Month: January 2025

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 4

Was the Law not good? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember how last time I said it gets worse?

Prepare yourselves. Here it comes.

In the midst of this speech, God says that because of the people’s disobedience, “I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD” (Ezek 20:25–26).

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 68). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

It has been my contention that for the Hayses to defend same-sex romantic relationships from the text, they will have to demean God and/or the text. This is a prime example. Christopher especially should know better. If he wants to say the law and statutes of God were not good, I think a guy named Paul would have something to say about that.

No. What is going on here is God is saying “You don’t want to live by my laws and statutes? Deal. Enjoy Babylon. See how you like their laws!”

And yet, it gets worse.

The implication probably isn’t immediately clear to those who don’t live by the Mosaic law, but God’s comment refers clearly to Exod 22:29b–30: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.” And how did they give oxen and sheep to God? By blood sacrifice—as Exodus 22:31 makes clear with its reference to eating meat.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 69). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem is, Christopher didn’t tell you all of what Exodus 22:29 said. If he had, you would have seen right through this.

“Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons.

This is about an offering of service more than anything else. It is certainly not human sacrifice! Even if we were unsure, it is best to read the text in a way of charity and the Israelites detested human sacrifice.

If the text has to be made to say this to justify what Christopher wants it to justify, then the mainstream reading is on good grounds.

He even takes this over to the story of Abraham and Isaac saying God doesn’t want human sacrifice, but wants people willing to sacrifice their children. Never mind the real historical context that this is seeing if Abraham trusts that Isaac will be the one who will fulfill the promise made.

The propagation of these Deuteronomic laws is generally associated with the reign of Josiah in the late seventh century BCE, which was also the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah goes farther than the other texts; in one of the book’s divine speeches, God similarly recounts “all the evil of the people of Israel and the people of Judah that they did to provoke me to anger” (Jer 32:32), including, “They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah to sin” (32:35). He doesn’t simply forbid the practice; he denies that God ever commanded it. This is irreconcilable with Ezekiel 20:25, which says God did command it.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 72). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Look at that paragraph very carefully.

According to Christopher Hays, in the Old Testament, God commanded human sacrifice.

And what does Christopher draw from this in the end?

The harmful effects of social pressures on LGBTQ youth can be measured in various ways, but one of the most stark, tragic, and comparable is their rate of suicides and suicide attempts. A recent study endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association reported that 20.1 percent of sexual minority teens reported attempting suicide in 2017—3.8 times the rate of heterosexual teens.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 74). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

If these people are willing to kill themselves like this, there is something deeper going on. He is really just engaging in emotional blackmail here and saying “If you do not affirm them the way they want to be affirmed, then they will kill themselves and it will be on your head.”

No. No, it isn’t.

If anything, I think what Christopher is doing is the unloving thing. He is enabling them in a path of destruction that will result not just in a temporary death, but an eternal one.

If he is also wrong on this, he will have to give an account before God, the one who he says commanded human sacrifice and gave laws to His people that were not good, why he did what he did.

My stance is made. I will stick with what Jews and Christians have always said about what the Bible says about LGBTQ relationships. He who marries the spirit of the age is destined to be a widow.

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

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 3

Has justice widened? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter starts with the story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers. They say their father did not participate in a rebellion against YHWH, but he had no sons. Why should his inheritance disappear? Moses takes their case to the Lord who agrees with the daughters, although later they are restricted in who they can marry to make sure they don’t take another tribe’s portion, which they accept.

It’s an interesting and a simple story. So what’s the big deal? Why is it in this chapter?

Hays presents it as a change in the attitude of God. Why? We are not told. All readers of Numbers will know is that this wasn’t included in the Law and it was a unique situation. On those cases, Moses would go to God for that one.

Apparently, this is supposed to be an opening to show God changing His mind allegedly on other issues.

Hays says that 1 Samuel 15 is another example and claims that Samuel misrepresents God by saying God doesn’t change His mind. Am I misrepresenting Hays? If only I was.

Humans, however, really like to put God in a box. We have already seen how Samuel, in his frustration at the failure of the king he anointed, misrepresents God by saying that God does not change his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 62). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So apparently, this is a part of Scripture where we are not presented with accurate information about God. This despite a prophet saying a clear prophecy that did indeed come true. It looks like to defend LGBTQ relationships from Scripture, you have to lower God.

Even looking at the case of Saul, it doesn’t argue what Hays claims. Had Saul been faithful, he would have had a lasting kingdom. Did God choose Saul knowing Saul would fall? Yes. God didn’t change His mind. Because the covenant was not argued, Saul was rejected. This didn’t surprise God at all.

There are passages of Scripture that on the surface do seem to indicate a change of mind. After reviewing this book, since it is an important topic, I do plan on writing on that one and showing why I think it’s anthropomorphic language. It’s meant to describe God to us in ways we can understand.

But getting back to Zelophehad….

The story of Zelophehad’s daughters suggests that the diversity and disagreements within the biblical laws are not an accident or an embarrassing error caught by pesky scholars. This story shows God himself taking part in reinterpreting and outright revising existing practices. In the Bible, God seems less troubled by change than his spokesmen are.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 64). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So apparently God was ignorant when He gave the Law and hadn’t considered all the ramifications. At points like this, I don’t know what God the Hayses are presenting. He sure isn’t any that I recognize as the supreme being of YHWH revealed in Christ.

Later he says about the daughters that

The passage continues with a midrash on the women and their extraordinary faith: “They said, ‘God’s mercy is not like that of flesh and blood. The latter’s mercy is for the males more than for the females, but He who spoke and the world came into being is not that way. His mercy is for males and females.’” Paul seems also to have understood this when he wrote, “there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), but clearly he still had to make the case in his time. In our time, new groups are asking for God’s mercy and asking to be accepted.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 67). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Yet even within the Pauline corpus, there is a distinction between male and female. What is Paul talking about in that passage? He’s talking about that when it comes to salvation, there is no distinction. All are saved the same way and all are in Christ the same way.

Are others asking for God’s mercy? Yes. They can also get it, but they must repent. The problem is Hays is saying they don’t need to repent. He has left out that Zelophehad’s daughters are asking on behalf of a man who died for his own sins and did not participate in a rebellion against God.

Alas, it gets even worse.

Next time.

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

An Addendum on Andrew Handley

How could God kill 70,000? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

After yesterday’s piece on Andrew Handley, it occurred to me that I had left something out and something important. It was in his last entry on the piece saying that God had outrageous morals. Let’s see what he said.

We’ve seen commands for rape, religious genocide, the killing of children, and human sacrifice. What we haven’t seen are the burning of whores, a ban on crippled people, or the killing of 70,000 men. There are 136 words in this paragraph, and if we linked a verse on every single word, it wouldn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the acts committed either by God’s hand or under his command that would be considered immoral—or blatantly insane—by today’s standards. But that’s the thing, right? Today’s standards are held to a different moral code than the standards of the 800 years or so before the birth of Christ. But, then again, how does that make any sense?

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 543). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Here we have a condemnation of the killing done by God. Note that it is just assumed that God has to abide by a moral code, which I said yesterday was false. There is nothing God is subservient to. God is good and that goodness is His nature. He is what it means to be, to exist. (If you want more information on the meaning of good, I recommend getting Edward Feser’s Aquinas which is on sale on Kindle as of this writing.)

Now let’s compare this with another statistic. Abortion. See the information here.

If you look at that chart, the positive is abortions do seem to be going down. Why is that? There are a number of factors, but one I can easily think of is that Americans are becoming more and more pro-life, Those who kill their own children tend to have less children to raise with that belief. Those who believe children are sacred tend to have more children to raise with that believe. It’s why I think the problem with leftist ideology is it is often a snake eating its own tail.

Let’s put aside even the idea of abortions done for rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. Regardless of where you stand on those, everyone should agree they are the minority. What this means is that most women are getting their abortions for other reasons and also, claiming it as a moral right.

Woman kills a life in her womb for her own personal reasons? A moral right we must defend.

God, the author and source of life who owes no one anything, takes the life that He provides and can resurrect even if He desires? A great evil that must be condemned.

Also, note that Handley ends this by saying it is repugnant to our morality. Okay, but who says our morality is the right one? Do we have some things right? Yes. Do we have some things wrong? Absolutely. This is true of EVERY time and place and culture. There is not one moral system that gets everything wrong.

Now as a Christian, I can say that morality has a goal of getting us to be good people and that there is a real and objective good. Yet if Handley takes a place of moral relativism, as he seems to in this piece, then there’s no such thing as the Bible having outrageous morals. They just have different ones. On moral relativism, there can be no grounds to really condemn them. You cannot like them, but you cannot call them wrong.

While I think Listverse does tend to try for accuracy, this list is one that was a failure across the board. Hint. If you’re going to study an ancient culture and people, you need to study the culture and the people themselves.

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

Why Did Listverse Let Andrew Handley Write On This?

Were these people in the Bible immoral? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been enjoying going through this book by Listverse. There are a lot of interesting claims in there I check up on to see what is going on with them. No doubt, a lot of writers have done excellent research.

Andrew Handley is not one of them.

Recently I read his list of 10 biblical characters with bad morals. Being a seminary student and someone who has spent decades studying the Bible, nothing he said surprised me. People with bad morals could be best read as “People who did things I don’t understand and/or like.”

So let’s see. The first one, not a shock, is Elisha. What does Handley say?

Here’s what happened: Elisha was walking into the city of Bethel when a group of kids ran out and started making fun of his bald head. It’s the only mention in the Bible that Elisha was bald, which is probably good, because the next thing Elisha did was curse the children to death. Immediately, two bears ran over and tore the kids to pieces. The most important—most Godly—prophet in the land brutally murdered 42 children because they laughed at him. He is now a venerated saint.

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 539). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Ha! What a wimp! Elisha couldn’t take some kids laughing at him because he was bald so he had 42 bears tear them to pieces!

Well, no.

First off, Elisha’s baldness was intentional. He shaved his head to demonstrate his life of consecration as a prophet to YHWH. Second, these weren’t kids. The word is used to refer to soldiers in the military also and likely, these were teenagers at least, and a crowd of at least 43, since it doesn’t say all were mauled, would be sufficient to be considered a threat. Third, go on up too, is saying that this is a generation telling the prophet that he should get lost like his master Elijah did, a reference that they don’t care about YHWH at all. Fourt, these kids weren’t torn to pieces. The bears in that area are Syrian Brown Bears and they weigh up to 550 pounds.

Next question. How do two bears that weigh that much hurt 42 people? Note. The text never says that they were torn to pieces. The word can refer to any number of injuries. Still, either a bear would have to move at supersonic speeds or else something else would happen.

Like the kids staying behind and fighting the bears. Why would they do that? Meat and honor both. Either way, the bears were powerful enough that 42 of the kids were injured, a good warning to a generation that could grow up denying God.

My ministry partner has two videos on this here.

Next up is the story of Jael. Who was she? She told the fleeing commander of the Canaanite army to come into her tent when he was on the run after being defeated by Israel in battle. One would have thought Jael would be an ally, but no. As he slept, she took a tent peg and ran it through his temple killing him on the spot. Never mind that Israel was the one being oppressed and Sisera was on the side of the oppressors.

Keep in mind that in Judges 5, a song is sang and an account is given picturing Sisera’s mother waiting for him to come back from battle.

28 “Through the window peered Sisera’s mother;
behind the lattice she cried out,
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?’
29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
indeed, she keeps saying to herself,
30 ‘Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
a woman or two for each man,

I want you to keep this in the back of your mind.

Next is David.

In 1 Samuel 27:8–11, David takes an army and invades several neighboring lands. The Bible doesn’t give any reason for him to do this, other than a side note that the people he killed were “of old the inhabitants of the land,” so it seems he was just wiping out the indigenous people. David’s army killed all the men and women in the towns he defeated, then carried all the livestock back to their own land, leaving the towns in ruin.

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 540). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Handley is one of these people who expects the Bible to spell everything out. An Israelite reader would know that these were the people who were hurting the people of Israel at the time and were their enemies. David was on the run and hiding in Philistia from Saul. He knew that if word got out about what he was doing, the king of Philistia would not take it well, so he left no one behind who would tell the king what David was really doing while he was there. He was still fighting the enemies of Israel.

But Handley doesn’t understand that and assumes these people must have just been peaceful people minding their own business and David was just a great big meanie.

Next is Samson who killed 30 Philistines just for their clothing. Handley tells us this is just short of the 35 people Ted Bundy killed and not even counting the 1,000 Samson kills later with a jawbone. Never mind of course that Philistia is the bad guy in this scenario and they are oppressing the people of Israel. Israel is wanting deliverance from them. Apparently, Handley thinks people suffering under those who are mistreating them should just shut up and take it.

What about Elijah? Well, he has that famous contest with the prophets on Mt. Carmel and ends up killing all of them.

Mean! Mean! Mean!

Except Israel was a theocracy at the time and leading people away from God is an act of treason in such a situation. These people were also in service of an evil king as well. Elijah is protecting the people so they can get back to the covenant. Israel is in an agreement with God that they will abide by the terms of the covenant or judgment will come on them. Those who are leading the people astray are guilty of treason. There was no separation of church and state.

Handley isn’t too happy about Elijah calling down fire to burn those who come after him later, but again, this is the same kind of scenario.

Jephthah is the sixth. We know the story. He allegedly sacrificed his daughter in the flames. Of course, it’s not that cut and dry. My ministry partner has the lowdown on that one again. You can see the first video here and a second response video here.

Jehu is the seventh and his crime? He killed a lot of the prophets of Baal. Again, this is a case of people leading Israel into treason, much like Elisha.

Eighth is Joshua and this is what Handley says:

What the story doesn’t tell is that this an isolated battle; Joshua was on a zealous tirade all across Israel. Here are five meaningless words: Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. Each one of those is a city filled with people, which, according to Joshua Chapter 10, the army of Joshua completely devastated. He “utterly destroyed all that breathed.”

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 542). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

They were filled with people?

Too bad he never demonstrates that.

No. The story of Rahab tells us that it was known that the people were coming for decades. A city would be more likely a more fortified region where the hardiest of warriors would live. Women and children would easily flee before any combat started. Also, the language of battle is extremely hyperbolic. This was the way ancients wrote about their conquests.

Ninth is Moses. Why? Well, look at Numbers 31 where he left alive the women who had not slept with a man! Why would he do that? Oh yes! The men wanted to sleep with them!

The text never says that happened and that Handley jumps to that conclusion first tells you more about how he views women than how the text does. “Gosh! The women who were virgins were kept alive! Obviously it was for sex! What other reason could there be?!”

Um. Handley. Women who aren’t virgins can have sex too. In fact, they already have!

I have written about this here.

So why were the virgins spared? Because they were innocent! This is about what happened in Numbers 25 and the women had seduced the men of Israel into abandoning YHWH. The women spared were young children who would be taken into the Israelite community. Sex slavery was not allowed and Deuteronomic law said even if a man wanted to take a woman in combat to be his wife, he had to give her a 30 day mourning period so no, these guys weren’t getting it hot and heavy that evening.

Oh by the way, think back to Sisera.

Israel defeats a man who will be seen as dividing up the women for spoil among his men.

BAD!

Israel is dividing up women allegedly?

ALSO BAD!

So I guess Israel was supposed to do nothing about people doing that then. Right?

And wouldn’t you know it? The last on the list is God. God has outrageous morals.

No, Handley. God doesn’t have outrageous morals. He has no morals.

Come again?

Yeah. That’s what I said. God does not have morals in the sense that he has a code that is called morality that He has to follow. There is nothing that God “ought” to do. No one can come after God and say “Well, God. Were you a good boy today? Did you preserve justice today?”

That does not mean God is evil though. God is good. All moral behavior is good but not all good behavior is necessarily moral. After all, morality is doing what you ought. Acts that go above and beyond what you ought are good acts, but they are not moral in the sense that you are commanded to do them.

Now God takes a life. Okay. Question. Who does God owe life to? On what grounds could someone go to God and say “You had no right to take the life of XYZ?”

None.

Most of Listverse’s material has been good, but lists like this can really damage their reputation. I have emailed them once before about a list they got the facts wrong in, but it was ignored. Hopefully they will change this one.

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

 

Am I Calvinist?

How do I address this question? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and  find out.

Working at a seminary post office, I have new students come in from time to time and sometimes when we click on our interests, they want to ask me questions. I recently had someone ask me if I was a Calvinist. It’s a common question. I said I usually consider myself mere Christianity.

I said then that my problem with so much of this is that on a practical level, I really do not see the point. Let’s consdier the question of eternal security. Can someone lose their salvation or not? The answer to this question is either yes or no, but from a practical perspective, how does it matter?

If a person is struggling with sin, will a Calvinist and an Arminian both call the sinner to repentance? Yes. If a Calvinist or an Arminian is giving a sermon at a church, will they both encourage the audience to live holy lives and honor God with how they live? Yes. What about if someone says that they used to be a Christian and aren’t any more?

The Arminian is going to say that they lost their Christianity The Calvinist is going to say that they never had salvation to begin with. Whichever one is right, the conclusion is still the same. The person is not a Christian.

Let’s consider another question, what about evangelism The Calvinist will hold that God has indeed elected who will be saved. The Arminian is going to say that no one is predestined for salvation and we need to go out there and do evangelism.

If a Calvinist gets in a pulpit to speak about evangelism, will he not encourage the audience to do to the work of missions and enccourage them to support missions if they can’t do that themselves? An Arminian will say the exact same thing. It is true that either people are predestined to salvation. Yet once again, from a practical perspective, what difference does it make? Both of them are going to encourage evangelism and both of them are going to do evangelism.

So when it comes to the question, how do I answer? I usually just say this.

God is sovereign.

Man has free-will.

How do you unite those two?

Don’t know. Don’t care. It can be something fun to think about, but I see both of those in Scripture. I prefer to just leave it at that.

Can I get along with Calvinists just fine? Absolutely. My first boss at the post office was a Calvinist. We got along great. We still get along when he comes into the post office to pick up packages. He knew I wasn’t. No big deal. We disagreed on that, and we still could talk about politics and movies and video games just fine.

That is still my whole attitude Let’s discuss the issue,  but make it just that. It’s a discussion. At the end of the day, Calvinists and Arminians still bow the knee to the same Jesus and still have the same work. Let’s let what unites us be the most important.

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

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 2

Did God second guess Himself? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was expecting that in a book such as this one, to defend same-sex intercourse, I would come across some interesting ways of interpreting texts like Leviticus and other passages. I figured Genesis 1 and 2 would be interpreted in ways that didn’t rely on a male-female relationship. Unfortunately, I was wrong in all of that. Early on in chapter two, I got this and I was stunned as I read it.

Yet we see here the emergence of a God who is already changing his mind in response to the reality of the world he has created, and especially to humankind. The first indications of this are very subtle, and are easily overlooked; they seem to fall into unspoken seams in the story. In Genesis 2:17, God warns the humans: “You shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”1 Of course, they go on to do just that. And yet, they do not die on that day.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 46). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Hays is not a philosopher. He does not understand the ramifications of what it means to say God changes His mind. This means that in some sense, God is limited. By what? God somehow gains new knowledge. From where? How can God be the God of all truth if all truth is not known?

Not only that, but this is on matters of morality. Did God decide that it would be wrong for Him to kill Adam and Eve on that day? If so, then there is a moral standard outside of God that God has to follow. God is not ultimate. God’s goodness is subservient to something outside of Himself. Hays isn’t really arguing about God. He’s arguing about Superman. God is just a really big man.

Still, the passage needs to be addressed. I contend that they did die that day, in that they fail away from everlasting life from being in covenant with God. I do not think man and woman were created immortal because they needed the tree of life to survive. They could have lived forever had they ate of it, but that was blocked off from them.

Yet it was at this point, I had hoped that this would be a one-off thing on the part of Christopher. I hoped I would not see this language often. As I went through the book, I saw that I hoped in vain.

Not only that, it gets worse. Hear what Christopher says when describing the flood.

After the auspicious start to creation, things have not worked out the way they were supposed to. The whole thing has been a mistake.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 49). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

God made a mistake?

If these are the lengths you have to go to to defend LGBTQ behavior from a Christian standpoint, then the case should be rock-solid that Scripture cannot be used to defend it. In order to justify man in this case, you have to lower God. That is what is consistently done in this book. God is lowered while the creation is exalted.

In describing the story of Hagar, he says:

The second theme is God’s propensity to relent from punishment, to show mercy even at the cost of changing his mind and bending his principles of justice.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 56). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

God bends principles of justice?

If you are part of the LGBTQ community, the Hayses have not done you any favors here. They have shown how much they have to change God for their argument to work. I can only wonder if this is something that Christopher just noticed in his work when he wants to justify LGBTQ lifestyles that he somehow missed all these years.

Something is being widened here, but it isn’t God’s mercy.

And yet this is just the start.

I wish I could tell you it will get better, but no. It will not.

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

 

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 1

Has God’s mercy widened? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book was made required reading for my first PhD seminar which starts next Monday. I suppose they want us to read something controversial we can respond to. Normally, I don’t try to use class books for my blog, but this was one that was so bad that I just had to say something on it.

Richard Hays wrote this with his son Christopher, hence I will at times be using first names in this blog to make it clear who I am speaking about. In it, they say they have changed their mind on what God has to say about same-sex romantic relationships. I thought for a bit on how to phrase that because I couldn’t say that they changed their mind on what Scripture says. As we go through the book, it will become clear what Scripture says doesn’t really matter much. Christopher takes the Old Testament and Richard the New Testament.

That being said, the first chapter is not really that disagreeable. You are going through and you really don’t see much. That makes sense as this is an introductory chapter. It is mainly introducing us to the character of God in the book and the role of man.

Christopher does talk about Calvinism some, but I’m quite sure not a single Calvinist will like this book. I’ll go further and say that not a single person who holds to classical theism at all will like this book. When writers talk about the nature of God, they should try to tun their ideas by some philosophical friends and ask “Do you think I’m opening myself up to any potential land mines by saying this?”

Unfortunately, this was not done.

Still, I will give credit that the first chapter was not entirely wrong. If anything, we could say this part was a more pleasant read than most. Christopher speaks about that it is because of the love of God that we even exist at all. I have no beef with that statement. He does treat Edwards as a negative in church history with the Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God sermon. From it, one would think that God utterly despised humanity and wanted to finish them off. If that is all you know about Jonathan Edwards that would be a shame, much like how I said in a post recently that if all you know about Pascal is his wager, you are misinformed.

He also does remind us in the end that people remember when they feel accepted and loved at a church. They also remember when they do not. While we do not need to go light on sin at all, we need to remember that those people who need healing from sin need to know that the church is a place that they can go to to get what they need. The church should be a hospital for the wounded and not a place where we shoot our wounded.

So everything sounds good. Right?

Just wait….

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

Has It Ever Occurred To That You Might Be Wrong?

Should I listen to your position if you cannot conceive that you could be wrong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am on a Facebook group for debating with Jehovah’s Witnesses where atheists pop in from time to time also because if there’s anything you learn about atheists, they have to show up everywhere to talk about how they don’t believe in God. Anyway, when I deal with a lot of non-Christians, there is a recurring theme. Sadly, this can also occur in a lot of fundamentalist Christians.

This is the idea that they cannot in any possible way conceive of a world where they could be wrong on anything.

I have a friend who used to say that some people would rather commit seppuku before conceding that maybe the other side had a point. No matter what a belief is, there are likely some things that the belief has right. If you insist that everyone in that position is wrong and doesn’t know what they’re talking about, you will miss out.

Not only that, but too often these people then persist in their beliefs thinking they know everything when those on the outside looking are saying “You’re committing basic errors in looking at what we believe.” How often have you seen someone say “Well who was Jesus praying to in the garden? Himself?!” Yes, that would be absolutely ridiculous, if that was what Trinitarians held to.

Atheists aren’t much better. We recently finished going through John Allen Paulos’s book here where he states the cosmological argument is that everything has a cause. Never mind that there is not a single academic defender of the cosmological argument in history that has ever defended such a thing.

Some might say to me, “Well you’re out here teaching stuff on a blog. Do you think you could be wrong?” On some things, I no doubt am. Why? Because knowledge in the area of theology, philosophy, history, biblical studies, etc., is extremely broad. I would have to be extremely arrogant to think that I was the one person around today that has it all right. That is why when I teach something here, if I am not as sure of it, I let you know. If I am sure of it, it is because there has been a lot of study on that topic.

And even then, I could be wrong. The difference is the more I have studied it and not come to it lightly, it will take a lot more to change my mind. This is also why I read books that disagree with me. I’m not talking about books just by atheists and other non-Christians, but books by Christians that hold to different positions than I do.

There are also areas I do not comment on just because I have not studied them. I will not give you an argument for why evolution is right or wrong. I often write with the assumption that it is true because my opponents will often hold to it and I will grant it for the sake of argument, even though I have a lot of questions I consider hard questions about the subject. I know that science is one area I do not have the time to put in all the study needed.

That is also okay. No one has to know everything. No one can.

Personally, it has got to the point where nowadays, I make jokes about these other groups have to avoid contrary thought. If you really care about truth above all else, reading the other side won’t bother you. If you are wrong, you can learn it that way. If you are right, you can be better informed as to why. If you are more concerned about ego than you are about truth, you will not do such.

In closing, I have another saying I often use. If I meet a person who cannot conceive that they could be wrong about anything, I have no reason to think they are right about anything. Being willing to consider you are wrong and reading what disagrees with you is part of being a sound thinker and showing you care about truth.

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

Introducing My Substack

Where can you find the latest on gaming and Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As many of you know by now, my PhD research is going to be on video games and Christianity and on man’s need for a story, quest, and purpose. I chose this because many of the common apologetics topics have already been done by everyone. It was when I was in my systematic theology class hear that I heard about someone who did his PhD on video games and Christianity and I thought, “I could do that?!” I knew I needed to do something unique, so I have centered it on how we all have a need in us given by God for story, quest, and purpose.

I have spoken with numerous professors here and there is a lot of excitement about this topic. When I have shared it with scholars in the field on the outside, I also get that excitement. A wonderful aspect of all of this is that whenever I share my research topic with people, they always have something to say about it. No one ever says “Oh. That’s interesting.” They want to say more.

Recently, we had the Defend conference here and I spoke to MaryJo Sharp on the advice of Robert Stewart about how to get the word out about what I’m doing. She said I needed to start a substack. I have blogged several times here on gaming and Christianity, but by and large, I’m now going to be carrying most of those over to my substack. It is the Gaming Theologian and you can find it here.

Also, some material will be behind a paywall. I really don’t like to do that, but I’m working on a PhD and I need the income. I have made it as inexpensive as possible. I can also make it so that if you become a donor to me on Patreon, I will automatically grant you all access to my substack. I don’t want you to make a donation in one place and not get the full benefits of that donation or think you have to donate again elsewhere.

That is only some material. A lot of that material will also be material that is related to plots in stories that could be spoilers for some people. A recent post I made was about the Sonic The Hedgehog 3 movie and that is behind a paywall so that people will not accidentally read what could be a plot point they don’t want to have spoiled.

Also, I went to see that movie with a professor of mine who is excited about my research and about the research paper I wrote for his class last semester on video games and school shootings and the alleged link. He praised the research that I did and said that it could easily be turned into a book if I wanted. When I find time, I might do that and I could share some tidbits of what I am writing at that substack.

Please do come over and please also be a donor either there or on my Patreon. Friends. Even if you donate just $5 a month for example, several people doing that goes a long way and every person who does that makes what I do all the easier and more bearable here.

Also, if anyone is interested in being a YouTube editor, please get in touch with me. I’ve been looking for awhile.

Enjoy the reading!

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

Book Plunge: Irreligion — Atheists, Agnostics, and Brights

Have the brights got dim? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Unintentionally, Paulos starts off this chapter with a howler.

Given the starkly feeble arguments for God’s existence, one might suspect—that is, if one lived on a different planet—that atheism would be well accepted, perhaps even approved of.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 142). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Of course, we have seen in this review that Paulos has not even begun to understand the arguments he is critiquing. Given the shoddy nature of his argumentation, one might suspect, if one lived on a different planet, that atheism would not be a position held by people claiming to be intellectuals today. And yet, here we are….

There is an irony in this chapter in that Paulos is writing about why Americans don’t seem to trust atheists. Then he has an issue with the idea that atheists are calling themselves Brights. Could the two possibly be connected in any way whatsoever?

Many atheists have set themselves up as champions of reason and evidence when they are anything but. Paulos has been an excellent example in this book. He does not really look at the evidence probably because in his mind, it is somehow beneath him. This is all silly nonsense believed by people who just can’t handle life and so they make up something to help them cope.

I am a member on Facebook of a group for debating with Jehovah’s Witnesses and we have some atheists in there. Some of them are ex-JWs and they do have a chip on their shoulder. What’s amazing is that atheists in the group have just as much a cult mindset as the theists they condemn.

It is becoming clearer to me that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for an atheist to agree to read a book that disagrees with him. I have normally recommended this book to them. It’s an academic book and it is free on Kindle. How many atheists have I had agree to read it? None.

If you come to me and tell me about a book that challenges my position, I will likely be hunting it down on Amazon as soon as I can. If it costs too much, I will be checking the seminary library and the local library system. If I still can’t find it, I will likely be checking Interlibrary Loan.

Many atheists also engage in groupthink and send out the same old tired arguments, such as Jesus never existing or the canon being decided at the Council of Nicea or most anything else. They will not wrestle with serious arguments against their position. Then they go around and act like they’re better thinkers than everyone else.

Let’s also not forget that America is still a very theistic country and atheists are often seen as wanting to knock that down routinely. I realize many atheists likely have a live and let live attitude and some could even agree that we need to honor the morality that this country was founded on. Too many though think they are brilliant just by virtue of being an atheist.

I consider Paulos such an individual and as I have shown earlier, I have moral concerns with some of the behaviors he has practiced. Simple conclusion. If a large population of people thinks you are the problem, it’s worth considering they might be right.

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