a spouse and think of a “zinger” that one could use to really win the argument. I can think of times that I have held back when it was right there waiting to be said. Unfortunately, I can think of times when I’ve been an idiot and let it out only to sincerely and deeply be apologizing minutes later. (And men, please do make it a point to apologize and seek forgiveness when you screw up, because you will as will I.)

Many women can enter a sexual relationship seeing it as if it is a precursor to marriage. Many men are quite happy with the relationship at the level that it’s at, and why shouldn’t they be? They get to have their fun and they don’t even have to make a lifelong commitment to the woman. This is also why statistically, living together before marriage increases the likelihood that you will get a divorce.

And speaking of divorce, some of you could be thinking that a trust relationship isn’t really there in marriage because there’s always divorce. Note what I am going to say at the start. I am not going to say that divorce is ALWAYS wrong. There are sad times where I think it is highly recommended, such as the case of an abusive relationship that does not end even after separation and counseling. I also think it is justifiable in the case of marital infidelity. Of course, in the latter, it is also possible to work through it, and I would encourage that route first. Divorce can be an option, but it should be a last resort. We set the bar way too low and inevitably, people will hit a low target. Treating marriage as if it can be ended at any time for any reason destroys trust. Realize you are in a lifelong relationship with that person so do what you can to build it up, not to tear it down, and don’t test the other person.

Some of you are also surprised I haven’t been quoting Scripture in this. I don’t think there is an explicit reference in the Bible, but I think implicitly, true sexuality in the Bible is always seen to be between husband and wife. In Jewish culture, when a couple was betrothed, they did everything except live together and have sex, which would mean this did not need to be spelled out. Also, the point of marriage would in many cases be the first time of having sex. Having sex with someone, as Paul says, makes you one with that person. I can look back and be thankful that I’m one with only one other person and she has only been one with me as well. I am thankful to have this in my life now, but also thankful that I waited.

The reason ultimately we guard sex between a husband and wife is not because we are prudes, although some of us are. It is for the opposite reason. It is because this is like the objects one keeps in a safe-deposit box. You don’t keep dirty laundry or old banana peels or your grocery list in there. You keep what is valuable in there. We protect sex because it is so valuable and realize that releasing this dynamite outside of the setting it was meant to be used in leads to disaster. The hook-up culture is a fine example of this.

For further information, I think one of the best books a parent can get their Christian child before sending them off to college is “How To Stay Christian In College” by J. Budziszewski. In that book, he has a chapter with several reasons to avoid pre-marital sex. Also, Lauren Winner’s book “Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.” For couples who are engaged or about to be, I highly recommend Kevin Leman’s “Sheet Music” and Ed Wheat’s “Intended for Pleasure.”

Go forward and enjoy, but enjoy the way the Creator intended, and you will get the most out of it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Can A Seminary Be Academic?

Is there freedom of thought? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend sent me an article by Peter Enns wanting to see what I thought of it. I will put a link to it at the end of this article, but basically, Enns is saying that there is a problem in many evangelical circles in that one cannot have freedom of thought since one must believe such and such about biblical interpretation to be included.

As I read this, I thought about how in the last election cycle, actor Jon Lovitz came out speaking against some policies of Obama and when he did so, he immediately became a target. He had gone against the party line. For some of us, that shows a groupthink mentality in Hollywood. Do we want to have the same here?

Of course, there is an important difference. In order to be an actor or some role in Hollywood, one does not need to have a certain set of political beliefs. In order to be a Christian, one does require a set of religious beliefs certainly. I do not doubt that Enns would say that someone who denies truths like the physical resurrection of Jesus, his deity, the Trinity, and salvation by grace through faith is not a Christian. If he does not, then I say he definitely has his own set of problems.

Yes. There are identifying beliefs of a Christian, but is Enns right that our academies are in danger of losing their effect on the world due to how they treat ideas that are contrary?

In many cases, I think we could be. The church has had a history of minoring in the majors and majoring in the minors. The minors are made a big issue because it’s suspected that they could lead to major errors. The irony is that it’s quite different from that. It’s the ideas that are treated like sacred cows that can often become the problem.

For instance, Ken Ham wrote a book on why young people were leaving the church. Why? We weren’t teaching young-earth creationism enough. Now this is a debate for those who are interested in that, but the reality is that Ham is completely off base. It is when a secondary issue is raised to a primary that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. When students are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the Earth is not young, they decide the whole thing is a sham. I cannot be more certain about this point. If your faith rests on the age of the Earth, young or old, instead of on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, your faith is misplaced.

In the same boat, Inerrancy is also an issue like this. Now keep in mind this is a position that I hold to. I do think the Bible is true in all that it teaches. However, I also know that there are a number of Christians who are sure that if there is one error in the Bible, then that means Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead and the Bible is in error.

An example of the problems this leads to can be found with one atheist who is not worth naming mentioning an email he received about someone who abandoned the faith.

“One day I was at a Barnes and Noble browsing around. I got to the Philosophy section, and picked up (this book by an atheist) . Part 2 of the book is titled “Why the Bible Is Not the Word of God.” After reading about some historical, scientific, and moral errors I went to the Christian Inspiration section of the store to get a Bible so I could read the context of each verse. Finally, hours later I renounced my faith.”

Yep. A whole hours later. That’s a real commitment right there. Never bothered to go to the Christian section and see if there were any responses to this, which would have been a fruitful endeavor. Now if after a long time of searching, he was convinced the Bible was wrong and untrustworthy, he should not be a Christian. I still think he’s wrong entirely and the contradictions can be resolved, but at least he did his due diligence then.

Do you see what happened? A non-essential was made an essential and because of that, someone fell away from the faith. In fact, it is for reasons like this that while I hold to Inerrancy, I no longer really argue for it. Why? I’m just out to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. If you say we need Inerrancy to do that, then it seems that you are saying we cannot make a historical case for the resurrection. We are left with fideism. We believe the Bible because it says so. We believe the Bible is separate from history and cannot be touched on history but speaks authoritatively in history. I consider this a highly dangerous position.

Enns mentions a number of beliefs like the historicity of Adam (Which I hold to), different ways of reading creation (I prefer John Walton’s idea), and the dating of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Daniel. (I hold to their traditional dates.) Note something in each of these cases. If I am wrong in any of them, I would prefer to be shown that I am wrong rather than holding to something that is false. To be fair, there are some issues I have not invested time in since I can’t study everything. With those, I trust the majority of scholars I have read, but if better arguments come forward, it behooves us as people who claim to be champions of truth and logic to believe those arguments.

When we act like an Inquisition in our own circles, it gives off the aura of doubt. Instead, when someone comes up with something like “I don’t hold to the historical Adam,” instead of reacting with panic, we need to say “Okay. Fair enough. Make your case. Give your evidence. We will look at your evidence and give a counter-response.” If we speak from Sinai, we instead become totalitarian and more like cult leaders instead of people who claim to be open-minded. It doesn’t help us when we tell skeptics to approach the Bible with an open-mind, when we don’t do the same when someone in our own midst says they question an interpretation of it that we hold to.

If we hold such debates, it can only help us. Why? If our position is false, we are blessed because we are no longer saying what the Bible doesn’t say, and instead saying what it does say. If our position is true, then we’ve been given further reason to believe it is not because of authoritarian statements, but because of evidence and reasoning.

To be open to truth, we must be open to being wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

link

What Don’t You Like?

Is morality just a set of personal preferences? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s an image going around Facebook again with a message like this:

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one. Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it. You can see from here how it is going. I also see there are some variations of it online. However, the last part of each one is “Don’t like having your rights taken away. Don’t take away someone else’s.”

It is sad that our society today considers this sound reasoning.

At the start, let’s consider that it is saying that if you don’t like something, don’t do it. Okay. Let’s suppose it was the opposite. Let’s suppose I do like those things. Does that mean that if I did like taking away someone else’s rights, then I should be free to do that? Does this come down to what we like?

Second, images like this ignore the main question. Why aren’t these things liked? (And furthermore, why are we even using the term “like.” It makes me think I’m not discussing what moral practice I want to uphold or condemn but what movie I want to watch at the theater.) Could it be there are actual objections that say that “I don’t support X because X is wrong.”

Take abortion as an example. Could it be that some people oppose abortion because they believe the following statements are true?

Human life is in the image of God.
Human life begins at conception.
When conception take place, a new human life has entered the world.
Innocent human life should be protected.
All innocent humans have a right to live.

If we believe those things, then it follows that we should conclude abortion is immoral. For the sake of argument, our position could be wrong. It could be one of those statements or more is false. The aspect we cannot be wrong on is that we know that we believe those statements to be true. Again, you can say we’re wrong, but we condemn abortion because we believe it to be immoral.

Porn is an example of this. I know men who are addicted to porn. You know what? Some of them would say they like porn! They want more of it! They want to see it! They just know that it’s wrong. You can like something and know it’s wrong. In fact, the reason we all return to our sinful habits some is because we like them. If sin was not something we liked, sin would not be such a problem.

When we get to the end, what we note immediately is that this switched from personal preferences to moral absolutes. The others were things you did that generally involved your own private life. (though not entirely) This last one involves your interaction with others directly.

However, if the other statements are not based on moral truths, why should I think this one is? If all others are just personal preferences, could we not say that this is a personal preference as well? In fact, why should I care about someone else’s personal preference, which is a moral claim. Suppose it’s just that I don’t like abortion. Okay. I condemn it. Someone else does like it. Why should I care? By what moral standard will I be told that I should not go against what someone likes if there is no moral truth?

Someone could say I’m being a hypocrite. This is interesting since for all the stances people have on morality, most of us condemn being a hypocrite. Last month, I debated an atheist on the Razor Swift podcast who had said that God was not consistent with his moral principles. I found this interesting since he had espoused a moral relativism and so I just started asking that if morality is relative, what is wrong with being a hypocrite? It’s saying “There are no moral standards, but it’s immoral to not follow your own personal standard.” That becomes a moral standard that is put on everyone else.

Cliches like the ones used in the image lead to the lack of thinking among the masses and shut down good discussion. It is those who do not think who will be persuaded of this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Secondhand Information

Would you let someone chew your food for you? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

On Facebook, I’m part of a discussion group between Muslims and Christians. It is not because I am an expert in Islam. I’m not. It’s because I was asked to come and defend the NT, and that is what I do. Hence, I do not make comments about the Quran generally (Other than that it denies the crucifixion) or about specific Muslim doctrines. I don’t because I don’t know them. There are people who do. Let them do that.

Unfortunately, that is not a two way street.

One of the great benefits in the internet age is that there is a world of information at your fingertips just waiting to be discovered.

Unfortunately, one of the great curses in the internet age is that there is a world of information at your fingertips just waiting to be discovered.

How does this work? Let’s give an example. My ministry partner makes YouTube videos. Now I know the reasons in the videos he makes quite well, but I think the videos are an entertaining and informative way of expressing the ideas. Therefore, I can sometimes link someone to a video and if we want to discuss it, then it is discussed.

On the other hand, I can be talking to a Muslim who tells me that the Bible has been changed. I start asking him about textual criticism. At one point I can say something like “Do you know what a gloss is?” only to receive the question “Gloss?” In other words, the idea has never been thought of before.

What happens? Instead, a video is put up with a Muslim authority talking about how the Bible has been “changed.” For the sake of argument, let’s suppose it has been changed. Here’s the problem. I would be wrong then in my defense of it, but my opponent not knowing the subject matter is really unable to talk about it. If I am wrong, he has no way of demonstrating it. If I am right, he has no way of refuting it. Instead, there is just blind reliance on the authority. Most shown in this is the remark I got of “I can’t read the whole book on textual criticism.” (Yes. I recommended a book. How dare me recommend books.)

A topic like this requires a quote from Dr. Tim McGrew, head of the Christian Apologetics Alliance.

“One of the most disastrous illusions of the internet age is that an amateur plus Google is equivalent to a scholar. A search engine offers information, more or less relevant according to the skill of the searcher. But it does not sift that information; it does not sort fact from fancy, wheat from chaff. It does not explain which facts are relevant and which are beside the point. It does not weigh the merits of competing arguments and tell the user where the balance of evidence lies. A bright amateur armed with the internet may at best be better informed than he would otherwise have been, and he may occasionally catch a real scholar in a factual error. But it will not turn him into a scholar himself. There is no such thing as effortless erudition.”

He’s right entirely. This is why in our day and age discarded theories have come back with a vengeance as people treat old ideas that were thrown out as if they were new. It is as if we were rummaging through someone’s garbage and found an old black and white television and treated this as if it was the latest invention.

The internet is the place of zombies as dead ideas constantly arise to receive new life.

Now of course, most of our information comes from other sources, but if we want to learn it, we must do the necessary research. There are excellent sources online, but you need to know how to sift through those sources and find what is true. Who does that podcast you listen to? Who runs that web site? Who produced that YouTube video? This is much easier with books.

Also, most scholars will not put their work out there for free. They will make you pay for it, and who can blame them? They worked hard to get it to you. Why should they receive nothing for their work? This will require time on your part as well. I find it incredible how many people just can’t be bothered to read books these days.

If you do link to a source, make sure you know something about the source. If you don’t, you lower yourself as you will be embarrassed even if you don’t realize it. You will also be insulting your own opponents as if telling them that your doing a web search is equivalent to their reading of books for years.

Besides, if you are sure your position is true, what do you have to fear from reading the opposition? If it is not, you have the blessing of getting to change a view that is no longer true. It is a win-win situation either way. You will either be more informed in what you hold to be a true view for now, or you will abandon a view that is false.

Either way, you must make sacrifices. As McGrew has told me, you cannot exercise by watching someone else do push-ups. If you want to argue like an authority, study to become one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

What is a Bat?

It’s not a plane and it’s not Superman, but is it really the other option? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend of mine on Facebook alerted me to a debate going on on his page over a picture he had put up that I had shared on my page. In the thread, he had an atheist listing numerous errors in the Bible and had as his example of a most blatant one, that bats are identified as a bird.

Today, we know bats are mammals and mammals are not birds, therefore, it would follow from this that a bat is not a bird. Since that is the case, then we must obviously admit that Scripture has a gaping error in it and that we can no longer treat it as a reliable source.

Or maybe not.

A number of problems arise here immediately. First off, we today often expect the Bible to speak in modern scientific terminology. It doesn’t. In fact, there is no harm in thinking there are times that God does speak to people in ways they understand rather than teach them science. We use some of the terminology today. We tell people they should listen to their hearts and we love our spouses with all our hearts, when our hearts merely pump the blood. They do not control love or thinking. We talk about going to the ends of the Earth. We have weather reports that talk about the sunrise and when it will be. Before we criticize the Bible, we should ask if it is really meaning to teach us scientific truths. This is not to say it has scientific errors, but is it meant to be read scientifically?

Secondly, let’s suppose worse came to worse and there was an error in it. Does this mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Not at all. I have an increasing concern today with Christians who seem to think that if there is one error in the Bible, then the case is done. It is as if you could not demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead unless the Bible was Inerrant. Do we really think the historical case is that weak?

When the apostles went forth with the message that Jesus was risen and gave their account of seeing Him, they did not have the gospels. They had their own testimony. They could point to the OT as further confirmation, but that would be an addition to the reality they already had. They didn’t even have the epistles for awhile! Are we to think that if an error showed up later in their accounts of what happened and in the epistles that that meant everything they said was false?

The biggest problem with all of this is that technically, the Bible does not list the bad as a bird. The Hebrew word used is “‘owph”. In the same passage it even refers to insects. What does something have to have to qualify as an “‘owph”? Wings. Is there anyone who is going to dispute that bats have wings? All this would take to figure out is some basic checking. You could go to various websites that can link you to the original Greek and Hebrew of biblical passages and see what the words mean. Unfortunately, few will take the necessary five minutes to do this.

Instead, all we have is another argument that’s for the birds.

In Christ,
Nick Peters