Month: September 2024

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 1

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

This book says it’s by Graffin and Steve Olson, but Graffin seems to be the main writer as it is a lot about his story and his research.

So let’s start with some confessions. First off, Graffin is apparently the lead singer of a band called Bad Religion. I have heard of this band, but I do not know if I have ever heard any of their songs. I could not name one of them. I am impressed to hear that despite this, Graffin has a doctorate in a scientific field and teaches at a university. Most music stars wouldn’t do that.

I also want to say that this book has been surprising. I try to always read one book I disagree with and while I thoroughly disagree with Graffin, I do not find him demeaning or insulting. This is quite relieving to see in an atheist book. If anything, I find him quite enjoyable to read even while I disagree with him. I thnk he’s quite open and he seems to be the kind of guy I could hang out with at a restaurant and talk about our worldviews together.

This book largely focuses on science and readers know that I don’t touch science as science. I will talk about the history of it and the philosophy of it, but not the ins and outs of it. This book also largely focuses on evolution and readers of this blog know I don’t care one way or another about that topic. Graffin can win the battle with me and lose the war.

Looking at the first chapter, let’s look at one statement he makes about morality.

Either harming other people is wrong, in which case God is unnecessary, or harming other people is acceptable, in which case God’s admonitions are misguided.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 4). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

But why is it wrong? This is just another version of the Euthyphro dilemma. It might seem obvious to you, but is it? If we are matter in motion, who cares what one bit of matter does to another bit of matter?

What I want to know is where does goodness come from? Is anything truly good or not? If so, how did it get that way? Goodness is not a material property. You can study the matter of something all day long and you will not find goodness there.

Now do you need to know God exists to know about goodness? No. Do you need to believe in God to know about good? No. Do you need God to form a basis for the existing of good? Yes. You can get to Washington D.C. from anywhere else in America without a map and even by chance if you don’t know that it exists, but you cannot get there without D.C. existing.

Graffin also says that it is a mistake to conclude from the anarchy of the material world that life has no meaning. Graffin says the opposite. The purposelessness emphasizes the tremendous meaning of human life. Okay? Why? What is that based on? Think about what Bertrand Russell said in A Free Man’s Worship.

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

Graffin also says evolution provides the context for how he lives. He admits that it has implications that can make us uneasy. He ends by saying on matters of important questions we must all accept the truth, no matter how difficult it might be. I completely agree with this last part! This is something that makes reading Graffin so refreshing.

He also says evolution is anarchic, but out of that has risen great beauty. I first want to know how that is possible in a purely material world. Material things are beautiful, but it is not because of the matter itself but because of the form of the matter. That’s Aristotelianism though which would also say evolution does have a purpose. It works towards the survival of the fittest. If evolution is true, it is inherently teleological.

He also says people need a cursory knowledge at least of evolution and even if they want to reject it, they need to understand the basics. I agree. I hope he would agree also that in a society such as ours, you need a basic understanding of the Bible, even if one wants to reject it. While there are plenty of Christians that critique evolution without understanding it, there are plenty of atheists who do the same with the Bible.

Other than that, we have a lot of Graffin’s own personal life and his personal ideas of how to live. It is entertaining, but not relevant for our purposes. Still, this is thus far one of the better atheistic books I have read.

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

Final Thoughts on the Paulogia article

So what is there left to say? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The problem many times with so many critiques of the resurrection is that they just say the same things. They treat the whole situation as if they just do some simple thinking, and boom, there’s the answer and no one noticed it for 2,000 years.

Worldviews are rarely like that.

I am in a debate group with Jehovah’s Witnesses and I find it so amazing when they post a verse like it stands alone and think they have disproven the Trinity. Yes. This is a verse that no one in Christian history ever noticed. Lo and behold, the Witnesses came along and showed us the truth that everyone before them overlooked.

Or let’s be fair and use a secular example as well.

Suppose a Christian is arguing with an atheist about evolution and says “Well if people came from apes, then why are there still apes?”

Yes. Absolutely no scientist ever thought about that question at all. With that question, the National Academy of Sciences can now abandon evolution and several dissertations will have to be shredded immediately.

I’m not saying that evolution is false and I’m not saying it’s true. If you read my blog, you know that I do not know and I do not care. I have some questions about it, but I am willing to accept just for the sake of argument. However, if you want to be a Christian and argue against it, God bless you, but know that it will require that you actually seriously study the science and build a strong scientific case.

One statement I often make with atheists is that too many of them live in constant fear of contrary thought. Yes, sadly so do so many Christians. I am always reading at least one book that I disagree with. When I argue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I encourage them to read some of the commentaries out there on the verses they share. They never do.

I am not saying that atheists should not try to mount a case against the resurrection. If anyone thinks it is false, they should. I am saying that too many atheists I encounter seem to give just-so stories that they think are plausible, but really upon close examination do not hold up. Sometimes they explain one facet of the data and sometimes do that quite well, but they ignore the greater parts.

This is also a problem in our time. Look at our presidential debates. “The economy is in shambles. How do you plan to fix it? You have two minutes. Go.”

This question is hugely multi-faceted. It doesn’t matter which candidate you prefer, no one should be able to give a full answer in two minutes, but we have become that soundbite culture. Arguing against the resurrection will likely take a book-length work to give full credibility to it. I’m not saying blog posts can’t be made, but I would suggest if Paulogia wants to do this again, to try to make a blog post on each point entirely.

This is also why when I go through a book to respond to it, I do it over multiple parts. Arguments are serious and they require deep dives. It’s hard, but someone has to do it.

We’ll see what next week brings!

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

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 4

How did the resurrection claims end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we come to Paulogia’s final points. After addressing these, for the final day of the week, I plan on writing about why I do not find these convincing overall. For now, let’s see what Paulogia has to say.

The first is that Greek-speaking Gentiles who never saw Jesus began writing down the stories centuries later. Of course, there is no real interaction with scholarship that places the Gospels early, not that the case Habermas and others build depends on them. You don’t see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses dealt with.

Paulogia does say the case against traditional authorship is ironclad and has a link to that. I understand he can’t argue for everything in a post. At this, I do just want to raise up some questions.

If these were Greek speakers writing about events long before them, why did they not put anything on the lips of Jesus that addressed their concerns. Why is there nothing on the nature of the Lord’s Supper and baptism? Why is there nothing on meat offered to idols? Why is there nothing on what Gentiles have to do to be saved or on circumcision? Why does the term Son of Man show up constantly when it doesn’t in the rest of the New Testament?

If we want to say that the Gospels were written as prophecy fulfilled after the fact, then why is this not done on the topic of the resurrection where one would think you would find the most Old Testament references? You don’t even find a doctrine of the atonement here. Why not?

Also, if we are talking about authorship, why would the church pick the names that they did? Matthew was a tax collector. Surely you could find a better representative among the apostles! Mark had a reputation of being a Momma’s Boy who ran away in the first missionary journey causing a split between the church’s two first great missionaries. Luke was a Gentile who is only briefly mentioned in the epistles. The only one that makes sense is John, and that is the one the church debated! Was it John the elder or John the apostle?

The 11th point is that some Christians were punished for behavior by the Roman government. The problem is we are not told what this was. How about the fact that Christians were also seen as intolerant because they refused to acknowledge other gods? How about Christians had a Messiah who was crucified which was shameful? How about Christianity was an automatic challenge to Caesar by calling Jesus the only Lord?

Paulogia says the church grew because they gave to the poor and were accepting of others. The fact that they refused to worship other gods actually had them be seen as unaccepting of others. As for the poor, that would explain the poor coming to them, but not anyone in elite circles. You could give to the poor if you wanted without having to follow a crucified Messiah.

And then finally, Christianity eventually gained tolerance and then became the official religion. Okay, but how did it get to that point? Paulogia says other points like an empty tomb are later embellishments. One thinks he doth claim victory too quickly. Also, Paulogia never explains why we have this story as I said at the start.

He finally says the ball is in Habermas’s court.

This is likely the closest Paulogia is going to get a return serve as I have no reason to think Habermas will take Paulogia seriously.

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

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 3

Was Paul ridden with guilt? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Paulogia that can be found here and today, points 7-9 will be covered.

Point 7 is that the story of Jesus spread orally with the emphasis being on recruiting new members to the movement instead of transmitting accurate history.

Paulogia appears to paint this as an either-or. It seems unheard of that you could recruit new members to the movement by transmitting accurate history. The implicit assumption is “If we tell the history accurately, we won’t get members” and “If we want to get members, we need to downplay the history.” Of course, there is no interaction with how oral societies communicate their stories.

There’s still nothing also on why this story. Why tell stories about a crucified Messiah? If you’re trying to embellish and rewrite the history, then surely one of the first statements you would want to eliminate is crucifixion. You could have resurrection without crucifixion. Jesus went into Pilate’s residence at the head of a mob and was killed in the attempt, but He was resurrected as a hero of the movement. Nope. Jesus suffers the capital penalty that was the worst in shame at the time.

Paulogia also says that the Gospels weren’t written until decades later. I suspect he is thinking of the communication being like a game of telephone with individuals talking to individuals, when it would be more stories being told in group settings. The groups would have certain members in them who would make sure the stories were told accurately. There is no interaction with people like Dunn or McIver or Bailey or others on oral communication as was said.

Now we get to Paul who had a non-veridical vision of the allegedly-resurrected Jesus. And what was the cause of that vision? Let’s say it all together boys and girls!

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!

Yes, it’s that magic term atheists like to throw out when they don’t know anything else to say. Paulogia also compares this to PTSD. Over what? Who knows?

To get to Cognitive Dissonance again, there is no reading of someone like Festinger. There is an allegation that Paul is wrestling with guilt, but that is just Paulogia throwing his own culture onto the Biblical one. In the Biblical one, as in many honor-shame cultures, behavior was done to earn the approval of the group or some other external source, such as God, and was not based on internal feelings or conscience.

What does Paul have guilt over? Killing Christians? He would have seen that as a service to God. Paulogia also says he wanted a new purpose in life, because obviously rising up the ranks in Jewish society and being an up and coming star in that field was just not worth it. Obviously, he needed to attach himself to this shameful group that gave him persecutions instead.

As for Paul being prone to hallucinations, again, this is Paulogia’s stance. Evidence they were hallucinations? Well, that doesn’t happen. Why? Because there is no God that can provide visions? If so, that is part of the claim that needs to be demonstrated. Readers know I have plenty of times made my case for theism here.

Finally, Paul met the apostles, but they did not see eye to eye. Paulogia says this explains the lack of information about Jesus’s ministry in his epistles. Once again, Paulogia is pressing his own low-context culture on a high-context society. In a high-context society, background knowledge on the part of the reader is assumed. (It would be ironic if we found out that Paulogia also complains about alleged Christian bigotry after he has pushed his own ideas of how society works onto the Biblical culture.)

Paulogia also says that this is evidence Paul’s visit was not to talk about the life of Jesus. Yes. Because obviously, when he met with the apostles and conferred with them, they were just talking about the weather or all that time or perhaps how the Jumping Jehoshophats were going to do in taking down the Egyptian Eagles in that year’s chariot races.

So once again, we have nothing but weak cases from Paulogia that run on speculation upon speculation and ignore the culture of the time.

We’ll look at the rest of the work tomorrow.

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

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 2

How well-known was Jesus after His death? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Continuing the look at Paulogia, the next point he wishes to make from here is that before the crucifixion Jesus had some followers, but most of them disappeared from reliable history aside from Peter, never to be heard from again.

So many vague terms here.

Paulogia refers to self-serving and fanciful church traditions here (Not sure what that means entirely.), Paulogia says that only Peter and John really get mentioned in the narrative. He does say that Sean McDowell says that Peter is the only member of the twelve whom we have a high degree of probability for with regard to martyrdom. It has been awhile since I read that book, but even granted that, what follows from that?

When it comes to what we have from the ancient world, what we have to have to get to us is that first, someone observed it, then someone wrote it, then it managed to be copied, then it somehow lasted to our times. Sometimes this is difficult and we know that there are many books that have been lost to history. The writings of Papias come to mind as an example.

Yet despite this, I wonder what Paulogia means by disappeared into history. Does it mean that they had no impact? Are the only lives worth recording those who were martyred? Paulogia leaves too much unclear on this point.

Paulogia’s fifth point is that after the death of Jesus, Peter was distraught and experienced a bereavement hallucination.

Okay. How do we know he was distraught?

Paulogia might say “Wouldn’t you be if the man you thought was the Messiah was gone?” Maybe, or maybe Peter was more “I can’t believe I spent around three years of my life following this fraud!” We don’t know his psychological state. There is a reason psychohistory has by and large been abandoned. I have been in therapy and still am and it’s hard enough to diagnose someone who you are talking to in person. Doing it with someone in history is more difficult.

Besides that, even if Peter was having a hallucination, the ancient world was familiar with bereavement hallucinations. It never led to them thinking that the person was alive again. One would also think that surely by the time Peter is being crucified he would be saying “You know, that probably was a hallucination.” Normally unless someone is in advanced stages of dementia or has a psychiatric disorder of some kind, they know when they have had a hallucination.

The next part is that James joined the movement after as well as John. But why James? Paulogia suggests social contagion, but why should anyone think this? What would it take to convince you that your brother was alive again and not only was alive, but was the Son of God?

He also suggests maybe James took over the family business. What business? James is never declared to be the Messiah even though he would have been an obvious pick. James is mentioned a number of times in Acts, but he is certainly not a highlighted figure in comparison to Peter and Paul.

Thus we conclude reasons 4-6 and what do we find but more of the same kind of material?

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

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 1

Why does this story exist? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Someone sent me this wanting a reply to it. I looked through and thought it was just something pretty basic. Then I take another look and realize it’s Paulogia. He is a somewhat well-known figure on the interwebz. In this, he is responding to Gary Habermas. Apparently, Habermas says at the end of his first volume on the resurrection that few scholars are really standing up to the data. I have a copy, but with schoolwork going on, I have not read it yet. It’s amusing though to think that if this is the case and scholars aren’t putting forward these theories, that Paulogia thinks he can.

At any rate, I do not know if Habermas has even heard of Paulogia. I am sure Habermas probably wouldn’t even really bother with a response. That being said, I do know Habermas and I am sure he would be fine with me giving an answer for him.

Paulogia also quotes Bart Ehrman saying that any scenario, no matter how unlikely, is to be preferred over the one where a miracle occurs. This has powerful rhetorical flair, but at the same time, it shows that really, Ehrman is not going to be responsive to the evidence. It is saying “I do not care how much evidence you pile up. Anything else is more likely than a miracle.”

Does Paulogia really want to go that route? I have written about that here.

Again, if this is the case, then if Paulogia agrees, then he is saying he does not really care about evidence. No matter how much you bring up, he will always go with the non-miraculous case. That being said, Paulogia will now be responding to the idea that you can explain the existence of the church without the resurrection.

At the start, something that needs to be said is that Paulogia explains the story that we have. Never explained is why do we have this story? Why was it told this way? After all, a far easier story would be “Yes. He was crucified, but we believe that God has exalted Him for His righteousness and He is now sitting at the right hand of God and is ruling as king.” No resurrection would be needed. No promise of a return or second coming (I differentiate between the two) would be needed. It would also be a story that no one could really refute. Seriously. How would you begin to refute something like that?

Yet the church did not go with that story. Odd. Yet that aspect is something Paulogia never explains. I also do not see any indication that Paulogia understands the concepts of honor and shame. As we will see going through this, Paulogia unsurprisingly comes to the culture of Scripture and superimposes his own culture onto it.

Also, this will be a multi-part series.

So at the start, Paulogia argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. From this, he will get no complaint from me. I have read and reviewed Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium on this blog. I have also reviewed his most recent work Armageddon with part one being here.

Paulogia goes to a few Scriptural passages here. The first worth mentioning is in the Olivet Discourse. While I went through Matthew, there is enough similarities in it to compare it to the Marcan version and you can find the start of that here. It’s worth pointing out that in the two Ehrman books, he nowhere mentions orthodox Preterism.

How about the transfiguration? There’s a claim about people seeing the Kingdom of God come with power before that. Is that referring to the transfiguration? Well, not exactly. Finally, what about what Jesus said when before the Sanhedrin about seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds? This is a reference to Jesus’s second coming, not His return. He is talking about coming to the throne. Note, He is coming and sitting both. It’s not as if Caiaphas will one day look outside his window and see Jesus riding a nimbus cloud like he’s Kid Goku.

By the way, I suppose it is likely Paulogia has late dates for Gospels like Matthew and Luke. Some do date Mark to before 70. So if he dates these this way, why? Why would something be published after the fact saying Jesus will come before this generation passed away? There are a number of options.

  1. The Gospel writers were massive idiots who didn’t realize they had shown Jesus as a false prophet in their own writings.
  2. The Gospel writers wrote after the fact and knew that Jesus’s coming to His throne had already happened as He said. (See all my writings on the Olivet Discourse)
  3. The Gospel writers wrote before the events and trusted they would happen as Jesus prophesied, but if that’s the case then the Gospels are early and within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

The second part is that Jesus did something to get Himself arrested and He died by crucifixion. No complaint here.

So now we come to the third one where there will be serious pushback and after this we will wrap up for the night.

This is that the resting place of the body of Jesus was unknown to His followers. Paulogia says that the body would have been left on the cross as Romans did this. However, Craig Evans has a strong case in Jesus and the Remains of His Day that burial of crucified victims was allowed in Judea in peacetime. (We even have found one such victim.) This was done for the sake of Jewish sensitivities.

Jody Magness has also said that the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus are consistent with first century burial practices. When Ehrman wrote on this topic in How Jesus Became God, he did not cite any scholars on Jewish burial practices. That is quite a shame.

He says that Mary would not have the means to bury Jesus, which is likely so, but he says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. Why should I not accept the account? It is consistent. As he says, the Sanhedrin would have responsibility for the body and Joseph would come forward to do what he can. I can understand Paulogia not believing that account. I cannot understand his ignoring it.

Paulogia then says Jesus would have been buried in a burial ground for condemned criminals. Okay. Even if we granted that, how does he get to that therefore it would be unknown to the followers of Jesus where He was buried? Absolutely no one would know? No one on the Sanhedrin would show them? One would think they would want to do this to gloat and shame. “See? He’s buried here right next to the criminals! Go and look for yourself!” Are we to think absolutely no one in Jerusalem, a city swarming with people for Passover, saw what happened? You have a guy who is probably the most well-known figure in the area being publicly crucified and then hours later, no one knows where his body is?

Color me unconvinced.

That’s it for today. We’ll look at parts 4-6 tomorrow.

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

Mackie, Design, And E.T.

What would it mean if we found alien life? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am going through atheist J.L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism now and really, not finding his arguments persuasive. I recently read the chapter on design. Generally, I don’t really use design arguments, at least not as understood today. By the way, if you say the oldest version of design goes back to Hume, I consider that a problem. Sadly, Mackie does say that early on.

One objection often raised is that of alien life and the supposed lack thereof in the universe. I know there are plenty of people who think there are aliens out there, but at this point, the scientific community has no certain evidence of it. As far as we know, most of the universe is uninhabited.

So on p. 141, Mackie points out that if there are countless planetary systems out there and there is life on only one, ours, it is not a surprise that we are here to observe that. The idea can be that if there is one planet that has life, then of course, that there is life on that planet is not a shock. If you deal out enough cards in poker, do not be surprised when eventually someone gets a royal flush.

The idea often given with this and could be what Mackie has in mind as well is that if there was a designer of the universe, surely life would be more common.

If God designed the universe, there would be life everywhere.
Life is not everywhere.
Therefore, God did not design the universe.

Of course, the problematic part of this syllogism is the first premise. That is the one that needs to be backed. That could be a fascinating blog to do sometime, but for now, I wish to instead comment on another point.

On p. 144, he goes to Paley’s watch argument. As an aside here, not all design arguments are meant to be like Paley’s. Ancient and medieval philosophers used design arguments, but it was not about the internal make-up of something so much as about order in the universe, a claim I find much more fascinating.

To get back to the argument of Mackie, he says that if we found a watch somewhere, we would likely think it is designed. However, if we found watches on the seashore at the same rate we found seashells of if we went on dry land and found them at the same rate we find insects, it would not be as impressive. An abundance of watches would work against design.

If there are an abundance of watches, it is less likely that there is design.
There are an abundance of watches.
Therefore, it is less likely that they are designed.

Yet look at these two arguments together.

If there is a lack of life then that counts against design.

If there is an abundance of watches, that counts against design.

Now yes, one is about watches and one is about life, but the principle is the same behind them both and this is the problem. I do acknowledge C.S. Lewis pointed this out years ago, but it struck me as an example of today. If however the evidence comes out, it is an argument against design, then it becomes “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

If you are wanting my opinion, I am not making either argument nor am I arguing against any argument. What I am arguing against is the idea that whatever way the wind blows, it will support your claim. I also freely accept many Christians can do this as well with our own claims. We need to watch ourselves too.

And finally, the best design arguments are the older ones, but they are much older than Hume.

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

Your Husband Thinks You’re Beautiful. Accept It.

Can you accept a compliment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My pastor gave a sermon Sunday on marriage and he talked about how men have a great need for respect and women for love. No problem there. He also said that men need to regularly tell their wives that they think that they are beautiful.

I agree with all of this. I had no beef with the sermon, but I do have a concern that many men do this and many women resist it and this is a problem. Keep in mind that I am speaking about an all things being equal marriage and I am not at all talking about one where a spouse is abusive.

I still subscribe to marriage blogs and recently, the XY Code had a blog about the truth on your husband thinking you are beautiful. When he says it, you can usually expect that he means it. Of course, men don’t help their case if they regularly talk about how beautiful the actress on TV is or have a problem with pornography, but neither one of those means he doesn’t think his own wife is beautiful.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of Instagram where everyone puts their best pictures on social media. How many women will post a picture of themselves when they first get up in the morning and have bed hair, for example? What you see of people on social media is usually their very best.

I remember this being a struggle in my marriage. I regularly told my ex-wife she was beautiful, no matter what changes she went through, and I meant it every time I said it. There was only one woman who turned my head and I did not speak about others. I had promised to one and wanted to turn all my desires to that one. The problem was she had a hard time believing it.

Ladies. If your husband tells you you are beautiful and you say no, many problems are going on in that situation.

First, you are telling him that he is either a liar or deluded. Now you could say hypothetically that maybe you are not beautiful and he is deluded, but while he could be mistaken, he cannot be mistaken in that that is what he thinks. Why not just accept it? Why not be thankful you married a man who thinks you are beautiful? He chose you out of all the women in the world after all! If you call him a liar, you are building up distrust between you and him.

Second, you are damaging yourself. You are permitting yourself to insult yourself. Why? What are you gaining by that? Note that this is not saying you should not do things to take care of yourself. There is no problem with saying “I am beautiful, but I also need to go to the gym and watch what I eat and take better care of myself.”

Third, you are also teaching your husband to not compliment you. What husband will want to compliment his wife if it leads to an argument every time he does so? Why would he want to say you are beautiful if he ends up being put on trial for doing that? Men are fast learners in this area. If we do something and we just get chastisement for it, we learn to not do that. (Ask a man to wash the dishes and if your first words to him when he is done are criticism, he will realize he should not do that anymore.)

So in the end, you are calling your husband a liar. You are insulting yourself. You are shutting down future compliments and then wondering why your husband does not pay attention to you or call you beautiful.

This is not to say men do not have areas, but this is one that I want to address. I know many men who have had the exact same struggle I have. You would be surprised if you took the time to listen to know just how much your husband really loves you and treasures you and wants you to know that. I hope I can do that again with a special lady who yes, I will say is beautiful.

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

Is God Doing What We Say He’s Doing?

Should these claims be made lightly? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As a divorced man seeking to remarry, I am on a number of dating sites. I sit down at my computer and see an email from Christian Mingle saying to trust in God’s plan. The problem with that to some extent is that we have no idea what that plan is.

Now I know overall all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. Certainly, but beyond that, the details are not known. I pray His plan for me includes remarriage and to not walk this journey alone. It is a hope, but I cannot say that I know.

I bring this up because too many times people do speak and they speak so flippantly about many matters. It is thrown into casual conversation without any basis whatsoever. If someone wants something and we think it is good for them, well God has that in mind for you. I would love to know for sure when people say to me “God has someone for you.” The thing is unless that has been revealed by divine revelation, they do not know that. Far better is a simple “I will pray you find someone.” (Also really good would be, let me introduce you to this girl I know…)

I also see this in churches. I have been in several churches in my time and regularly, I see this happen and I always inwardly cringe some. I want to ask “How do you know?”

This has happened in churches that are not even Protestant. I used to regularly attend an Orthodox Church with my ex-wife. They were lovely people there and I think about them sometimes still, but I also remember hearing people say in the service something like “And God opened this door for us” and so many other statements. Maybe He did, but do you know that?

My concern here is when we say these kinds of statements, we can claim to speak when God has not spoken. If God has not spoken, we have in essence taken His name in vain. We do not know what is going on in the divine throne room. Of course, God can reveal that to anyone that He wants to at any time, but color me skeptical that that is what is happening every time.

If we say that about something that seems to be good at the time and then it ends in a disaster, some people might say “I thought you said God was behind this!” Keep in mind I am not saying God is not behind X. I am also not saying that He is behind X. I am saying that I do not know and thus, I will not speak without having any certainty on that matter because I do not want to claim God is doing X when I do not know if He is doing X.

If we talk about God to flippantly, it says a lot about how we view Him and how we view ourselves. Now if something good comes to me, I do thank Him in that I at least know that He allowed it even if He did not directly cause it. I try to be careful with my words. This is God we are speaking about after all and He deserves our best.

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

 

The Problem of Unipersonalism

What assumption do Arians make? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I regularly debate the Trinity with Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. If there’s one big mistake that they make, it is what I call the assumption of unipersonalism. The topic under debate in these discussions is whether God is one person or not. What happens in the assumption is that it is automatically taken for granted that God is one person and every text is read in that light.

Imagine going to the Shema where we read “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” “Ah!” says the Arian! “That settles it! The Lord is one!”

The automatic assumption is that since the text says that God is one, that means that God is one person. All Trinitarians would agree that the Lord our God is one. They would not agree that that means that He is one person. If you say that Trinitarians ipso facto deny the oneness of God, then you are not understanding our position.

Another case of this is where you have verses of Scripture that mention God and then mention Christ as well as if they are two different persons. At this point, the Arian thinks they have won again. “See! The text mentions God and then it mentions Christ as someone else! They are two different beings!”

Several passages of Scripture have this kind of language. A search through BibleGateway reveals them. So you look at all of these and it sure looks like those are two different beings.

The problem is Trinitarians look at those and do not have any problem. It is actually what we expect. We expect God the Father to be spoken of in one way and Jesus to be spoken of in another.

If you do not believe in the Trinity, just consider this. If it is true, how else should this be spoken of? You have people realizing that Jesus is somehow included in the divine nature. They also know that there is still God the Father. They do not say God through God to avoid confusion. They treat Jesus as included in the divine nature and yet distinct from the Father. One common way of doing this is calling Jesus, Lord, and calling the Father, God.

Also, one has to be quite ignorant to look at all these verses and think that every single Trinitarian in church history just completely ignored all of them. Sadly, people who are Witnesses will extremely rarely ever read anything that disagrees with them. It would be easy to go to a library and find a commentary on these verses and see what was said about them in the past, but that will not happen.

Trinitarian theology is not easy to understand, nor should it be. We are talking about the nature of God! Why on Earth would anyone consider that to be easy to understand? People who argue against the Trinity owe it to themselves to at least try to understand the doctrine they are arguing against.

Doing so shows respect for truth as you are open to making sure you are not wrong by listening from the other side directly.

It shows respect for your opponents in saying you do not want to straw man them and you want to make sure you represent them accurately.

It shows respect for God as you want to make sure you are speaking about Him accurately and not just believing what any one person or group says.

On the other hand, avoiding this tells your opponents you do not really care about truth, that you do not really care about them, and that you are more interested in your idea of God than you are in God Himself.

Not only that, but when I see arguments anti-Trinitarians make that they think are super-powerful, too often I just shake my head. They think they are destroying us when they are revealing their own ignorance instead. If you want to try to change the mind of someone like myself, you need to show me you have at least tried to seriously interact with my viewpoint.

Avoid the assumption of unipersonalism.

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