Month: March 2013

Malachy and Modern End Times Hysteria

Is there cause for alarm with a new Pope? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

At the start, let me state that I am a Protestant. Furthermore, I am an orthodox Preterist in my eschatology, so if you asked me if the new Pope was the Antichrist, I would say he is obviously not. Whether he is antichrist (With a little a) or not is a different matter, but no. I do not see him as a great end-times figure.

Yet now that he has been declared the new Pope, much is being made of him in light of the prophecy of Malachy. Malachy supposedly predicted the last Popes and this one is supposed to be it. Add in that this is the first Pope that is a Jesuit and now all the conspiracy theories are coming out.

I find it fascinating that most of these are all supposed to take place within our lifetime. Generation after generation considers themselves to be the chosen generation. Despite how many end times predictions have been shown to be false and thus an embarrassment to the Christian faith, the guessing still goes on.

It’s also part of our present fixation. We must live in the time. We must be the chosen ones. Okay. You’re partially right. You are the chosen ones. It does not mean you are the chosen ones to be the last generation. It means you are the chosen ones to inherit the Kingdom of God. How you were chosen I will leave for others who actually really care about the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

So while you are chosen to serve in the Kingdom and you should take that task seriously, it does not mean that you are in a time that is necessarily privileged. For the sake of argument, you could live in that time. It could be Christ will return in this generation. If He does, it will not happen because it was your generation. It will not happen because of you. It will be because of Him.

Could this be a symptom of our great fixation on ourselves? For instance, when we are growing up, many of us have a belief that somehow, we will never die. Could that be changed into the idea that God Himself will intervene with the rapture or the return of Christ so He can make sure that we never die? Of course, He could do that, but if done, it isn’t just because God wants to help you avoid some discomfort.

The great danger with the latest in modern end-times hysteria is that those who do this based on a prophecy are then saying that the prophecy is from God. If the prophecy does not come true, what is the conclusion? Whatever it is, and there are several possibilities, it does not bode well for God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of those groups that has had several end-times predictions. When they have failed, people have left the Watchtower organization. Okay. That’s good. Unfortunately, a lot of them do not become Christians but rather atheists and agnostics. When Christians make failed predictions, a lot of people will leave Christianity seeing as God is shown to not be reliable.

Also, fundy atheists online will have a heyday with such a thing. Already, I receive countless reminders that there’s a group called Westboro Baptist Church. (No! Really?!) Bart Ehrman makes much of false predictions in “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” Of course, I think the big problem is how he interpreters prophetic passages.

Now if you are a futurist, you have the freedom to believe this Pope is the Antichrist. By all means go ahead, just be careful about making a prediction based on it. Why? Because that is to claim what God is saying and if you say “God says” when God has not said, it is an action He takes very seriously. How seriously? Well in the Old Covenant, you could get put to death for it. That’s quite serious.

Remember, according to James 3:1, if you are a teacher, you will be held to greater accountability. As for bringing about the end times, I only know of one passage that can be read that way and that’s in 2 Peter 3.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives

12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

What I gather from this is that if you want to bring about the return of Christ, then live holy and godly lives. This is what you should be doing anyway. It’s my thinking that if we want Christ to return, then we need to do what He told us to do. That is to fulfill the Great Commission. We are not told to breed red cows or build temples or study medieval prophets. We are told to live holy and godly lives. We are told to do the Great Commission.

Why not do what we’re told instead of doing what we’re not told to do?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Gift of Creation

Why is there so much in our world? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters!

Recently at our small group, I told the people that it’s quite easy to worry about the future in our current economic state, at least if you’re an American like myself. Yet when we come to Matthew 6, we are told to seek first the Kingdom and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you. We are told in the Psalms that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. We are told in Romans 8 that He who gave us His Son will most graciously give us all things. We are told in Luke 12 that it is the Father’s good pleasure to give the flock the Kingdom.

So why is there creation?

I have no desire to give a total answer to this. That would require something book-length. Something I notice in the passages is that we will be taken care of and that God does not need anything. Of course, God does everything for His glory, but it is not because He needs glory. It is not God who is benefited when we glorify Him. We do not give Him something He lacks. It is we who are benefited.

It can be hard to believe we will be, but at times like that, we need to learn to not listen to our emotions and to our fears but to the voice of Scripture. Please don’t think I’m someone who’s mastered this as well. There can be nights where I wake up and have a hard time going back to sleep due to worrying about a financial situation.

When we’re tempted to think about this, then consider, God gave us His Son. He is giving us the Kingdom. We think it is too much to ask that God will give us our daily bread then? We think it is beyond His ability to supply us? Of course, we are to be good stewards of what He gives us, something many of us can work on, but we should recognize they are His good gifts.

Could it be then that part of the purpose of creation is for God to show His grace and riches towards us? Is it because God wants to bless us? Why not? Does He not give us His Kingdom and His Son so He can show us the abundance of His glory? Doesn’t Ephesians 2 teach us that it will take all eternity for God to show the abundance of His grace towards us?

Do we think God is stingy? With what could He be stingy? You can take the richest person in the world today and even they can’t give everyone everything they want without going broke themselves. No matter how much wealth such a person has, they still have a limited amount of it.

God is not like that. He has unlimited wealth and He is the only one who if more was wanted, could create more immediately. This is the same one who fed the 5,000, not counting women and children, and yet it is to be seen as difficult to think that He will supply day to day needs?

In fact, if anything, Scripture shows us God likes to bless us. He likes to bless the same way a husband can love to adore his wife with gifts or parents love to go crazy with their credit cards for Christmas.

Could it be we just don’t trust God? While we can realize He would not be benefited by us, we should also realize it would not really do Him much to deny us. Do we think God is petty and spiteful?

Now the question we have to ask is are we doing what Matthew 6 says? Are we seeking the Kingdom and His righteousness? We cannot think God will bless us if we are living in rejection of Him. Of course, we do not obligate Him to bless us by our goodness. We realize that is grace, but we are in a much better place to receive when we live in obedience to Him.

Note also if creation is the gift to provide us, this is something for those in the environmental movement, and in fact those outside, to consider. The creation is a gift to us, and we are to take care of it properly like any other gift. We can use it, but we are not to abuse it. It is our gift, but ultimately from the hand of God. It is our Father’s world.

Let’s try to rest easy fellow Christians and seek the Kingdom and trust God to care for us then.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Partially Right

Is there some truth to be learned from those who are wrong? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My wife struggles with depression. We have a good friend who has recommended literature to us that she has made sure to tell us is not part of the Word of Faith movement. If you don’t know what I mean by that, I mean the people who are “name it, claim it” types. I still want to review any material before I share it with Allie, but I’d like to use this kind of example to illustrate a point.

The Word of Faith movement is wrong. I do not doubt that. Yet there is a way in which there is something true to what they say. It is not in the extra-mental world. You cannot say that you want to be a billionaire and lo and behold, you will wind up being a billionaire. That being said, your attitude can certainly affect whether or not you will become a billionaire. If you regularly tell yourself you have no chance of being successful in business, then you will not be likely to reach your goal.

What you declare will not change the outside world, but it will affect you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have lately been seeing tremendous value in what is called “Cognitive-behavioral therapy” and I would add in that I think it’s Scriptural, such as in “As a man thinketh in his heart, so shall he be.” Your thoughts do affect you.

Now I could write a whole post on the effects of this kind of approach, but I choose to not do that. Instead, I’d like to point out that because someone is wrong on the main issues, it does not mean that there is nothing that can be learned from them at all. For instance, we’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on our door. I do not doubt the JWs have helped many people. I find I can agree with much of their material on the reliability of Scripture. They are wrong on the main issues of course, but I will take what I can.

How about reading liberal scholars of the Bible? By all means do so. Yes. They are wrong on central issues, but they are not without their insights into the text. I have had discussions with groups where I am able to bring up points that have been made by liberal scholars and had them be helpful to the discussion.

What about reading atheists? Again, by all means. Just because someone is wrong on the big issues again does not mean there is nothing to be gained. If anything, you can gain insight into the criticisms of why you believe what you believe and by learning to address those criticisms, you can strengthen your own position. It is incredibly helpful to go into a debate and be sure of what the other side is going to say before they say it.

The Jesuits once said that the philosophers were gifts to the church. Saint Augustine said “All truth is God’s truth.” I encourage readers to be looking for truth wherever they can. Remember, to discount something immediately based on the source is a genetic fallacy. It is wrong for non-Christians to do it to us. Don’t do it to them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Messianic Preterists and Futurists

Is it heretical to think some prophecy has been fulfilled? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I wrote recently about my position as an orthodox Preterist. What’s amazing to me often times is how many people assume I’m teaching some heretical doctrine right at the start. I hold to every doctrine that is essential for salvation. I am right up there with the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, future bodily resurrection, past bodily resurrection of Christ, etc. I also hold a high view of Scripture.

Yet this misnomer gets tossed around regularly and what’s really stunning is that most people who say it to me freely confess they have not studied my position at all. Even worse, most of them think that they don’t need to. Meanwhile, when I spoke about this at my old church in Charlotte, I got several books on dispensationalism to make sure I was representing them properly. I was further convinced by reading them, but I gave them a chance.

Little tip here. If you’re sure your position is correct, why should you fear the other side? On the other hand, if you come and treat my view in a way I see as ludicrous, why should I be convinced?

I’d like to give an analogy of the way I see prophecy. Suppose you live in 50 A.D. and you are a Christian in Jerusalem. You are talking to a person who is a Jew and does not believe in Jesus as Messiah. When reasoning with a Jew, the Old Testament prophecies will be an essential part of your evangelism. Here are some objections you could hear.

“How could Jesus be the Messiah if we have not been restored to the Davidic Kingdom?”

“Wouldn’t the Messiah make sure that Rome is eliminated?”

“We still have demonic activity here with our exorcists having to work. Wouldn’t Jesus eliminate that?”

“Isn’t there supposed to be universal peace?”

Couldn’t you point to some of your own prophecies? You could. You could say some have been fulfilled in Christ. Here’s some responses you could hear back. (I do realize chapters and verses weren’t added until later so please excuse that anachronism)

“Oh? You say John the Baptist fulfills Isaiah 40:3? Maybe Mark should have told you the next part:

Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Obviously, the valleys were not raised up and every mountain and hill made low! We still have them! You’re just spiritualizing the text!”

“Isaiah 53? The same one that says:

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

Don’t allegorize the text!”

“Zechariah 9? Yes. It says he’ll come riding on a donkey. What else does it say?

I will take away the chariots from Ephraim
and the warhorses from Jerusalem,
and the battle bow will be broken.
He will proclaim peace to the nations.
His rule will extend from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.

I don’t see that rule going on right now! Don’t allegorize it!”

What has happened? You believe some prophecies have had a past fulfillment. With regards to the coming of Messiah, you believe some prophecies are past. You do believe some are future still, such as what is to happen at the return of Christ or as the Kingdom spreads, but obviously, some prophecies are you are not taking literally. You don’t believe the coming of John the Baptist means the topography of Israel was literally changed.

In those days, you would be a Messianic Preterist talking to someone who believes the Messiah is future, a Messianic Futurist.

Note also, with regards to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, you would also still be a futurist as 70 A.D. had not happened yet.

Why do I say this? Because just like you in 50 A.D., I look at Jesus and say some prophecies he made have already been fulfilled. I could be wrong, sure, but what is inherently heretical about that? For instance, if I think he prophesied the destruction of the temple and I see that the temple was destroyed and to beat that, within one generation, am I not justified in that?

You could say that it could be my stance on the nation of Israel. If I don’t believe in a future fulfillment or a third temple, I am not in line with orthodoxy. How could that be? Our doctrinal statements are about Christ and not about Israel. Note also orthodoxy is what you believe about Christ, not antichrist.

If you lived in the first century in 50 A.D. you would say some prophecies have been fulfilled even if not literally. I am doing the exact same thing today. The Jew back then would have said you were not being a true Jew even though you certainly were being one. The problem is he’s assuming Scripture must be fulfilled the way he thinks.

It would be a shame to make the same mistake.

Again, I could be wrong. If my eschatology is wrong, I’m open to it. My simple stance is people who disagree with me should be open as well. Even if another view is wrong, it can help you understand and appreciate yours more when you see what the other side says. Give it a try.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: Please keep in mind that eschatology will be part of the discussion this week on the Deeper Waters Podcast. It’s on Saturday from 3-5 EST.

http://www.cyiworldwide.com/deeper-waters.html

Dr. J and Tyler Clementi

Has too much been read into a comment? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I found out that Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, known as Dr. J, of the Ruth Institute, was on the receiving end of some remarks from leftist homosexual activists concerning her supposedly misusing the suicide of a young man named Tyler Clementi. Dr. J is someone I consider a friend so I wanted to look into this since I have never known her to be anything but loving and respecting. I remember meeting her in NC one time and being introduced as her friend when we hadn’t spoken that much. I happily accept the title. I’m very proud of Dr. J’s commitment to marriage.

Still, I wanted to be as fair as I could. I talked to her and she said she would let me listen to the podcast without comment first so I wouldn’t be swayed by her. Fair enough. I listened twice. Then I questioned her about it. At first, I wasn’t sure what to make of her response from what I heard, but later on, I looked back at it again and realized “Why yes. That makes perfect sense.” As it turns out, I had misinterpreted just as well. For that, I do offer my great apologies, but I want the reader to know that Dr. J was fine with me listening and coming to my own conclusions. That is her great character there.

So what is going on? At a talk, Dr. J spoke about how some people in the homosexual community get exploited. Okay. Let’s start there before we go on. Are we going to say this never happens? Is it the case that no one in the homosexual community could never take advantage of another homosexual in a sexual sense? There really doesn’t seem to be much controversial about that. You could be someone who thinks homosexuality is perfectly okay, and still agree with it. I think heterosexuality is what is right, but I am freely able to admit this happens. I would also admit this can even sadly happen in marriage when a spouse is treated as just an object of sexual pleasure and nothing else.

Let’s hope we’re agreed then. Sexual exploitation happens and it’s wrong.

In talking about this, Dr. J told Catholic students, who share her worldview, that she thinks chaste friendships should be what is sought. The idea I gather is that men need to form friendships with homosexual men and women need to form them with homosexual women. They need to be treated like men and women regardless of their sexual attraction. If I’m wrong on her stance, I’m open to correction.

Dr. J also said that in our culture, we sexualize everything. Will anyone disagree with this? You can’t go anywhere without finding sex being an active part. Now to an extent, this is understandable. I think that being too open about sex is a problem, but so is being prudish. I found the Ragu commercial during the Olympics absolutely hysterical and I think there is a fun and open way for Christians to maturely talk about sex, and no, I don’t mind the joke about it from time to time. It’s a funny topic after all!

Yet for us, any relationship is automatically sexualized and this can give us confusion in our society. Dr. J said that as a woman, she should have only one sexual relationship. As a married man, I am the same way. The only relationship I should have that has a sexual component to it is the one I have with my wife. In our society, too often sex is made a part of most every relationship.

Now in light of talking about sexual exploitation and the homosexual community, she told about Tyler Clementi. The story from GLAAD on Clementi is that he was a student at Rutger’s who committed suicide after his roommate recorded him kissing another man.

When this was brought up by Dr. J, she asked the students if they knew about this. Admittedly, on the recording, this part seems ambiguous. You can’t tell what the students say. Dr. J says she won’t go into it. My first impression was that that meant the students already knew about it. I have been told that that is not correct. What happened was no one had any clue and it would have been seen as a tangent and a long one to explain at a Q&A so don’t go into it while other people are waiting for questions.

Dr. J had said that people can be caught by activists in the homosexual group who might want to use them to further push their own agenda. Would anyone really deny that this is plausible at least? Don’t people in politics use other people on a regular basis to further their own agenda without taking into account the person?

Let’s state some things further that I don’t think would need to be stated, but I’m sure Dr. J would agree with.

First, that this happened to Tyler Clementi is a tragedy. Suicide is always a sad thing. I don’t know anyone in this debate who is looking at the suicide of Tyler Clementi as a good thing. It is something that we all wish to avoid.

Second, the action of the roommate was also wrong. In our culture of sexting and such, too often these kinds of incidents spread around the internet like wildfire. Yes. It is wrong for several young women to be sharing sexual pictures of themselves, but what we do with it is worse.

Third, bullying of anyone is wrong. This is also the case by the way for the homosexual activists on Dr. J’s facebook page. For all the time they spend talking about love and tolerance, they sure don’t show it. In fact, their comments are further confirmation of what Dr. J has said consistently. We can expect this kind of treatment when we speak against the party line. That they give Dr. J this treatment now is reason enough to suspect that if they gain power, they’ll do even worse.

In fact, GLAAD in a page complaining about Dr. J lists statements she’s made they don’t like. That’s their choice! They have a right to not like her statements and positions! What they don’t have on the page unfortunately is reasons why Dr. J’s opinions are wrong! Saying “I don’t like X!” does not count as an argument against X. It could be for the sake of argument that Dr. J is wrong. It is not enough to show she is wrong by having outrage.

So getting back to what was going on, in the worst case scenario, it was a statement that a young man could have been taken advantage of by someone in the homosexual community and the tragic ending of that was suicide. Who would deny that this is a plausible situation? Who would deny that this is also a possible situation?

The sad reality also is that exploitation will still sadly go on. There will be people who will use the death of Tyler Clementi to push their own agenda. The sad reality is that GLAAD could very well be doing the same thing. Does that mean that they are doing that? No. It means they need to be aware of that possibility.

As it stands right now, it’s my contention that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. In fact, Dr. J has offered to meet with the Clementis. Personally, that sounds like an excellent idea. Let them meet and discuss the situation and see if they think Dr. J did something wrong. I do not doubt if Dr. J was given a convincing reason to show that something she did was improper, she would be the first to offer an apology. We would not need to ask her to. She is that kind of person.

Hopefully, we can move past the accusations that have been going on and try to sit down and listen to what is being said. We may not like it, but our dislike is not an argument in itself. No matter what position one takes in this debate, one needs to try to have a rational basis for what they think.

Let’s hope the apostles of tolerance and open-mindedness and diversity are willing to consider this approach. Somehow, I doubt it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

GLAAD’s page complaining about Dr. J as well as links to their position on Tyler Clementi can be found here: http://www.glaad.org/cap/jennifer-roback-morse

Why I Call Myself A Preterist

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say I’m a Partial Preterist? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, after writing a review of Ehrman’s “Jesus — Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium”, I got a number of requests on Facebook. To be precise, four friends asked me about my view and were asking me “So are you a Full Preterist?” or “Why don’t you call yourself a Partial Preterist?”

I had planned to write about why I hold the eschatological view that I hold today, but I wish instead to write first about why I call myself what I call myself.

I suspect most of my readers are likely futurists. I have nothing against futurists. I’m married to one. I just think futurism is wrong. It is still well within Christian orthodoxy. Futurism basically thinks that much of prophecy is yet to be fulfilled seeing great significance in Israel coming back as a nation and looking for a third temple, a reign of antichrist, a great tribulation, etc.

Preterism on the other hand refers to past fulfillment. We believe the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ and is being fulfilled right now. Just last night I was discussing this with someone who started telling me “Assuming Revelation is linear” to which I said “I don’t assume that.” I happen to see Revelation as cyclical, the same story is told over and over and in grander tones each time.

I was asked “Do you believe in a great tribulation?” I responded that I did and when asked when I thought it might be, pointed back to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now of course, we who are Preterists can interpret passages differently. My view of Revelation might not be held by all. Yet what we have in common is we see much has happened, particularly in 70 A.D. The Olivet Discourse with the saying of “This generation” was an accurate prophecy.

Note at this point I am just explaining the view. I am not defending it. What we all look forward to still is the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked and to the bodily return of Jesus. That does not make us partial futurists. That makes us Christians. The creeds tell us that we look forward to the return of Christ and the resurrection.

There are people out there that call themselves Full Preterist, True Preterists, or just Preterists. I prefer to call them “Neo-Hymenaeans.” These people think there is no future resurrection, we’re in our new bodies now, and there is no future return of Jesus physically. My friend DeeDee Warren at the Preteristsite.com has the best material in dealing with this group that is a full heresy.

That’s not just my opinion. Look at the quote she has from Neo-Hymenaean David Green on her site. (Note that for Green, Preterists like myself are considered futurists since we believe some things are future.) Green’s quote is as follows:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

I happen to agree with him. This view is heretical.

So why not call myself a Partial Preterist?

Because if Preterism is used to describe a heresy, why would I want to call myself a partial heretic? You might as well consider being a partial modalist or a partial Arian. I am not partially a heretic in any way. I am entirely orthodox.

Thus, I prefer to call myself simply an orthodox Preterist. I hold a view that is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy believing all the essentials of the faith. I refuse to let the name of the view that I hold in eschatology be tarnished by people I consider heretics. The name “Preterist” means something to me and I will not let someone else control the words.

I hope that is enough to explain to people why I call myself what I do. Now why do I hold the view I do? That is another question and one that we will discuss another time, maybe even tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Did Jesus fail at prophecy? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Just yesterday, I finished reading Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” Before I had even started the book, I made a prediction on Facebook. I predicted, as an orthodox Preterist, that not once would Ehrman mention Preterism in his book.

Turns out, I was right.

Makes me wish I’d made a bet with someone….

Honestly, I don’t even think he mentioned dispensationalism or any form of futurism by name. Christian eschatological systems were absent, which is quite odd. It’s why I found this book to be quite a mixed bag. Of course, there’s the usual material about historical methodology, which is fine, but yet while there was much talk about apocalyptic thinking, there was not much looking at apocalyptic thinking.

At the start, Ehrman wants to paint a string of predictions from our time down to Christianity. He first starts with Edgar Whisenant and then Hal Lindsey. Next we go to the Millerites. Then, it’s Joachim of Fiore around 1200. After that, Montanus at the end of the second century. From this, Ehrman concludes every generation has had its own apocalyptic visionary.

Could be, but looking at such a sparse sample in 2,000 years does not show it. It gives the impression that Ehrman has looked at a sparse sample and made a strong conclusion based on it. Of course, his case could be correct still, but the problem is that there was not sufficient evidence given.

Of course, for Ehrman, the first examples of this were Jesus and Paul. So does he make that case well?

Before making his case, Ehrman wants to tell us about the historical method and how he studies the text. It’s at this point that those who read Ehrman frequently, like I do, start to hear repetition going on. If you have read one Ehrman book, you have read all of them essentially. You’ll find the same themes and the same arguments, a number of times they’re even quoted verbatim. (I checked. pages 114-115 quote much of page 241 in the third edition of his NT introduction word for word. Of course, it could be I’m just mistaken and both times he copied from an E document….)

Of course, when reading a book like this, it’s important to note the concessions he makes that most internet atheists would run in terror from. For instance, on page 22, he says the best sources, of course, are those nearest the time of Jesus Himself.” He then says “It turns out, as I’ll show later, that the oldest narrative accounts happen to be the four Gospels of the New Testament.”

Interestingly, when talking about the authorship of the NT, he says on page 43 that the tradition from Papias needs to be considered seriously. Apparently, it wasn’t serious enough that students reading the NT introduction needed to consider it. Ehrman also makes the statement about how Eusebius thought Papias was a man of exceedingly small intelligence, not mentioning that Eusebius said this because of Papias’s views on eschatology.

Ehrman tells us the testimony is 100 years later and looks suspicious. Why? We are told that Irenaeus would want apostolic origins for the gospels. Then why have Matthew, Mark and Luke? Matthew was an apostle, but he certainly wasn’t the most famous one of all! If you’re making up an apostolic name, why not Peter or James? Why would you have Mark be the author of a text instead of just saying Peter? Why would you choose Luke?

And of course, a more fundamental question, when is the source for the claim that Plutarch wrote the works of Plutarch? For all of Ehrman’s suspicions, it is appropriate to just ask the question of other historical accounts of the time that we accept on much less evidence.

Ehrman makes the claim about bias we’ve seen often. On page 89 we read, “Whenever you isolate an author’s biases, you can take them into account when considering his report. That is to say, statements supporting his bias should then be taken with a pound of salt (not necessarily discarded, but scrutinized carefully.)”

Can I not look at this and claim “I’ve seen Ehrman’s bias. He’s a non-Christian wanting to argue for the unreliability of the biblical account. Therefore, I should take his claims with a pound of salt.” Of course, someone could take the same approach with a Christian author. My contention at this point is simply that bias is often an excuse.

Bias can make people color reports, but it can also lead to increased accuracy. Holocaust museums ran by Jews are quite accurate. Does anyone want to deny that they have a bias? Is there any doubt the NT authors had a bias? None whatsoever. Yet how does that lead to the conclusion they would make inaccurate reports? It’s just as arguable that they would realize the importance of their mission and how essential the claims were and want to make doubly sure they were accurate.

On page 195, Ehrman writes that “For events in the ancient world, even events of Earth-shattering importance, there is sometimes scant evidence to go on.” He had earlier said on page 57 that the eruption of Vesuvius was only mentioned by one author. Unsaid is that that was an off-the-cuff remark even. The purpose of the writing was not really to tell about the eruption. If this is the case, what’s the big deal with no one mentioned an empire-wide census on page 39?

When he talks about apocalypticism, he does make the case that I would make in many instances. We need to talk Jesus’s claims about a kingdom coming seriously. We need to realize what he was doing with the sermon on the mount and with miracles. We need to realize that he was showing what the kingdom of God would be like.

The problem is that Ehrman dances all around the edges without really considering what he’s arguing. For him, the end of the world did not come and the kingdom supposedly did not come and so Jesus was wrong.

If Jesus had been thinking about the end of the world, it is a wonder why he would tell people in the Olivet Discourse to flee. If the world is coming to an end, there is really not much place to flee to. Ehrman’s problem is the same one he had as a fundamentalist. Actually, he’s still a fundamentalist which is the problem. He is taking the text literally. He is assuming there must be a grand cataclysmic judgment. (Although to be fair, there was. It was the destruction of the temple, something unbelievably huge for the time.)

Could it be the Kingdom came and Ehrman didn’t realize it?

Could it be that the spreading of the Christian gospel and the name of Jesus being spread through all the Earth is the Kingdom coming? Could it be billions of people on Earth proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is showing that He is king? Could it be that the Kingdom is indeed growing as a mustard seed?

Ehrman has the same problem as he often does. He does not interact with contrary ideas. He has instead made a weak case that only depends on a literal interpretation of the text and therefore says that the case is made.

My Preterist self is not convinced.

Frankly, I’m enjoying being part of the Kingdom and especially love seeing that it demonstrates that Jesus was right.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: We will be discussing this book 3-5 EST on Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast. Why not join in? http://www.cyiworldwide.com/deeper-waters.html

Determining What’s True

How do we study the Bible historically? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

After my blog post on the problem with fundamenatlism, I was asked on TheologyWeb that if by chance the Bible was not inerrant, how would we know what parts were true and what parts weren’t? This is a good question to ask.

Relatedly, on the latest Unbelievable? a skeptical teenager from Australia was on the line asking about the accounts of Judas’s death in Matthew and Acts. His contention was that if one of these was shown to be unreliable then everything in the Bible was unreliable, and the impression was given that this would go down to the crucifixion itself.

Both of these show a great concern to have. A Christian can be left with the attitude of “The only way I know that Jesus rose from the dead is that the Bible says so!” Meanwhile, the atheist can come with the idea that “If I find one mistake in the Bible, I can’t take any of it as historically reliable.”

This approach is highly problematic especially since one would not use it on any other work of ancient history. If you were reading an account of Plutarch and you found that he made a historical error at one point, you would not say “Oh well. So much for Plutarch!” If we are reading Josephus and we find that he made a historical error at one part, we do not say “So much for Josephus!” If we did this with ancient historians, we would know nothing about ancient history. For that matter, we would know nothing about modern history either since modern historians make mistakes.

Some of you are saying “Surely no one would make a mistake like that!”

Frank Zindler does.

Who is Frank Zindler? Listen to Bob Price’s description of him.

“One of the most effective (not to mention hilarious) speakers for atheism and secular humanism today is Frank Zindler, author, linguist, translator, Bible scholar, and scientist—truly a Renaissance Man.

He is an advocate as well for the much-despised but increasingly hard to ignore Christ Myth hypothesis, which he has ably defended in books such as The Jesus the Jews Never Knew and articles like “Where Jesus Never Walked.” ”

Apparently, the criteria for being a Bible scholar is having an opinion. Zindler is not a Bible scholar. To say the Christ-Myth is hard to ignore is like saying loud music as you get closer to a concert is hard to ignore. Want an example of what Zindler says?

“When the author of Matthew read Mark’s version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore – and in a different country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. So much for the trustworthiness of the biblical tradition.”

No ancient historian would take this approach. It is an absurd all-or-nothing approach. We encourage Zindler to do the same with any other work of history and see what he winds up believing about history.

Now someone might say “Well the Bible is supposed to be the Inerrant Word of God!”

Yeah. So what?

How does one get from that to “If there is one mistake, then everything in it is wrong”? If you show an error in the Bible, this is what you demonstrate.

“The Bible has an error.”

You do not demonstrate that everything in the Bible is error by showing one thing is. Let’s do the opposite end. Let’s suppose I demonstrate Jesus was crucified. Would you take that to mean “Now everything in the Bible is true!” No. Not at all. I woul dnot want you to either. That would be dumb.

What do we do then? We do what we are supposed to do. We study the text.

It means we get scholarship on both sides. It means we weigh the issues out. It means we avoid just one approach. It requires we work. We also accept some things can never be proven or disproven. Let’s suppose we read about a skirmish between two individuals in a Roman biography. That could be hard to prove or disprove. Let’s suppose then instead we read about the conquest of a city. That is much easier to prove or disprove. For the former, it could be a position of faith, in that faith will be seen as believing something to be trustworthy and reliable. It is giving the author the benefit of the doubt where we find general reliability.

This is also the method the apostles encouraged. They gave evidence that Jesus had risen. Miracles were one kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony was another. This was how the Gospels were written as well. Luke explicitly states that he knows of many eyewitnesses and reports and he made a thorough investigation.

Inerrancy is not a position that we assume. It is one we reason to. If the Bible is without error, we should be able to demonstrate that insofar as it is possible. If we truly think it is, we should be more than happy to have it investigated. If we think Jesus rose from the dead, we should be open to historical investigation into that matter.

For our atheist friends, they need to realize that showing one error in the Bible does not show all of it is false or suspect any more than it would for any other work of ancient history. Are they just as willing to examine both sides, such as the evidence that Jesus rose or the evidence that miracles have happened? So far, the number I’ve seen that do that are minimal.

Perhaps that’s because they’re really the ones that are people of faith.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Pilot Episode

What happens when Deeper Waters comes to internet radio? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

At the start of the year, I mentioned a number of hopes for Deeper Waters this year. Today, it looks like one of those will come true. We are going to be having our first episode on internet radio done today. Some of you might have heard me before on the Razor Swift Podcast. The man behind that station found out I’m interested in podcasting and wanted to get my show for his network.

The show will be on on Saturdays from 3-5 EST. The first episode will be just me, but I do plan from time to time bringing in guests from Christian scholarship and other areas that I think are relevant to Christian apologetics. These will include established apologists and scholars as well as up and coming ones.

Our first episode will be more of an introductory episode than anything else. I plan on telling the people who might not know yet, and I know there are several, just who I am, where I’m coming from, and why they should take the time out of their day in order to listen to what I have to say.

The show is also interactive. There is a live chat that goes on during the broadcast and there will be a call-in number for people who want to call in. If you want to, just place a call so you can say something like “Glad to hear you’re on the air!” or anything of that sort. If you have a question, feel free to go ahead and ask that as well. Hopefully, we can all have a lot of fun with this.

I also plan to keep the show on Saturday since my plan in employment lately has been to look for Christian schools in the area that are hiring teachers. I figure I can have a job teaching on weekdays and then come Saturday, I can always be ready to do my radio show. Besides that, I figure Saturday could be a time when more people are off and are willing to listen in. Fortunately, for those who can’t, there’s always podcasting.

If you have an idea for something you’d like to have discussed on the show, feel free to let me know and I’ll see what I can do. I plan on discussing for the time being books that I am reading, issues that are rising up that the church needs to take a stand on, and sometime I’d like to have a good show on orthodox Preterism, a view that does not get much attention in the church and is sadly highly misunderstood as we are often assumed to ipso facto be heretical.

I hope to see several of you coming to the air waves and listening to the program today. If not today, then you can find all episodes archived on Grok Talk Radio. Some of you are wondering I’m sure where the link is to the show. Got you covered! You can tune in right here!

I look forward to hearing from you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Holy Spirit Laziness

Is it possible to abuse the Holy Spirit? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday was an interesting day of debate for me. Regular readers of this blog know that I’m an orthodox Preterist. As it stands, I saw someone on Facebook with a comment on end times and I figured I’d jump in. To be clear at the start, I have nothing against dispensationalists. In fact, I’m married to someone who does hold to the rapture at this time. When my wife asks me a question about end times, I do give my perspective, but when she asks “What would someone from my perspective most likely say?” I try to give the best answer. It would be easy to give a weak answer to make that side look dumb. It would be easy, and I think it would be wrong too.

So here I am debating and before too long, what card do I see played? The holiness card. The idea that there is an orthodox Preterist seems nonsensical and yes, I see the “heresy” word tossed out. Am I given an argument against my view? Nope. Instead, I’m told “The Holy Spirit leads us into truth” and “We read our Bibles so we know what you are saying is not true.”

Because obviously, anyone who disagrees is someone who wants to go against the Holy Spirit and doesn’t read their Bibles.

Later, I have a comment on my blog from someone who doesn’t like what I’ve said about some texts not being authentic. What am I told?

“Jesus said to follow the Holy Spirit to the truth (John 14 & 16) yet too many scholars and pastors, etc., ignore that command and follow secular ideas instead. The Holy Spirit will tell you which words are authentic or not as He knows the complete and original Bible whereas earthly mss. can be corrupted very easily and omit key passages for whatever ulterior purpose the writer had at the time.”

Even this morning, a friend messaged me showing a thread he was in with him asking hard questions to someone and the person responded by tossing out Bible verses that had nothing to do with the question. “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” “You shall know them by their fruit.” These are good and true statements properly understood, but they do not answer the question being asked.

The common connection in each of these is the idea of what the Holy Spirit is supposed to do. Each of the persons involves believes that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to make sure that they do not believe anything that is untrue. What does that eliminate? If you said “personal responsibility” move to the head of the class.

There are a lot of people who think holiness is an argument. Christian apologist Francis Beckwith has said that if someone can’t win with logic, they will trump with personal holiness. Of course, we are not against being holy. We are not against living devout lives. We are against using that as an excuse. In fact, that is quite unholy.

If you are losing an argument and the facts are not on your side, it will not change that to mention that you pray an hour every day. It will not matter if you say that you have the book of Ezekiel memorized. It will not matter if you say you give 90% of your income to the poor. There’s only one thing that can work in favor of your argument. That is the evidence itself.

On the other hand, your opponent being a filthy hypocrite does not make his argument false. If your opponent is cheating on his wife, it does not make his argument wrong. If your opponent could not even quote John 3:16, it does not make his argument wrong. If your opponent is more miserly than Ebenezer Scrooge, it does not make his argument wrong. Only one thing can work against his argument. That is the evidence itself as well.

If you want to win a debate on what the Bible teaches, you have to study. The Holy Spirit is not meant to be used to excuse your lack of study. There are several Christians who also live holy and devout lives and disagree with you. Why should they be discounted automatically because of you? How do you know that you are not in the wrong and that anyone else who disagrees is not “listening to the Holy Spirit.”?

Let’s also face it. The position is pride.

There’s also the great danger that you are setting yourself up for blasphemy. You are having it be “God has said you are wrong” when God has not said. Now even if it turns out the person you are arguing with is wrong, that does not mean that God has specifically told you that they are wrong.

Another great danger is this sets us up for embarrassment in the eyes of the world. Yesterday, I listened to last Saturday’s “Unbelievable?” broadcast. In it, there was an email about a recent program where the destruction of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 was discussed. An atheist wrote in saying what Christians should do is pray hard for one month to Christ for an answer. If Christ answers, their replies should be identical or similar. If not, then Christ is not helping with study.

Wrong argument? Yes. The sad point is I can understand why it was made. Too many Christians do give this impression. It is the idea that study is unneeded. God will tell you what to believe.

“Well that sounds good, but John 14 and 16 do sound convincing.”

Keep in mind John 14 and 16 are also spoken to the apostles and are we to think that all truth means every single belief? If you think the Holy Spirit leads you into all truth, are you willing to not go to a doctor and just diagnose yourself? Are you willing to let someone work on your car who is not a licensed mechanic but is just a devout Christian? Are you willing to fly on a plane with someone who is not a pilot but is a devout Christian? Do you want your children to go to a college where the professor has not studied the subject they teach but is a devout Christian?

Why shouldn’t you? Isn’t this included under all truth?

Or could it be you want people to study for these matters? Do you think it’s arrogant to think the Holy Spirit will just give you the knowledge of medicine? Why is it different for the knowledge of God and Scripture? What you end up doing is making the Holy Spirit not your teacher, as a teacher teaches students, those who study, but rather your servant. The Spirit does not help you know the answers to the questions. He writes them out for you. What kind of teacher teaching a lecture will fill in the answers on the test for the students?

Does this mean you have to buckle down and do the work? Yes. If you want to know if your eschatology is correct or not, you will need to go out and study and read both sides on the matter. If you want to know what the original manuscripts said of the Bible, you will need to study. If you want to know how to answer a question that challenges you, you will have to study.

If you have not studied, instead of using the Holy Spirit to excuse your laziness. Try something else. First, you could consider admitting you need to go off and do some study and then get back to your opponent. The second suggestion is to just be quiet. You can use the Holy Spirit to excuse yourself, but it will be hard to excuse yourself for saying “The Holy Spirit says” if you have not been told later on, and there is no excuse for doing something wrong.

And perhaps if we all study, we can have better debates anyway and let our iron sharpen each other’s iron.

Doesn’t that sound much better?

In Christ,
Nick Peters