Month: August 2023

Book Plunge: Passport to Heaven

What do I think of Micah Wilder’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I like the Wilders. I got to know them when I read Lynn Wilder’s book Unveiling Grace and I ended up feeling like I knew her family well at the end of the book. It is an excellent look at what goes on in the Mormon Church and it all started with her son Micah going on his mission trip and becoming a Christian when he was challenged to just read the New Testament like a child. Now, Micah has released his story. Normally, one refers to writers by their last name, but since this concerns a family, I will be calling him Micah.

Micah is certainly an amusing writer to read at times. Consider one part where he notices the walls closing in on him of Christianity and having to leave behind Mormonism. At that point, we get the description that goes as follows:

My head was pounding and my throat was so dry that my pitiful wails came out sounding like the distant honks of a lonely Canadian goose.

That’s a word picture for you.

Why is this so difficult? Isn’t it just changing a religion? Don’t Christians change denominations all the time? As Micah says

The mere thought of the high cost I had to pay frightened me and made me feel guilty. After all, every facet of my life was so deeply entrenched in my religious identity: my family, friends, school, career path, relationships, reputation, hopes, dreams, earthly aspirations, culture, respect, and more. I couldn’t even fathom a life outside of that which I knew. Was I willing to walk away from everything the world had to offer?

Mormonism essentially becomes someone’s life and society. The closest parallel I could think of to this book was reading Nabeel Qureshi’s Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus and how after he became a Christian, wished God would kill him then so he wouldn’t have to tell his parents and disgrace them. There are a lot of similarities though between Islam and Mormonism, so this isn’t too much of a shock.

HIs story starts with him going on his mission and he has been assigned to Mexico, but then while playing a sport in the training facility, an injury occurs out of nowhere. Micah’s writing at this point when the doctor comes to him to tell him what it is is quite amusing.

“Hmmm…” the trainer said. “It sounds like you might have a broken rib.” The look on his face betrayed him, however. We both knew I was a dead man. There was no way I had broken a rib; I hadn’t had any physical contact with anyone. Whatever had happened came out of thin air, as if God Himself had poked me in the back with His almighty finger.

And

He turned toward me (while conveniently avoiding eye contact) and proceeded to serve up my death sentence rather coldly: “It’s a primary spontaneous pneumothorax.”

concluding with

Dear Lord no! I thought to myself. I’m going to die! I had had no idea what his prognosis meant, but it sure sounded hopeless. As the doctor was nonchalantly exiting the room, he glanced over at me and, in a rather routine style, declared, “Oh. Your lung collapsed.” “Oh?” I said sheepishly. His heart may have been in the right place, but his bedside manner needed a little polishing.

To all ladies reading this, think “Man-cold.” Whatever sickness or injury a man has, it’s a death sentence. Unfortunately, Micah got stuck with Dr. House delivering the news. What are you going to do?

Anyway, because of this, he is sent instead to Florida. (Suffering missionary, eh?) As he describes his journey as a zealous Mormon, one statement he made stood out to me. We need to do better.

Unfortunately, the benevolence demonstrated by these few godly individuals was not commonplace in my experiences as a missionary. In the thousands upon thousands of people I had engaged with, I could count— perhaps only on one hand— the number of Christians who not only displayed to me a genuine Christlike love, but also proclaimed the gospel as revealed in God’s Word.

Too many might turn Mormons away because they don’t know how to answer them. That itself shows we need to do better. Most of our Christians are no match for the Mormons that come to their door. There’s a reason for that.

He contrasts this also with how he sees himself as a Christian now and how he would interact with Mormons today. This is a statement our church needs to hear.

Contrary to what the world seems to preach, true love is not affirming others in their sinful and lost state, it is proclaiming the Christ who can liberate them from captivity. Therefore, my greatest calling as a Christian is to be a conduit of God’s love to unbelievers by proclaiming to them the grace and truth found only in Jesus of Nazareth.

I also quite loved this simple statement he has later on

I’m not saved because of a church; I’m part of the church because I am saved.

But the long and the short of it is he did meet a pastor who challenged him and urged him to read the New Testament. He also was regularly going to a place Mormons seemed to hang out with for some time called the Edgewater Hotel. There, he would meet a man named Erik who would become a sort of mentor for him.

As you can tell from the description I have given, Micah does become a Christian. This led to his family and his girlfriend who he eventually married becoming Christians. Not only that, his sister married one of the missionaries he had been on his mission with who also became a Christian.

Micah’s book is a delightful read and there are so many quotes I highlighted that I won’t share, but get to the point of what a difference Jesus makes in your life. I won’t share them because they do come up in places where he is having interactions with the leaders in his church that could spoil plot points. One statement I will tell you is that he says to not make Jesus part of your testimony. Make Jesus your testimony.

If there was anything I would change in this book, I have just two criticisms.

It can be hard to follow the timeline since he goes from when the events happened, which can make sense, but they can be hard to follow for the person who wasn’t there. That could lead to confusion at times. I also know one chapter was on a hurricane and yet I was wondering what the whole chapter was about with the title until the end as the hurricane was never named and if you didn’t live there, you might not know about it.

The other is that I would like to have heard something about how Micah was doing his day-to-day duties. While he was wrestling with this, was he still also going around telling people about Joseph Smith and believing in him and giving a testimony? What kinds of things was he saying on his mission to people he visited?

Despite those critiques, I still see this as a great story about a young man being changed by Jesus on his mission, something we should all consider should happen. It also lets people in and see what the world of Mormonism is really like. I also don’t know any book that is an account of a missionary becoming a Christian besides this one, so if you want to understand Mormonism more, give this one a try.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Needs For Deeper Waters

How can you help out what we do here? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Friends. After this semester, I have a year left to work on my Master’s, and while studying, I’m still trying to actively do what I need to do. I am reading through a number of different books, a little bit every day, doing my classwork, and even doing work right now for my Ph.D. I also work at the campus post office, though only part-time due to my class schedule. On Saturdays, I will be meeting my pastor for mentoring time for one of my classes and I am a research pastor there as well.

Like any ministry, we have a number of needs here. Right now, the main work I am doing is blogging and trust me, I want to do more than that. Some of you have liked my Gaming Theologian channel and I want to make more of those videos, but there’s a problem. My video editor had some problems and just can’t do it anymore.

I am looking to find someone who is willing to take videos that I record and then do some sprucing up of them and adding special effects. I was told by someone that since this is not something I am good at, it would be better to work with someone who is highly skilled at this to make excellent media. If that is you, please let me know. If you are capable enough that the channel starts producing income, I will be glad at that point to start working on getting you a share of that income and naturally, you can endorse yourself in the videos if you so desire at any time.

Then there’s just outright financial needs that we have. I know we’re all in a hurting economy right now, but just a little bit can make a huge difference. I have said before that if half of my Facebook friends gave a dollar a month even, I would be set easily. It would make it easier for me to also do other work I would like to do, such as writing ebooks.

I also definitely want to get the podcast up again. This semester will be awfully busy, but I am leaning heavily towards starting it up again next semester. I cannot promise as I do not know how my classes will be affecting me at that time, but rest assured, I want to be doing interviews again. At any rate, if you want to be a supporter of Deeper Waters, feel free to do so here. Unfortunately, I have no perks yet to being a subscriber as I honestly can’t think of anything I can do at this point. Suggestions are welcome.

I am working also on getting a Teespring shop set up. I have had plenty of people ask me about getting T-shirts on affirming the virgin birth, which I do affirm. I want to sell these and more. Please be watching for that.

Finally, something everyone can do is pray for me. I am in active therapy over here working on learning how to interact socially and form better relationships. It is still a pain to realize I am a divorced man every day. At least I still have Shiro to keep me company.

I really hate to advertise something like this, but the need is there and there’s no better way I can think of to get the message out. Please consider becoming a supporter today. Every bit gives me encouragement and hope.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Why Does God Allow Abuse?

If someone has been abused, what do you say about why God allowed it? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday I wrote about abuse, but I didn’t say much about why it is allowed. This is always the kind of question you don’t really want to get because in many ways, the person is searching for answers perhaps to try to make sense of their lives. Many of us have gone through a trial of suffering and wondered what was going on.

When my divorce was becoming a reality, I prayed hard every night. I wanted a healing for my marriage. I wanted this nightmare to go away and things to be the way they should. I wanted God to show up in a remarkable way, or really just any way, so that the day could be saved and I would have a happy marriage. Surely God would want to do this! Right?

All I can say is God allowed me to get divorced and well, I don’t like it, but I have also learned He didn’t owe me a marriage and I just need to keep serving regardless and hope that door opens again someday. That being said, I know that’s not the same as abuse still. After all, in abuse, you are actively being hurt and seeking an end to pain. I say it though because I want those of us dealing with this to think about what is the greatest pain in our lives we went through that God DIDN’T answer the way we wanted.

The thing is, an abuser in many ways becomes a controller. One lives constantly with the pain that has come about because of the abuse. This is something that occurred to me as I had to move in to my parents’ house again after my divorce, feeling like a failure in many ways as a 40+ year-old man having to do this again. Don’t get me wrong. I’m grateful to them for taking their son in again, but it wasn’t where I wanted to be as much as I love my parents.

Yet I told myself that I have been playing games all my life. Will I not try to approach this the same way? I can either keel over and be a victim, or I can get up and be a victor. The motto “Play to Win” became an anthem in my life.

Ultimately, I also encourage people to do this. Choose to be a victor. I know some people going through divorce can seek revenge. I earnestly battle not to within myself. The only exception is this other saying I try to live by. “The best revenge is a life well-lived.” Holding hostility does no good.

For abuse victims, I wonder if it could be the same. Can you learn to be a victor? Can you be able eventually to forgive internally at least your abuser? Could you want their well-being to take place? I think about someone I have met who has made a ministry from overcoming her abuse to helping others overcome abuse. You can find her here.

Yet the question is still unanswered. Why does God allow it?

Why?

Folks. Unless you are 100% absolutely sure that you have a divine message, which I seriously doubt you do, the best answer is really, “We don’t know.” Does that mean atheism is true? Not even close. If anything, atheism just makes the problem worse. As I have argued elsewhere, you gain nothing removing God from the equation. After all, you still have the evil. You have just removed the source of goodness and justice.

We can say generally the reasons God allows evil, but why a particular evil is allowed? That cannot be said without divine revelation. Too often we in an effort I suspect to appear spiritual try to act like we know the will of God. We do more harm than good. Scripture instead tells us to mourn with those who mourn and weep with those who weep.

There are good works out there on the problem of evil, but the best answer to one in the pain is not an argument. It is a friendship with them. It is showing them love and being willing to bear their suffering with them. Will there come a time later to discuss the problem of evil? Of course, and it should be done when the person is ready.

Some of you might be disappointed by that answer and were hoping for some major insight you could use in this situation. There isn’t one. Evil ruins so much and we need to realize that. We know Jesus is the answer ultimately, but we don’t have all the answers on an individual level. We shouldn’t claim to.

We do know we should love on an individual level.

Let’s do what we know.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Clergy Abuse

What do you say to someone who was abused in the church? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was talking with someone on Facebook recently who was making an argument about the Catholic Church and children being abused. I asked the question of if they condemn the public school system. After all, the case of abuse by teachers in the public school system is actually far worse statistically than it is in the church, be it Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.

That being said, there is one way that it is definitely worse in the church. While all teachers should care for the welfare of children and put the children first, it is far worse when those who claim the name of Christ abuse children. That is directly contradictory not just to a job code, but also to the very faith they claim to represent.

Let’s face it with something I hope we can all agree on. Abuse is evil. Abuse of children is evil. Abuse of animals is evil. Abuse of adults is evil. Abuse is never okay no matter what kind it is.

Now normally, when I dialogue with someone who brings up the abuse scandal though, I often get the impression they’re wanting to just use it to bash Christianity. After all, if abused kids are the problem, then you should equally condemn the abuse in the public school system. As a Christian, I can equally say I condemn all of it. There are horrible people out there who should not be clergy. There are wonderful people out there who I am thankful are clergy. The same applies to teachers. The problem isn’t so much the worldview as it is, well, just people.

The person I was talking to told me they were abused by a youth pastor and prayed to Jesus every night for it to end. So what do you say then? There’s no real grounds upon which to question the story and I can say I can understand how if someone had that happen, they would have a hard time with Christianity.

Note I am not saying it is a rational reason to think Christianity is untrue, but if you are undergoing abuse and you pray and it doesn’t go away, one can understand why one has a hard time trusting God. It’s like people who grew up with abusive fathers and then hear that God is Father. There’s a whole lot to deal with.

So what do you say, especially if you’re not a licensed professional counselor?

Let’s start with one thing you don’t say. “I understand.” You don’t, and when people are grieving and you haven’t gone through a similar experience, you don’t say that. If I met someone going through the pain of divorce, I could tell them I understand how painful that is. If I met someone who had lost a child, I could not tell them I understand that.

One of the other things to do if you are in person is sometimes to not say anything. Just listen. Just be a comfort. Let the person cry or scream or do whatever they need.

I also try to not really answer the problem of evil there. Now on Facebook, this is a bit different since you have to say something. I did make sure to ask regularly if this person had gone to see a therapist. I never got that answered, but anyone who has gone through abuse needs to see a therapist.

I did try to point out that if Christianity is true, there is at least hope. Justice delayed is not justice denied. Someday, those evil people and all who defended them will get justice. Sometimes, the whole church can take part in the cover-up. It is better to them to admit there is evil in their midst and instead blame the, in their eyes, alleged victims.

By the way, this never happened to me, but having gone through divorce and talked to others who have, I know of too many stories where an innocent party was divorced and the church was hardly helpful to them. The church should always be willing to show the love of Christ to those who are suffering.

Ultimately, until a person gets past their emotional wounds, a rational argument really won’t make sense to them or be effective. Definitely pray for them. I have been praying for this person every night ever since hearing about this.

Also, you’re likely to not bring resolution by yourself. You’re a part of a longer chain of people working on an individual. Now it could be you’re the final link in that chain, but don’t presume that. You might be Paul or you might be Apollos. God will bring the growth either way. Play whatever part you have well.

Finally, let’s all do our part to end abuse wherever it may be. Definitely this is so in the church. I have no problem with thorough background checks being done on those who will work with our most precious resource, our children.

And of course, if you yourself are an abuse victim, get help for it. No shame in that. I hope eventually, you will find complete healing in the person of Jesus for what has happened to you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: 101 Reasons for Non-Belief 1-10

What do I think of this….er…..work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m a spendthrift. I usually only buy a Kindle book if it’s necessary for class or if it’s on sale. When I finished reading Buzzard’s book arguing against the Trinity, I wanted something else I disagreed with. What did I see browsing through? 101 reasons for non-belief. Alright. Let’s see that.

None of them are good.

Yet some of them might be something someone wonders about so I think I will answer it here.

This does not mean every reason will be covered, but I do plan on hitting some that I’m particularly interested in.

So let’s go.

First, one theme regularly given is that the faithful should be bothered because so many people will spend eternity in torment and torture because they lacked belief or chose the wrong religion.

In response, I note that we have a very fundamentalist view of Hell as a torture chamber. I see it as a place of shame. Those more interested in my view of Heaven and Hell can look here.

Also, the Scripture doesn’t tell us anything about what happens to those who have never heard. I have my own view, but the main point to keep in mind is we still have the Great Commission to do.

Finally, this is just an emotional argument saying “I don’t like this viewpoint.” It doesn’t argue against theistic arguments or against the resurrection of Jesus. Disliking a doctrine is not a reason to think it’s wrong.

Our writer also says that he dismissed the Bible after the first four books of Genesis because first off, Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and then how could Eve know good from evil or death and of course, a snake doesn’t talk.

It’s sad that atheists are so quickly dismissive instead of trying to understand what is going on. I recommend him to read John Walton with The Lost World of Adam and Eve. I also hold that Adam and Eve were not created perfect in a world that is absolutely perfect. They knew what was good and what was evil, but the language is the use of a Merism in Hebrew giving two opposites to say everything in between them. This was being asked if they wanted to be the source of wisdom or not.

Not a shock that we have the usual canard of what faith is. I have argued before that faith is not believing without evidence. It’s amazing that atheists who make a big deal of condemning believing without evidence accept their doctrine of faith this same way.

We also have the argument of “I reject your God for the same reason you reject other beliefs.” Ah. So you reject these other beliefs because Jesus rose from the dead and everything that contradicts that is false? Once again, what happens consistently is an atheist is not really prepared for an informed Christian. The author rides on the assumption that Christians believe without evidence and there is no evidence for any of those other positions.

He also talks about bad things happening to people and prayers being “answered” and marriages working or failing are all probabilities. As someone who has gone through a failed marriage, no. Marriage is built on work as well. If you work at it, you can make marriage work, but that does take two to do that. One person can’t do it alone.

The last one for today is that there is no evidence that God is answering prayers. Of course, there’s no interaction with someone like Craig Keener and his works on miracles such as here. There are plenty of other similar works out there.

I had to inwardly laugh at least with the idea that Christians believe God listens and talks to them every day. I have argued against this idea multiple times. It is a problem I find with pop-evangelicalism.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Don’t Be This Atheist

How bad can an atheist argument get? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are a number of atheists that can make good arguments. They can also dialogue. They know religion is a serious topic. They know faith is not belief without evidence and they know there are actual arguments for theism and they can say some of them are good arguments even if they think they’re wrong. They can think that Christians and other theists can be reasonable people.

Then, there are internet atheists aka fundamentalist atheists.

Please don’t be one of them.

Let’s consider as exhibit A, this hot mess that I received from someone.

I will go through it bit by bit with IA being the internet atheist.

IA: “Religious Manipulation and Evolution In 325, Constantine the Great created the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea after the genocide of 45,000 Christians,

Reply: Horrible grammar aside, I actually did something unusual here, well, unusual for an internet atheist, and I looked up the church fathers to see if any of them used the term “Catholic Church.” I have them entirely on my Kindle so let’s see.

Well, we were going to until I realized how long the search feature was going to take, so I just went to EarlyChristianWritings.com.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp in the second century in the very first line:

“1 The church of God which sojourneth in Smyrna, to the church of God that sojourneth in Philomelia, and to all the settlements of the holy and Catholic Church in every place, mercy, peace, and love from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied unto you.”

Which is the first of four mentions.

Ignatius’s Epistle to the Smyrneans:

“Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.”

That Constantine must have been a time traveler!

I’m also finding nothing that says how many Christians were killed, though most Wiki sites seem to indicate 3,000 – 3,500.

Constantine: where he tortured them to renounce reincarnation.

Reply: I’ll take imaginary events for $400, Alex!

Nope. We have what was discussed at Nicea. We have the minutes from the conversations. Reincarnation was never on the table. The only church father who held a view at all similar was Origen. No one followed him on this. I recommend readers check Paul Pavao’s website on this.

IA: At the same time, the religious books of all the villages of the empire were collected and thus the BIBLE was created.

Reply: Even non-Christian scholar Bart Ehrman argues against this.

http://ehrmanblog.org/widespread-misconceptions-council-nicea/

Ehrman on the NT Canon and the Council of Nicea.

Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea (For Members)

“One of the reasons I’m excited about doing my new course for the Teaching Company (a.k.a. The Great Courses) is that I’ll be able to devote three lectures to the Arian Controversy, the Conversion of the emperor Constantine, and the Council of Nicea (in 325 CE). It seems to me that a lot more people know about the Council of Nicea today than 20 years ago – i.e., they know that there *was* such a thing – and at the same time they know so little about it. Or rather, what they think they know about it is WRONG.

I suppose we have no one more to blame for this than Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, where, among other things, we are told that Constantine called the Council in order to “decide” on whether Jesus was divine or not, and that they took a vote on whether he was human or “the Son of God.” And, according to Dan Brown’s lead character (his expert on all things Christian), Lee Teabing, “it was a close vote at that.”

That is so wrong.

There are also a lot of people who think (I base this on the number of times I hear this or am asked about it) that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided. That is, this is when Christian leaders allegedly decided which books would be accepted into the New Testament and which ones would be left out.

That too is wrong.

So here’s the deal. First, the canon of the New Tesatment was not a topic of discussion at the Council of Nicea. It was not talked about. It was not debated. It was not decided. Period. The formation of the canon was a long drawn-out process, with different church leaders having different views about which books should be in and which should be out. I can devote some posts to the question if anyone is interested (I would need to look back to see if I’ve done that already!).

Short story: different church communities and Christian leaders preferred different books because they (the communities and leaders) had different understandings of what the faith was and should be – even within the orthodox community there were disagreements.

The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).

There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!”

IA: In 327, Constantine, known as the Roman Emperor, ordered Jerome to translate the Vulgate into Latin, changing the Hebrew names and distorting the scriptures.

Reply: This was quite an accomplishment again! Where did Constantine get his time machine?! Jerome wasn’t even born until 347! Before he was born he was asked to translate the Vulgate, which is the Latin version of the Scriptures that Jerome translated, into Latin! Well, that doesn’t sound right to translate Latin into Latin, but hey! What do I know?

Also, we can compare the Masoretic texts to the Dead Sea Scrolls. No Hebrew names were changed.

IA: In 431 the VIRGIN cult was invented.

Reply: The first mention I know of perpetual virginity is in the Protoevangelium of James which is around 2nd-3rd century. In 431, Ephesus said that Mary was the mother of God. This is hardly the establishment of the cult of the virgin though, if you want to call it that.

IA: In 594, the CLEANER was invented.

Reply: Um? Lysol? Windex? Oxyclean? What is the cleaner? I can find nothing specific being invented in 594.

IA: In 610, the title POPE was invented.

Reply: Again, we have Popes going back before this time.

IA: In 788, the worship of pagan deities was introduced.

Reply: For the most part, Paganism was long dead at this point essentially and I can find no references to any pagan deities being introduced in 788.

IA: In 995, the meaning of the word “kadosh” (sanctified) was changed to saint.

Reply: Again, I can find nothing on this. Saint comes from the Greek term “Hagios” and Kodesh is a word referring to something holy in Hebrew.

IA: In 1079, celibacy was imposed on priests >> a completely Catholic word.

Reply: Yeah. Again, not as cut and dry as that. The only sources I can find with a 1079 date are ones like this. Again, no sources cited.

IA: In 1090, the Rosary was installed.

Reply: Again, no sources given and Catholic sources talk about events even later.

IA: In 1184, an inquisition was carried out.

Reply: The first one was carried out then, but again, it would be horrible for an internet atheist to actually read a book on the topic like this one.

IA: In 1190, indulgences were sold.

Reply: I find a lot of anti-Catholic websites giving this date and generally, I want to go with friendly sources as much as I can. Either way, if true, what follows from this?

IA: In 1215, priests were forced to confess.

REply: The same sources say confessions began at this time, but again, nothing from Catholic sources I find.

IA: In 1216, Pope Innocent III. made up a story about the fear of bread (a god in Greek mythology) becoming human flesh.

Reply: It was Transubstantiation and had nothing to do with a fear of bread or bread being a god in Greek mythology.

IA: In 1311 he overcame the karst.

Reply: Wow! That Pope sure lived a long time! He makes up a story in 1216 and overcomes something 95 years later! Incredible! At any rate, the event I see happening is the Council of Vienne and I have no idea what is meant by the Karst.

IA: In 1439, the non-existent PURGATORY was dogmatized.

REply: This could be somewhat true.

IA: In 1854, the Immaculate Conception was invented.

Reply: No. It was dogmatized at that point. That’s not the same as being invented.

IA: In 1870, the absurdity of an infallible pope was imposed, in which the concept of a contract was invented.

Reply: Contracts go back much farther and there was a statement on infallibility in 1870, but again, so what?

IA: There are more than 2500 things invented by this religion to enslave people to Christianity…

Reply: Things the author gets right are really only things that are much more recent. The further back he goes, the more wrong he gets.

IA: Religions and their Gods were created as a means of MANIPULATION and BUSINESS.

Reply: Those early Christians were rolling in wealth and glory for sure!

IA:As part of the EVOLUTION of man comes liberation from these modes of manipulation. Although man is gradually in the age of AWAKENING, for two generations young people are becoming less FAITHFUL every day and the Catholic faith will be in decline. (I’d like to see this moment)

Reply: I am fully Protestant, but I do not see this happening and our atheist gives no data to back this. As for moments he’d like to see, I’d like to see the moment of this guy reading a book and learning something.

IA: All this will be part of our EVOLUTION. It is up to you to continue to believe what you now consider to be the absolute truth because you have not asked yourself… ask yourself and you will see that all religions are fabrications… of man.”

Reply: Nothing about metaphysical arguments for God. Nothing about historical arguments for Jesus. Seriously internet atheists! Do some research on this stuff before going on like this. It’s embarrassing.

I think only one thing can be said in closing to this person.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Are We Really People of the Book?

Do we who are Protestants really go by the book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was explaining to someone recently that my spiritual walk as an evangelical is very different from most of my fellow evangelicals. I don’t believe in ideas of feeling led or a call to preach as being normative. I don’t deny that God can do what He wants, but I always have to ask, “What does Scripture say?”

I see my fellow Protestants going on and on about how the Bible is central to our faith and practice. I agree with that. What confuses me is when it comes to this idea of how we live our day-to-day lives, it seems that our experiences rank above what Scripture says. If you want to know how someone knows that being called is a Biblical concept or how to know if a feeling is from God, they will point to experiences.

Now someone can ask “Well what about someone like Saul on the road to Damascus.” Sorry, but I don’t think many pastors who are in the pulpit have an experience of walking down a road, being knocked down and blinded by a light, and having the voice of God speak audibly. If anything, it’s quite arrogant to compare our experiences to Paul’s.

What do we have instead in Scripture? Let’s look at a passage like 1 Timothy 3. If anyone desires to be an overseer, he desires a good thing. In this case, it is talking about deacons in the church. The desire isn’t enough. Paul lists out the requirements. If you don’t meet them, you don’t get to be a deacon. In Titus, the same applies to elders. Paul lists the requirements for an elder and what an elder must be able to do.

Nowhere does he ask “Is the person called?”

What about something like giving to others? I remember being in a church where the pastor would regularly tell us to give as you feel led. Really? Go look at 2 Cor. 8-9. That is the longest passage we have in the New Testament about giving. Nothing is said in there about a feeling of being led. The only such similarity is that it is said that God loves a cheerful giver. Give and give joyfully. How much do you give? You use wisdom to determine that.

One of the great dangers of the normal way is that we can have any number of situations affecting our feelings at any one time. It could be that you’re hungry or that you overate. It could be that you’re sleepy. It could be you’re worried about something or you have a stomach bug or some other illness. It could be you just had a bad argument with your spouse or just spent the last hour stuck in a traffic jam.

So that system that can fluctuate on anything is also where we want to say God is telling us what to do? What on Earth happened to Scripture which is NOT like that? Are we truly people of the book?

And if we go this way, we will pay less attention to Scripture anyway. Not only that, we will give divine authorities to our inner impulses. I remember reading somewhere recently about someone talking about a program they did to service their community. It sounded like it went quite well, but what got me nervous was when they were talking about how God gave them such and such an idea.

Isn’t it presumptuous to say that God is the source of your idea? He might be, but do you want to just give divine authority to something like that? That one isn’t a Protestant thing. I’ve seen Catholics and Orthodox do the same thing.

I also think about how people talk about doing work and saying “I led so and so many people to Jesus” and then stopping and saying, “Well, no. God did it actually.” It sounds humble, but really, it isn’t. Consider 1 Cor. 9. Paul says he becomes all things to all people so that by all means possible “I might save some.” No one thinks Paul is thinking he’s the savior of these people, well aside from ignorant Muslims and atheists who I have seen making that argument. We all know Paul is saying he is the instrument. Yes. God is at work whenever someone comes to Christ, but is it honoring to deny that God used you? Be humbled by it. Accept it and admit the reality that you are a good speaker to these people to lead them to Christ and be thankful. The false humility says that the person and their willingness ultimately doesn’t matter.

God can use you and He can use your preparation and training. If someone asks me a question today about Christianity, they might think the answer only takes a minute or two. It doesn’t. It took several years. Those are just years of having the experience of studying and knowing how to answer.

Also, another aspect of all of this is how we are in our walks with God should not be dependent on our feelings, which again fluctuate. You can be miserable and close with God and right with God. Job was. You can be happy and be far from God and not right with him. Do I need to point out how many people this can apply to today?

So what would be the standard I’d use? Beyond just asking if you hold to a biblical faith, which even the demons believe many of our core doctrines, I could add in something the demons definitely can’t do. Growing in walking like Christ and trusting in God every day. Is your day-to-day living better than it was in the past? Are you having more victory over sin? Are you loving your neighbor well?

If you base any relationship in your life on your emotions, it will be doomed to fail at some point. If you’re married, you should know this. If you’re a parent, you should definitely know this. (How many mothers wake up with joy at 3 A.M. when they have to get up the next day because their baby is crying and needs something and won’t go back to sleep until he gets it?) Emotions come and go. Enjoy and learn from them, but don’t take them as divine. They are not.

Go back to the book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

We Remember Them

Who do we remember? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Think back to famous first-century families you know of!

Okay. The first one many readers of this blog will think of is the holy family, Jesus and his Earthly parents along with his brothers and sisters. After that, you could think of the Herods perhaps, no doubt one of the most dysfunctional families ever. You could think of families in the disciples, though even then we really don’t know about those families. You might think of the Caesars.

Really, there aren’t too many that stand out. However, every family would want to be remembered. Every family would want their honor to continue throughout the ages.

Recently, I read something in one of the church fathers, and it was about Zechariah and Elizabeth and this thought just struck me then. That’s one of the other families we can think of if we know our Bibles. These were the parents of John the Baptist, after all.

Yet it wasn’t always like that.

These were seen as good people, but they had a strike against them. They were childless. Imagine how many times they might have tried to have a child, and yet as they grew older and older, this hope abandoned them. Not only that, but this was a priestly family. If Zechariah was faithfully serving, why was he being withheld one of the great blessings?

Did Zechariah ever see his fellow priests with their own children and wonder? Did he ever see their children with their own children later on and ask why he was childless? What was it like to see the years fade away and know that this wasn’t going to happen and his family line would die with him?

What of Elizabeth? Did she long to be a mother all her life? Little girls today grow up dreaming of being mothers. Was it the same for her? Did she get a blessing at her wedding like Ruth and Boaz did about having numerous children only to grow old with a man she loved, but yet knowing there was a time in her life when she just wouldn’t have a kid anymore?

Those of us who know the Bible story know differently.

Through a miracle of God, they who had been shamed did have a kid, a kid who was so important he is a major figure in the New Testament and was even mentioned by Josephus. This was none other than John the Baptist. While there’s no indication he ever had any kids let alone a wife, he does live on in the history to this day and we know about Zechariah and Elizabeth to this day.

The only priests we know about from that time are the ones that were famous, such as Caiaphas and ones like him. All the families that Zechariah and Elizabeth saw who had kids to ensure their names would not be forgotten were, well, forgotten.

This is something I keep in mind. God can change things even when there is hopelessness. It’s been easy to look around and wonder why God hasn’t given XYZ yet, but that does not mean never and while it’s true Zechariah and Elizabeth’s line ended with John the Baptist, their memory didn’t.

Part of the problem of evil does this today sadly. It looks at circumstances today and says the story is over. It isn’t. The game is still afoot and God can change situations tremendously.

Just something to give you some hope.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Was Paul A Deceiver?

Can you trust Paul? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

If you’ve spent any time here, you know I don’t really take fundamentalist atheist arguments seriously. They’re notoriously bad. Bottom of the barrel. Hard to get any worse.

With one exception.

Muslim apologetics is far worse.

So yesterday, I’m browsing through Facebook and what do I see but this?

It really hurts how bad this is. I think I’m even more embarrassed some organization wanted to put their name at the bottom of this. Yes. Someone actually wants to claim ownership and let people know that they made this.

Where do I start?

Okay. Well first off, I do question that Romans 7 is autobiographical. You can see also here. That being said, even if it was about Paul, what is the worst we get here? We get a man who is obvious about the spiritual struggles that he is going through and speaks in the hyperbolic terminology that is normal for Jewish thinkers at the time.

Keep in mind, when Muhammad started having his experiences, he was convinced for a time that he was demonically possessed or was going crazy or something similar to that. If I am to reject Paul on these grounds, should I not do the same with Muhammad? Again, I don’t think Romans 7 is about Paul, but even if I did think that, I would not see this as a problem.

So let’s look at this second one. Ah yes, look at that trickster Paul there. He’s quite the sly one isn’t he? He caught his opponents by trickery!

Unless you do something strange and actually go and read the whole passage. Go take a look. You can find it right here.

Our Muslim friends don’t seem to know it, but there’s a thing in the world called sarcasm. Paul is employing it here. Yes. He tricked those Corinthians. He tricked them so much by…..not taking anything from them and having others cover the bill.

Yep! Crafty fellow he is! He gave the Corinthians his ministry and didn’t charge them anything for it!

Keep in mind, this is something that should be easy to understand, but it is not apparently to the Muslim mind.

So let’s look at the last one. Again, Paul is a trickster. He becomes all things to all people. How sneaky he is!

Let’s suppose you love hamburgers. Let’s now suppose you want to go and do ministry in India. At this point, I don’t care if you’re Muslim or Christian. Question. If you are wanting to reach the people in India, do you think it would benefit you to go to the Indian people, tell them about your God, and then start eating a hamburger in front of them?

Absolutely not. The cow is a sacred animal to them. They would not want to have anything to do with your message at that point.

I love my tea, but when I have Mormons over to visit me, I don’t drink tea in front of them. For Mormons, that violates the Word of Wisdom. If I was to visit Muslims and do ministry, even though I don’t eat pork products, I would definitely make sure to not eat them in front of Muslims.

This is what Paul is talking about. He doesn’t want to needlessly offend his Jewish audience he wants to convert, so in front of them, he follows Jewish dietary practices and other observances. In front of Gentiles, he lives much more freely. It’s all about being culturally appropriate. That’s not being deceitful. That’s being respectful.

And really, no one has to do a lot of thinking to see what’s going on in these passages. Sadly, I have seen internet atheists use this argument. Will Muslims stop using this one if they read this blog?

We can hope, but color me skeptical.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian: Appendix on John 20:28

What about John 20:28? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is handed off to a Ph.D. candidate named Clifford Hubert Durousseau. As I read that part, I thought it curious. I have nothing against PhD candidates as I plan to be one myself someday, but I was thinking that if this is really such a strong position with more and more people coming to it, why didn’t Buzzard get a PhD already to make the case here? Could he find no Greek experts to make such a case? One wonders.

So at the start, Durousseau says that John 20:28 is often seen as the strongest Trinitarian argument. I wouldn’t go that far. One could I think hold to it and be a Oneness Pentecostal. I base Trinitarianism not on one verse, but on a plethora of different verses. Durousseau also makes an interesting comment that saying “Jesus is God” constitutes monophysitism. Unfortunately, he leaves the readers, such as myself, confused as to show this is entirely. Again, if he wants to read the statement in the worst possible light just as Buzzard does, that’s his problem.

Unfortunately, throughout this chapter, Durousseau uses much of the same kind of argumentation that Buzzard does throughout. One would hope a different playbook would surface, but it does not. Durousseau does have some different questions at least. One is that when Jesus is called Lord in numerous times in John 20, it doesn’t mean YHWH. Why does it mean that in John 20:28?

Let me take a shot at this one. Maybe it has something to do with Thomas saying “My Lord and my God.” I realize that could be a stretch, but maybe when Lord is juxtaposed next to God, then we see it as a term of deity.

He also says that Thomas is not given a blessing for identifying who Jesus is as Peter did. Why should He? Peter had already identified who Jesus was and the resurrection was more than enough to certify His divine identity. Durousseau says that Thomas is instead rebuked. Right. He had spent years with these guys and knew the claims of Jesus and had more than enough evidence that Jesus was alive again without seeing Him and yet that was not enough.

He also says the author doesn’t comment on that, but the author doesn’t comment on many statements as well. He comments on some, but not all. Durousseau says the book was written to show Jesus was the Son of God, but Durousseau makes no attempt to show what this term means. My Mormon friends will say “Yes. Jesus is the Son of God. God the Father literally had sexual intercourse with Mary. Jesus is the Son of God.” Is that what it means? (And to any Mormons reading this, this is what your past prophets have said.)

He also says Jesus says He is returning to my God and your God. (Notice He never says our God like that.) Would this be contradicted verses later? Again, this just assumes the unipersonalism. I as a Trinitarian have no problem with Jesus referring to the Father as His Lord and His God.

Durousseau also points to statements of Jesus with the Father being in Him and of Paul saying that God was in Christ and that Trinitarians ignore these. How? We agree with them. They don’t go against us and that Durousseau thinks that they do shows that he doesn’t understand what he is arguing against.

One part is worth quoting in full:

Does this mean that Jesus was claiming to be God? No, it means exactly what it says: Jesus was claiming to represent his Father and God. The fourth Gospel (12:49; 14:9) expands the teaching of Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that Jesus is “the image of God.” And in Colossians 1:15, Jesus is called “the image of the invisible God.” The author of Hebrews says of him, as the New Jerusalem Bible puts it, “He is the reflection of God’s glory [764] and bears the impress of God’s own being [hypostasis]” ( Heb. 1:3; compare Wisdom of Solomon 7:26: “For she [Wisdom] is a reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, and image of his goodness.”)

It is mind-boggling that Durousseau looks at these statements and doesn’t really think about what they mean apparently. Jesus is not made in the image of God as we are. He IS the image of God. What God is invisibly, Jesus is visibly. He is theJesu reflection of God’s glory, the idea being that of taking a stamp and putting it on Jesus such that what God is, Jesus is. If Jesus is a reflection of eternal light, then He Himself is eternal.

Something else incredible in this is that Durousseau actually quotes the Qur’an to back his point. Why not just go to the Book of Mormon as well? I wish I was joking about this, but I’m not.

He also uses the Acts 2:36 argument we have dealt with in earlier posts here.

He then asks that if Jesus can be called God, why can’t Thomas or anyone else be called the brother of God? Frankly, if you wanted to refer to the actual brothers and sisters of Jesus as that, I really wouldn’t have a problem. Mary got the title she got in church history because of debates over her nature and her role in the incarnation. (Seeing as she kind of played a more pivotal role in it than any other human.)

He also references Julian saying that John was the first to call Jesus God. I have repeatedly shown on my blog that this is false, but it’s worth pointing out that Durousseau says nothing about Julian being an apostate, an enemy of Christianity, and wanting to return the Roman Empire to the pagan worldview. It’s okay to say anything bad about Constantine, but keep secret about who you yourself are quoting. The same applies when Durousseau later cites Ehrman.

He also asks why if Jesus is God He was given a revelation to give to John by God on the Isle of Patmos. Oh, I don’t know. Because the Son submits to the Father and gives a message to John that the Father wants Him to give? He references Rev. 5:14 but says nothing about how Revelation 5 ends with all creation worshipping Him who sits on the throne and the Lamb, which differentiates between the Lamb and creation.

Overall, there is really not much here to comment on.

And with that, I conclude my look at this book. I walk away sadly seeing the author as being more dishonest in his presentation than anything else. I take no delight in saying that, but I have made my case why. I leave it to the reader to decide if he thinks I have been wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)