Author: Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Core Facts

What do I think of Braxton Hunter’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Braxton Hunter is a professor of Christian apologetics who holds a PH.D. in the same field. He’s recently written a book called “Core Facts” written to not just give a good start to apologetics, but it also is a kind of teaching guide to help others learn how to do apologetics.

The presentation that Hunter presents surrounds his “core facts.” The list is as follows:

C – Cause of the universe
O – Order of the universe
R – Rules of morality
E – Experience of God

F – Fatality of Jesus’s death on the cross
A – Appearances of Jesus to the disciples.
C – Commitment level of the disciples
T – Testimony of the disciples
S – Salvation taught through the Gospel.

Now granted there are some here that I would not use. At the start with the cause and order of the universe, the scientific arguments are cited, but this is something that gets me wondering at times. Is it because I am opposed to science? Not at all! Is it because I am opposed to scientific apologetics? Again, not at all! It is because I have this fear that too often we make the case scientific and I want to make sure that those of us who do have taken the time to learn the sciences not just for apologetics purposes but general purposes. This is the reason why I do not use scientific apologetics. I am not a scientist (And I don’t play one on TV) and I do not want to speak in a field that is not my area.

I also am cautious about the idea of the experience of God. The problem is that experience is not an on-demand kind of thing and to this day, when Bill Craig gives his fifth way in a debate of knowing that God exists, I still cringe.

For the last group, I think in this day and age I would replace fatal with something like “Fact of Jesus’s existence.” There are more people who are Christ-mythers today than there are people who hold to the swoon theory.

For C, I would have probably gone with the idea of conversion, such as that of James and Paul. Why is it that those who were skeptical of the faith were the ones who later on joined it? They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. After all, C and T sounded awfully similar to me at times.

And as for S, an excellent ending would have been shamefulness of Christianity. It is too often overlooked that in the honor-shame context of the ancient Mediterranean world, Christianity was a shameful belief and that that belief not only survived in the face of persecution and shaming but also came to dominate is something that needs to be explained.

Still, the areas that Hunter does present, he does very well on. I was also pleased to hear him say that evolution is not a battle that we have to fight. Very few apologists make such a statement, but I agree entirely with Hunter. I would not argue it unless one was skilled in the sciences and making a purely scientific argument for or against. I only wish he’d gone further on this point and said that we can also go with an eternal universe or a multiverse and Christianity is still safe.

A bonus also is that Hunter does have tips at the end of each section for how to transition the material to a teaching presentation. This makes this kind of book ideal for a leader to use when teaching a class. There are several sidebars as well that provide more detailed information and Hunter has indeed read both sides of the issue.

If there’s one section though that contains poor argumentation, it’s the last one where Hunter has a debate that he did with the owner of an atheist forum who simply goes by the name “Will.” To be sure, the poor argumentation is not on the side of Hunter. It is on the side of Will. As I read this section I found myself repeatedly face-palming. It is embarrassing to see the arguments so many atheists use. Will uses everything from an insistence on YEC and Inerrancy, to a lack of understanding of biblical texts (Judges 21 has God commanding rape? Please find the command from God in there! It’s in fact showing what it was like when Israel was NOT following God.), to a Boghossian understanding of what faith is, and then going so far as to be a Christ-myther. (It should sadly be for the atheist community that they would want to get the Christ-mythers to be quiet. Instead, they champion them. Reality is there are more Ph.D. scientists who hold to a young-earth than there are Ph.D.’s in ancient and NT history that hold to the Christ myth theory. I also for clarification am not a YEC.)

Hunter answer very well, but the fact that Will is a preacher’s kid shows how bad a job is being done in educating the youth of our church. That anyone would think that these are serious arguments being put forward is a travesty. Now of course there are serious arguments atheism can put forward, but many used today are ones that should not be given the time of day. (And of course sadly, the same applies to many Christian arguments.)

In conclusion, while I don’t agree with everything Hunter says, naturally, I could recommend his book as a good resource to a starting apologetics class at a local church. It will become one that can easily be taught and easily discussed and the debate at the end should show how well the Core Facts can stand up to scrutiny. It is a work I could use myself. Braxton Hunter’s “Core Facts” has my endorsement.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Apostles’ Creed: And Was Buried

Was Jesus buried? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

As we look at the Apostles’ Creed, the next claim to look at is that Jesus was buried. This is highly important since Bart Ehrman has come out lately saying he does not think that Jesus was buried, a position that has been held by John Dominic Crossan as well. An excellent rebuttal to Ehrman can be found by Greg Monette here.

So is there any evidence that Jesus was buried?

Well all of our texts that speak about this do indicate a burial. The 1 Cor. 15 creed says that Jesus was buried. This would not mean being thrown into a common grave to be eaten by dogs. That would not be a burial but would rather be a lack of a burial.

It is true that this was the common treatment of people who were crucified in the Roman Empire, but in Israel, things were done a little bit differently. They had scrupulous views on how the dead were to be treated and this included even the criminals. To do otherwise would be to desecrate the persons involved. With Passover coming, the people of Israel would want to remove any uncleanliness from the people and the land.

Now some might say that this did not take place in the war on Jerusalem around 70 A.D., but this was hardly a normal time. Most of these people would not be buried because the Israelites were too busy trying not to be killed and the Romans weren’t really caring about Jewish sensitivities at that time.

It’s also important to note that the burial would not be talked about as much because the burial of Jesus was not an honorable burial. When we look at the account we find that it is not Jesus’s family that buries Him, as would be the case in an honorable burial. It was instead Joseph of Arimathea, a practical stranger to Him.

Also, Jesus was not buried in the tomb of His family. Many times in the book of Kings, we will read about a king and how he was not buried with the kings. How the king was buried spoke volumes about how his life was to be viewed. A good burial would mean a good life. A bad burial would mean a bad life.

In fact, this is even one of the judgments pronounced on a prophet who disobeyed God in the book. He is told that as punishment for his disobedience, he would not be buried in the tomb of his ancestors. For us today, we would say he got off easy. The ancient world would have been aghast and thinking that this is someone they don’t want to model themselves after!

Also, Jesus’s family was not allowed to mourn for Him. This would be another aspect of the shame. We don’t read accounts of His mother Mary going to the tomb or of His own brothers going to the tomb. Jesus’s burial was meant to be a mark of shame to Him.

So what about Joseph and Nicodemus wrapping him up and giving him a burial and covering his body with spices? They couldn’t make the burial honorable, but they wanted to make it a little bit less dishonorable as difficult as that was.

This fits us in then with the criterion of embarrassment. The burial of Jesus is not something that people would want to talk about as much because of the high nature of it being dishonorable. If Jesus was raised from the dead, the burial could easily be skipped over provided one mention that He had died and the nature of His death would indicate the divine vindication that took place with His resurrection.

For these reasons, I conclude that the burial is indeed a historical reality.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Doing Apologetics Without The Need For Apology

What do I think of Trevor Ray Slone’s work on winsome apologetics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In today’s culture, most apologists know that it is important to have the right answers to questions related to apologetics. What is also important is how one goes about doing apologetics. There are all different styles and this goes beyond presuppositional, classical, evidential, etc. Some people have a friendship evangelism. Some have a confrontational evangelism. Some will use sarcasm in apologetics. (Self included) Some will absolutely not. This also depends on the purpose of the encounter and what one hopes to accomplish.

Trevor Ray Slone sent me his manuscript on this topic. Slone wants us to know the purpose of apologetics is evangelism and not argumentation or proving that you are smarter than everyone else. In essence, this is true, but yet I have a concern popping up.

Is every apologetic encounter meant to lead the other person to Christ? I would say no. When William Lane Craig does a public debate for instance, he is not really trying to lead the other person to Christ I suspect. He’s doing that for the people in the audience. In the encounters of Christ in the NT, we do not see people like the Pharisees coming up after an exchange with Jesus asking to be forgiven. Jesus did not answer the Pharisees to win them to His side, but to keep them from drawing people over to their side. It was in the ancient world a clash of honor where the victor got the honor and the loser was shamed. This would mean that, yes, Jesus was trying to shame His opponents. (And might I say, He succeeded brilliantly!)

Slone also says the book came about when a student asked how to do apologetics that was winsome. Here, I wonder again. I understand the goal to be winsome. One does not bring offense for the pure sake of bringing offense, but is this a concern in the NT? After all, doesn’t the NT tell us to be concerned when the world speaks well of us?

But let us go on. Slone takes us first to 2 Cor. 10:1-5. Let’s look at the passage.

“By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” toward you when away! 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Slone says some will notice he did not include verse 6. He tells us he did not do so because it is technically the end of the overall thought of this chapter and there are some burdensome (and he says time-consuming in parentheses) aspects involved in tying it in to those five verses.

Naturally, this got me wanting to look up what verse 6 was immediately and what do I see?

“And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.”

This would indeed be hard to fit into being winsome, but I consider it a lack that it was not addressed. Would it be time-consuming? Yes. But if you are dealing with an argument, you want to be as thorough as possible. If the next verse could indicate to a reader that the rest of the passage is being read wrong, then what? What will happen later on when students are reading the text and thinking about what they learned in the book and then read the sixth verse?

The sixth verse shows in fact that the entire passage is a passage about spiritual warfare of some sort. Now of course, we condemn any physical violence in the apologetic methodology. (Although it is certainly interesting to know that was an effective method used when evangelizing the Vikings.) The text speaks of demolishing and taking captive and punishing. These are not positive terms.

For instance, the word for demolishing is used of destruction elsewhere in the epistle and in contrast to edification. The word for bringing captive is used in Luke to describe soldiers in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. taking the people captive. The word for punished is used to speak of vengeance. It’s asking people to be brought to justice and that they might be vindicated when they are wronged.

The whole passage then is a warfare passage so at this point, I see a problem already.

Slone speaks about humility in this passage. He says humility is “ultimately remembering and maintaining an active awareness of one’s wholehearted insufficiency apart from Christ, and there is nothing about boldness or any other potentially necessary attribute that negates the true necessity of such a mindset.”

Insofar as it goes, I agree with much of this. One can be bold and humble at the same time, yet I disagree at the start. Naturally, I do hold that we should realize we can do nothing without Christ and that our being relies on Him, but is that what humility is?

Let’s suppose Aristotle was writing hundreds of years before Christ. Could he write about the virtue of humility? Yes. Could he include the above definition? Not at all. One could still have humility without knowing a thing about Christ. True humility is simply recognizing where you are in the universe. It is not lifting yourself above your position, but it is also not lowering oneself below one’s position. One can fit that easily into a Christian paradigm with our relation to Christ, but the Christian paradigm does not define it.

Slone also tells us that Paul says that he was humble in face to face encounters. Yet here, I wondered about a passage that never shows up in Slone’s book. What about Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter to his face because he was clearly in the wrong? Paul gave a public shaming to Peter in this regards. Now I agree that Paul was humble in this, but would Slone’s readers know Paul was humble? How would that be explained beyond just saying Paul was humble?

At this point, we’ll move on to the next section which is 2 Tim. 2:23-26.

“23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Slone rightfully says at the start that this passage is intended for church leadership, but since the principles are moral in nature, then they can be seen as universal in scope.

I am again troubled because knowing this is church leadership could change the whole of the situation. Morality does not change to be sure, but some principles of ethics can differ based on the situation. Paul deals with some in 1 Cor. 8-10. He thinks it’s fine to eat meat offered to idols, but says that under some circumstances, it should not be done for the sake of others.

What is going on in the passage is in fact speaking about leaders in the church and what people to avoid. It is dealing with a private situation and not a public one. It is not talking about those who oppose the faith from without. It is also speaking not about foolish arguments, but THE foolish arguments. In other words, there’s a specific heretical teaching in mind. This is apparent because earlier in the chapter Paul has talked about people teaching a heresy that the resurrection has already come and the rest of this is a description of how to respond to teachers like that.

Timothy is in essence being told that he should avoid them and their heresy. It would say nothing about refuting their teaching. That should obviously be done when it is public, but in the private sphere, avoid a relationship with these heretics. That would be giving an endorsement to their teaching.

Unfortunately, I think Slone takes a dangerous stance at this point in the book. I read this passage to my own spouse to ask “Am I reading this wrong?” I am convinced that I am not. Slone says to avoid foolish arguments giving the example of talking about a baby pink unicorn. He says it does not exist, but it is not unbiblical to talk about one provided you are giving an analogy to explain something. I will not quote what Slone says at length.

“However, if you are arguing with someone about how big that unicorn will be when it is six months old for the express purpose of entertainment or just to waste time talking about something interesting, then this is not at all ultimately productive relative to leading people to Christ. So unless there is some higher purpose (actual purpose: not just an excuse/nominal purpose) in mind, such as building rapport to become better friends with so that they might be more open to hearing the gospel message from you in the future, then discussing something for the purpose of entertainment alone is inappropriate and a waste of time at best, and down-right sin at worst.” Slone says he knows this sound harsh, but we must remember that every moment we have is precious and could be a waste of potential time that could be spent leading someone to Christ.

From a pastoral perspective, I can imagine many counselors would be cringing at this statement. This is the kind of statement that I think leads many Christians into a panic about their Christian life and a shut down and much counseling and therapy.

It is hard to imagine that Paul when writing this passage was telling Timothy to never engage in small talk (Which I hate by the way) unless he was leading someone to Christ and that he was condemning any talk about baby pink unicorns.

The reality is we all do things every day that are not directly conducive to the Gospel, but are helpful in having us enjoy our lives and thus be of better service. Even Aquinas years ago said play was an important part of the Christian life. An excellent look at this can be found in Ben Witherington’s “The Rest of Life.”

When I read this I wondered “How long am I allowed to sleep during the day?” Is there a certain time limit whereby I am sinning since time spent sleeping could be spent leading someone to Christ? “How long can my meal times be?” After all, that could be time spent leading someone to Christ. Was I wrong when I was dating my wife and we were just watching a movie together by ourselves? After all, that was time that could be spent leading someone to Christ! We went on our honeymoon for about a week and that was not for the purposes of evangelism. Did we sin in doing that?

Now naturally, if one spent all their time in play, that would be a problem, but God made many good things for our enjoyment. (1 Tim. 6:17) How is it a sin to enjoy them?

Furthermore, am I to be a friend to someone just for the purpose of leading them to Christ? Naturally, if I am a friend to someone I will want to lead them to Christ or get them to grow in Christlikeness, but if they do not, am I to cease to be their friend? Can I not be a friend to someone just because I like their company? This gets me into the problem that too often, we see lost people as simply people to get to Jesus. They in essence become notches on an evangelism tally.

I see Slone’s statement then that I have quoted at length as a highly dangerous one. It is a kind of legalism that will put a burden on people that they cannot manage especially when it comes to areas of their life that are not evangelistic.

The next passage Slone brings us to is James 3:9-12. I do have a concern with this, but it is because of an overall lack I have seen and I will discuss that at the end of my review.

From here, we go into select passages from Proverbs and one immediately caught my eye and led to a problem. Slone gives us Proverbs 26:4 which reads as follows:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.”

Slone tells us that according to this verse, to not answer the fool according to his folly means to not answer in a similar manner. We are not to answer as a fool ourselves. We are to respond in a coherent and rational manner. Therefore, in following this advice, to not answer a fool according to his folly means to not answer foolishly and to answer in a coherent and rational manner.

Sounds good doesn’t it?

But what happens if someone reads the very next verse?

“Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

What now? Am I to answer the fool then at this point in a foolish manner? Am I to answer him in an incoherent and irrational manner? If not answering according to his folly means not answering foolishly and answering in a coherent and rational manner, then it would seem answering according to his folly would mean the opposite.

Slone’s work leaves me wondering what am I to do with verse 5? What will happen when a student who reads comes across verse 5? What are they to think?

The reality is the Proverbs do not give us absolute principles but general realities. Some Jews wondered about the Proverbs because some of them seemed to contradict. This passage is an answer. The clash is intended! It all depends on the situation and the fool you are dealing with. Sometimes you are to answer them in a certain way. Sometimes you are to answer them in another. These two passages should teach us there is not one absolute way to answer a fool.

This is a consistent problem I see in Slone’s book which I want to bring up a little bit at this point. There is the sound of one-hand clapping. Slone brings up verses that he thinks support his position, and for the sake of argument they may, but he does not bring up passages that seem to disagree. I used Galatians 2 earlier as an example of this.

Slone later discusses Romans 12:17-19 and says “Rather in the context of Scripture we are to view this passage as commanding us to ultimately do what is right and honorable in the eyes of those who concur with Christ, for those who are in line with Christ and his teachings are ultimately those who are honorable in the first place, and who understand honor to begin with.”

I seriously question the last part of this, that is, the part about those who are in line with Christ understand honor. I daresay that most people I meet would not understand the role of honor in the ancient world. I am skeptical that Slone himself knows how important it was, for if he had, I suspect this book would have turned out a lot differently. If someone wants to understand honor, an excellent place to go is DeSilva’s “Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity.”

So in wrapping it up, while I appreciate Slone’s endeavors, I just think this falls short and the main reason is Slone presents one side of the story. What is to be done with Matthew 23? What about Luke 11? Now some might say Jesus could do that, but we can’t, but what about when Paul says we are to imitate him as he imitates Christ? What is the basis upon which we say that Christ can be confrontational in his approach to outsiders but we cannot be?

We could go and ask also about passages like Galatians 5 where Paul says he wishes the circumcision crowd would go the whole way and emasculate themselves. What about how Polycarp referred to Marcion as the first-born of satan? What about the heavy-handedness used by Irenaeus and Athanasius and Tertullian and in more recent times, the satiric wit of G.K. Chesterton? Has Slone considered a work such as Douglas Wilson’s “The Serrated Edge”?

I suspect Slone has bought into a modernistic approach and has unfortunately read it back into the Scripture. I do not think one can find this approach if one reads Scripture within its ancient social context, which is always the great danger we make. We read our own culture into the Bible.

So while I do appreciate Slone’s desire for evangelism, I think that these are problems in the text that I would have to see worked on before I could give my endorsement, especially the problem with the passage about entertainment purposes and such. I think Slone needs to interact with voices that disagree with and be able to explain passages that seem to go against his viewpoint. For the sake of argument, his position on the passages he cites could be correct, but without addressing the opposition, it is the sound of one-hand clapping.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 5/10/2014: Is Reality Secular?

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast this Saturday? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

This Saturday, I’ll be interview on my show Mary Poplin. Who is this? Well I’ll let her own bio speak for her.

Dr. Mary Poplin is professor of education at Claremont Graduate University where she teaches courses on learning and pedagogical theories, philosophy and education, and qualitative research. She is a frequent speaker in academic and religious forums. She has been both founder and director of the current Master’s teacher education program and dean. Her most recent research is a five-year study of high-performing teachers in low-performing urban schools in some of the poorest neighborhoods in LA. Her book, Finding Calcutta, is about her experience volunteering with Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity. Her more recent book, Is Reality Secular, is a reflection and analysis of four global worldviews, their principles, their similarities and differences with the Christian worldview and their consequences on lives, nations and cultures.

✜

“Now there is great risk in sharing personal spiritual phenomenon but even greater risk comes from ignoring it.”

As a scholar and life-long educator, Dr. Poplin’s interest in issues of social justice has translated into a passion for improving education among the poor and, during the spring of 1996, it took her to Calcutta where her western, academically-minded background collided with one the most monumental lives of the twentieth century—a woman who was the founder and head of a multi-ethnic, multi-national service to the poor, but who Dr. Poplin admits, never made it into her class syllabus.

While the western, intellectual mind interprets Mother Teresa as an exemplary humanist it underestimates the spiritual framework from which she drew her work and her sense of purpose. Dr. Poplin’s story communicates how she saw one of the monumental lives of our time stand in unapologetic, countercultural contrast to the confines of the secular age.

Taking to heart what she learned from Mother Teresa that, “what you believe and what you disbelieve makes an enormous difference in the way in which you approach your work,” Dr. Poplin realized when God is missing in the university so is one gargantuan worldview.

PoplinOutdoorPicture

Poplin has a fascinating story of how she came to Christ while working at Claremont and that alone is worth the whole price of the book, but she is a thoroughly read individual who now has a deep passion for the Christianity that she was once against. She has the mind of a scholar with a heart of compassion for those who are in need and I am sure if you listen to the show, that you will be liking what it is that you are hearing.

So please join in this Saturday for a fascinating look at Mary Poplin’s book “Is Reality Secular?” It’s sure to become a great piece to use when discussing worldviews with your friends who come from a differing position. As always, if you want to call in from 3-5 PM EST when the show airs to ask a question, the number to do so is 714-242-5180.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Five Views on the Historical Jesus

What do I think of the five views? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Historical Jesus study is one of the most controversial fields today. Despite what many atheists today think, it’s not filled with conservative evangelical Christians. Oh sure, some are in there, but any one can be a historical Jesus scholar regardless of their worldview.

So what happens when you get five scholars from five different fields to come on? Everyone ends up critiquing everyone and that’s the great benefit of these counterpoint books. One gets to see multiple perspectives and how they interact.

The first view is Robert Price’s.

It’s hard to say that without snickering.

Why? Because Robert Price is one of few on the planet in the field who actually holds to the idea that Jesus never existed. His essay naturally fails to deliver as he does not interact with sources outside of the NT hardly, such as Tacitus, and he too quickly dismisses the passages in Josephus. Meanwhile, he wants to find a parallel for everything in the Gospels somewhere in the OT, and some of them particularly amusing. For instance, the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 who was lowered through the roof is based on King Ahaziah being afflicted by falling from his roof and then the result of him lying in bed.

If you think I’m making that up, it’s on page 69. I am not.

Now of course there are some Old Testament parallels, but it should not surprise us the NT would be written in the language of the OT since these were people familiar with the OT and would be making allusions to it seeing Jesus as a fulfillment. This would in fact give honor to the person of Jesus.

The responses are just as hilarious, particularly James Dunn’s response. Dunn is absolutely stunned that someone like Price even exists. Interestingly, another scathing critique of Price’s essay comes from John Dominic Crossan.

Crossan’s essay is in fact where we’ll go next.

Crossan presents a Jesus who interacts much with the politics of his day and talks about God bringing His Kingdom. So far, so good. Yet for Crossan, Jesus had followed John the Baptist in a more apocalyptic message, but then toned it down when He saw John beheaded and decided to say the Kingdom was here in the sense that God was making His presence known. It was already here. From that point on, Jesus is a teacher of the love and grace of God.

It sounds well and good, but keep in mind Crossan has also said the crucifixion of Christ is as sure a fact as any in ancient history. As I read Crossan’s essay I kept wondering “How on Earth would this Jesus be crucified?” This Jesus might be at worst an annoyance, but He would not strike anyone as a political revolutionary. He would not be teaching a message that would be radical to the people of the time.

This Jesus then is not the one that I think could be the Jesus of the Gospels. He would not be someone who is stirring up controversy whatsoever. Pilate would not have considered him a threat. No one would have considered that He was in anyway thinking He was a Messiah or a King.

The next essay is by Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnson has a unique approach and it’s rather difficult to figure out. He wants us to study history, but he wants us to realize that history has limits. From what I gather, Johnson is more interested in us getting to know the person of Jesus by reading the Gospels as literary works. No harm there. That should be done.

My concern with this is that it gives the impression that it’s praising history from one viewpoint and going against it from another. If Johnson’s view is that studying the Gospels will not tell us everything about the historical Jesus, well who would disagree with that?

At the same time, I do think Johnson deserves the rightful praise for reminding us that whatever genre the Gospels are, and I hold that they are Greco-Roman bioi, that we should definitely read them as works of literature.

The next essay is James Dunn. Personally, I found this one the most helpful essay of all. Dunn presents a brief look at what he has in Jesus Remembered, a massive work of his on the historical Jesus. He invites the reader to look into the question of the oral tradition and reminds us that our society is different from theirs.

He also asks us to look at why things happened. Why did Jesus have such an impact on the disciples and this even before the events of Easter? What was it about Jesus that made the difference? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked, especially when dealing with more fundamentalist types like Bart Ehrman.

Finally, we have an essay by Darrell Bock. Bock comes from the evangelical sphere so he’s also the only one to really talk about the resurrection. I found Bock’s essay interesting but in some places, lacking. Why when Pilate’s actions are mentioned is not the death of Sejanus mentioned that would highly affect Pilate’s response? Still, one will find a good presentation of a common evangelical view of Jesus in Bock’s essay.

Of course, a book like this cannot cover everything, but it will give the layman a good introduction to how historical Jesus study takes place. I highly recommend it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How To Not Make A Messiah

If you were to create an account of a Messiah for the people of Israel, what would you not do? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Many times we’re told about how Jesus was a made-up figure meant to inspire the people of Israel and to be a challenge to Caesar. All manner of motives have been given for this great hoax to take place, but I’d like to consider this idea. What kind of Messiah would you make if you wanted one just to win a popularity contest and get the people to follow you? I think it’s easier to talk about what you would not do.

First, you would not have anything that would indicate that the birth of such a person was illegitimate. That is, you would want him to be a descendant of his father and his mother. Some might think it would be good to have a deity bring the child into existence in a more direct way, but for a Jew, this would seem too close to paganism. Therefore, you will have them come from a family of high honor.

You also would make sure that this family would be a wealthy family. This would fit the scene of your Messiah. After all, in the ancient world, poor people were not trusted. Rich ones were the ones that had the favor of the gods and the poor were the ones who were more prone to deceive you because you have something they want.

You will also make sure this Messiah comes from a town that is well-known and honorable. You’d avoid a no-name town that no one cares about such as, oh, Nazareth. The birthplace of your Messiah will be a determining factor of his future after all.

You will also seek to have him come from a region that is not looked down on in the world, such as the area that we call Palestine today. Claims from that part of the world were not taken seriously by the populace as a whole so while this might impress Jews, it would certainly not impress Gentiles.

You would make sure this person has a great career. They would likely be a king or a military leader. For the Jews, this would mean someone in the line of David, who the Messiah was to be a descendant of. For Gentiles, a powerful warrior would earn their respect, especially for those who were not happy with the Roman Empire.

You would not have this person be a miracle man. Why? Because people like Lucian and others made it a habit to debunk miracle claims and the world was full of people who were skeptical of miracles. Adding miracles would make your messiah seem like the modern equivalent of a televangelist.

You would make sure his followers were the best of the best. That would mean people who fully understood his teachings and embraced the reality of who he was. Not having your Messiah be understood would be an indication that your Messiah was not a good teacher. He would also be known by the company of his closest followers.

You would make sure his immediate family accepted his claims as well. After all, if one’s own family doesn’t accept one’s unique claims about oneself, then why should anyone else do so? Having the recognition of your family is important in this field.

You would have him travel abundantly. This is the Messiah who is to save the world after all. There’s no need to limit him to one country or people. Go out and spread him with all the world and make sure he has a worldwide reputation.

You would have him be embraced by all his people. After all, why should anyone think that a person is the Messiah of the Jews if it turns out the Jews themselves do not accept such a claim? How could someone proclaim such a message with confidence.

You would certainly not have him die a shameful death. Now for a shameful death, I can’t think of any more shameful than crucifixion. This was the humiliation given to dissidents of Rome who were seeking to be their own kings. Such people would be branded as traitors to Rome and defeated by the Roman Empire. For a Jew, they would be seen as under God’s curse. In any way, following such a person would mean identifying with him, something that would dissuade people from following him.

If this Messiah figure died, you would make sure he had an honorable burial. That would mean that all the people would come immediately to mourn him. He would be mourned by his family and he would be buried in the tomb of his ancestors and near the place where he lived. Anything else would be dishonorable.

This person if dead would be divinely exalted. This would mean this person was immediately ushered into the presence of God and received vindication that way. Any other way, like a bodily resurrection, would be far harder to explain after all and be the route that could be most easily disproven, which is not helpful if you’re making up this claim. You want something that cannot be disproven at all. Besides, this is what happened to the emperor and you’re wanting to rival the emperor. Who wants a bodily resurrection anyway? That returns you to a prison.

You would also make sure your belief was not exclusive. Your messiah would be a divine figure indeed, but he would be one among many. This would be someone that your Gentile friends after all could worship along with all their other deities.

Now these ideas are important to follow, but it would be difficult to follow all of them, though possible. Still, one should be absolutely certain that any belief that went against all of these would have to be doomed to failure. That would be the last kind of Messiah that anyone would make up and follow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Apostles’ Creed: Died

Did Jesus die on the cross? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There are some theories that should have died several several years ago and never did. Unfortunately, they keep rising up despite being put to death by the people that would have been their ablest defenders had there been any truth whatsoever to them.

One such idea is the swoon theory. This is the idea that Jesus never died on the cross.

In fact, it was Strauss years ago, who was beyond most liberals today in critiquing the NT, who put to death this theory. Strauss said that someone like Jesus who was half-dead could hardly have come out of the tomb and managed to just a few days after crucifixion appear to his disciples and proclaim that He was the Lord of Life who had conquered death. The apostles would not have called it a miracle. They would have called a doctor instead.

Yet this theory never seems to die. What are some reasons for it?

First, a large number of Muslims hold to this view saying that according to the Koran, Jesus did not die on the cross. Now since I am not an authority on the Koran, I will not comment on this point, but one does not need to be an authority to know that many Muslims make this claim.

Second, this is a popular claim that is popular on the internet and with conspiracy theories with such ideas as that Jesus never died but instead got up and went who knows where. There is even a group in Japan that thinks Jesus went all the way there and married and died.

Third, some people do look at the claim that some people were brought down from the cross and survived. This number could be counted on one hand and even more numerous would be the people who did not survive even when taken down. In fact, right off, I only know of one person who survived. This was when Josephus asked for three of his friends to be removed from crosses. All three got the best medical care Rome could provide. Only one survived.

In fact, several years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote an article where they stated firmly that based on medical knowledge we have today, that Jesus did indeed die on the cross.

At this point, I also think a certain objection must be added from some of the more unitarian bent who want to say “If Jesus is God, how did He die on the cross? Gods can’t die!”

The problem with this statement lies in what is meant by the word “die.” If you mean that God ceased to exist when Jesus died, then yes, God cannot die. God cannot cease to exist. Yet no one arguing for the resurrection claims that God ceased to exist on the cross.

What does it mean? It means that some aspect of Christ, perhaps His soul, left His body on the cross. Many of us don’t think we cease to exist when we die. We just go to live in another state. If this is the case for Christ, then Christ did the same thing. His soul experienced a separation from His body. A reuniting took place on Sunday morning in a new and glorified body.

It is a shame that the conclusion needs to be spelled out. Jesus did indeed live. Jesus was indeed crucified. Jesus did indeed die. Unfortunately, in our age of people often relying largely on internet searches and wikipedia instead of real scholarly research, this needs to be spelled out.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Apostles’ Creed: Crucified

Was Jesus crucified? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Since I did not find the time to write a blog on Thursday, I’m going to make up for it with a rare Saturday blog. I hope you’ll also be tuning in to the podcast today that I have with Robert Kolb on the resurrection. For now, we’re going to talk about the crucifixion.

If you meet someone who really thinks they speak with authority and that the crucifixion did not happen, you can rest assured you are talking to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

“The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)

“Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief “stumbling block” for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition come from? It must have actually happened.” (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages 221-222)

“Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a common method of torture and execution used by the Romans.” (Dale Martin, New Testament History and Literature. Page 181)

“That Jesus was executed because he or someone else was claiming that he was the king of the Jews seems to be historically accurate.” (ibid. 186)

“Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details that fill out the story?” John Dominic Crossan here.

None of these people would be considered orthodox Christians who are saying this. This argument is not being made for theological reasons. It is being made for historical reasons. The testimony of history that Jesus was crucified is overwhelming. It is the testimony of all of our earliest sources as well as non-Christian sources such as Tacitus.

Some people look at the crucifixion and say that it means Jesus died and say “Well so what? The only way you could argue that Jesus rose again is that you had him die. So what?” The reason crucifixion matters is not that it’s just that Jesus died, but that He died the worst death it was possible to die in His time. He died a death that was humiliating and shameful.

In Jesus’s society, you would not invent a story that your messiah who was to be your rival to the emperor even was crucified. That would make as much sense as making up a story that your candidate for the Pope had been an active homosexual in the past or that your candidate for president of the Southern Baptist Convention is a registered sex offender.

And yet, the Christians all agreed that Jesus was crucified, the part of the message that was extremely dangerous to their cause. Why did they all agree? It is because it was undeniable that it happened that way. Everyone knew it.

For Christians today, we can remember all that our Lord did in suffering not just a painful death, but a death that was shameful as well. This is what Hebrews means when in the 12th chapter it says that He went to the cross despising the shame. The shame was worth it for the greater glory that would come. We today can realize that our sufferings lead to the greater glory that will follow.

Christ trusted the promise of God to the cross.

How far are we able to trust that promise?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast: 5/3/2014 Robert Kolb

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Before we get to that, I want to explain a situation going on. The group that I am with has decided to drop BlogTalkRadio. It is my hopes to get back there somehow. I do not know how much longer it will last. We have been told to use a Skype Recorder but that is technology I’m not familiar with and it would limit your ability as listeners to get to call in and talk to my guests and ask questions.

Therefore, it is my hopes that either another group might want to incorporate the Deeper Waters Podcast and allow us the same time slot, or else that we will come across someone, and maybe someone reading this blog, who wants to sponsor the Deeper Waters Podcast. I’m going to do all I can to keep the show going, but I want you to be aware of this situation. Please be in prayer for it.

For now, let’s talk about this Saturday’s show.

My guest this Saturday will be Robert Kolb. For alerting me about Dr. Kolb, I want to think my pastor at The Point where my wife and I worship together. He tells me that Dr. Kolb is one of the top five experts on the Reformation and that’s what we’re going to be talking about.

In his own words,

“Robert Kolb, Missions professor of systematic theology emeritus at Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, came to the seminary faculty after service as executive director of the Center for Reformation Research in Saint Louis (1972-1977) and as professor of religion and history at Concordia College, Saint Paul (1977-1993). From 1993 to 2009 he served as director of the Seminary’s Institute for Mission Studies and spent extensive periods of time teaching in post-Soviet Europe and East and South Asia. A member of the LCMS Commission for Theology and Church Relations from 1984 to 1992, he was its chair from 1989 to 1992. He was associate editor and then co-editor of The Sixteenth Century Journal (1973-1997) and since 1993 has been a member of the continuation committee of the International Congress for Luther Research. He helped edit the new English translation of The Book of Concord (2000) and has published some twenty books on the Lutheran Reformation and on evangelism and Christian doctrine.”

kolb robert 2886 (2)

What impact does the Reformation have for us today? How is it relevant in our apologetics and evangelism? Was it all good? Was it all bad? Was it a mixture in between? These are questions that we’ll be discussing and frankly, it’s an area I haven’t looked at too much myself so I will be definitely looking to learn about the Reformation alongside those of you who are listening.

Please be joining us for this episode to learn about this important event in history and please keep in mind to consider what you can do to support the Deeper Waters Podcast. As always, if you want to call in and ask a question, the number is 714-242-5180. We will be at our usual time from 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Holden’s Not Happy

Are people who use genre criticism truly opening Pandora’s Box? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Joseph Holden of Veritas Evangelical Seminary has written a long piece about genre criticism. Well, supposedly, it’s about genre criticism. Most of the post actually consists of just saying “We don’t like the way that our opponents speak about us and they should act better!” This is included in what has to be one of the longest paragraphs ever in the English language.

Noteworthy also is that Holden takes notice of a piece I wrote on another blog. This means Holden has made the mistake that Geisler didn’t, which is linking to my own work on this topic. Well for those who are here because they found that thanks to Holden, I’d like to introduce you to everything I’ve written on the topic which can be found here.

Holden begins his piece with this.

“Those within the critically-trained evangelical NT scholarly guild, I would assume, consider their ability to handle, teach, write, research, and discuss Scripture, a blessing given to them by God. Most, if not all, would agree they are also responsible to God and to those they interact with to imitate the character of Christ in love, especially to our own Christian brothers and sisters no matter what disagreements they have.”

Which got me suspicious right from the start. It’s a buttering up in order to knock someone down. Of course the ability to study the Scriptures and examine them is a gift from God, but let us remember, that we are to act in love no matter what disagreements we have. Let’s all remember those acts of love that are to be done.

What are they?

Giving pressure to someone so that they will lose their livelihood at their job.
Calling people behind the scenes to get them uninvited at conferences.
Passing petitions around behind their back in order to have them lose their reputation.
Ban and delete any challenges that come your way to said authority.

We could go on, but apparently, all of these things are okay to do in Christian love! These are just fine! What is not fine?

Actually writing a defense when these actions are done.
Writing satires that show the absurdity of a position.
Making YouTube videos that show the absurdity of a position.

Dang it! If only we’d all just put pressure on people to fire others and have them banned from conferences, we’d still be acting in Christian love!

Or is this one of the greatest examples of the pot calling the kettle black?

“One does not have to be a scholar to be aware of the susceptibility within the academy to be puffed up with pride and forget that the Word of God must guide our reason and interactions with others. To fall short of these standards is both unscholarly, unnecessary, and reveals little respect for the crucial issues pertaining to God’s Word. There is no place for a lack of respect, mockery, or the cavalier handling of various topics discussed within inerrancy despite what we think about views we deem as unpersuasive.”

Now there is a note after this and what does it link to? The dangerous heresy of Michael Bird! One wonders what Holden would have said to Isaiah when he joked about a man building an idol and making sure it doesn’t topple over. What would he said to Elijah about what he said about the prophets on Mt. Carmel? What would he have said to Jesus in Matthew 23? What would he say to Paul about wanting the circumcision crowd to go the whole way and emasculate themselves in Galatians 5?

It looks like Holden has bought into an idea of love as sentiment, when it is not. He has actually bought into an idea that is foreign to the text and imposed it on the text. This is the danger of removing it from the mind of the author. After all, the words can mean most anything then and you can superimpose your culture on the culture of the text and totally miss the meaning of what is said.

And if Holden wants to say there is a lack of respect, he needs to remember that people have indeed lost respect for Geisler and company and why is that? Because Mike Licona and Craig Blomberg are just awesome? No. That’s irrelevant to the fact. They’ve lost it because they’ve seen the way Geisler has handled himself and they don’t want any part of it.

There is also no reply to what Bird said. I happen to agree with Bird in fact. Bird made an honest assessment of the information contained in Blomberg’s book and it’s just not liked. This is like a bully on the playground who steals the toys from all the other children and doesn’t like it when someone comes and outsmarts him and takes away the toys that he stole.

“The Scriptures deserve our best. But what should we expect from critical evangelicals that deny historical affirmations presented in Scripture and/or view historical narrative in the Gospels as candidates for fiction? Perhaps I should adjust my expectations and not expect critics to handle issues pertaining to the Scriptures in a manner likened to those who actually believe the biblical author’s expressed intentions. Though this adjustment may be necessary when dealing with unbelieving critics, it should not dominate the landscape in this case since believers are involved.”

Ah. This has just got rich. Since there are people who apparently deny the historicity of the Bible, then we should not be surprised that their character is not in accordance with the Bible. Once again, getting someone disinvited to speak at conferences and having petitions going on behind one’s back? This is all well and good! This is within the bounds of how people who disagree should act! Making jokes and writing comedy pieces? Hideous villains! How unchristlike you are!

And again, the historical narrative is not being called into question. What is being called into question is whether some parts should be read as narrative or not. You don’t make the case that they are by asserting that they are. You make it by giving an argument why from the same methodology.

For instance, I am going to be doing my Master’s research on the Matthew 27 account and the resurrection of the saints. Now if Mike Licona reads my work and finds it persuasive, and my view turns out to be that I think he’s wrong, here’s what will happen. Mike will change his mind. That’s what happens when you follow the evidence where it leads. That is how you change someone’s mind. You don’t change it by saying “If you don’t agree with me, I won’t let you play in my sandbox any more.”

“Yet despite identifying with evangelical traditions, stereotypes, impugning motives, demeaning comments, and personal attacks are offered without hesitation. For example, see Blomberg’s descriptions of ICBI inerrantists who are likened to the far right and far left of “Nazism,” “Communism,” describing them as “far right,” “extreme,” and should “avoid them like the plague,” they “hindered genuine scholarship among evangelicals,” “overly conservative,” “hyperconservative,” “ultraconservative,” and do “disservice” to the gospel in CWSBB, 7-8, 11, 120, 125, 141-45, 214, 217.”

Anyone who read Blomberg’s book would find this hysterical. Blomberg is using an analogical argument and for what its worth, I for the most part agree. Avoid extremes. Note also that Blomberg points out misrepresentations made by Geisler and Farnell that are not acknowledged in this piece. Note that he points out how Robert Thomas said that he was experiencing a “satanic blindness.” That’s apparently okay.

“Obviously, this is an attempt to standardize his own critical views as “mainstream” by radicalizing and polarizing the opposition.”

Why is it that Blomberg is the one guilty? We could just as well say Geisler and Holden are guilty of this. After all, the view that we can’t know the authorial intent of an author is not what has been seen as mainstream. Note also the well poisoning by saying that Blomberg’s views are critical.

Blomberg in fact has done much to defend the Inerrancy of Scripture including writing on the historical reliability of the Gospels and his belief in Inerrancy stems from the fact that he did the historical study on the Gospels, the kind that people like Holden seem to want to avoid.

” In addition, Blomberg offers an angry and bizarre satirical rant against those critical of his view, asserting that Geisler, a former ICBI framer and staunch defender of inerrancy, “Denies…ICBI Inerrancy!” and should be cancelled from speaking engagements.”

And here, Holden has made the mistake. He has shown that my work has been noticed by him. Well it was never linked to before, but now we can say it has been so thank you very much. We eagerly anticipate since it has been shown that we are in the orbit how a response will come to the open challenge, you know, the one that has been regularly denied by Geisler et al.

I also do not think Blomberg has any anger in this rant at all. What Holden and people like him do not realize is that by now, what he is defending has just come across for the most part as silly. Of course, Holden will see this as saying Inerrancy is silly. It is not. What is bizarre is this view that wants to avoid any real interaction with NT scholarship.

“Bird is not exempt from these personal attacks either, he says Geisler is the “villain,” and his views are “extreme” and “to the right of Attila the Hun,” “not a…pleasant chap,” and remarks Geisler “has never found an institution worthy of him.”

Keep in mind, this is not acceptable. All the other behaviors mentioned above? Entirely acceptable! Note to people like Holden, we’ll think you have a case here if we start seeing our opponents practice what they preach. Geisler went public first going all out against Mike Licona and then didn’t like it when he realized all the opposition he unleashed.

“Licona has his share of doozies as well (e.g., Geisler and company are theological bullies, satirical mockeries of Geisler in cartoon form, etc).”

Something seems to escape Holden here. Is Geisler being a bully? Well geez. Maybe that is the case. Maybe people have been looking at the behavior and saying “Geisler is being a bully.” Let’s suppose for the sake of argument even that that’s wrong. That it’s even being said should raise up some concern. Why is it so many people who used to respect Geisler now want nothing to do with him? Could it be because of actions in this whole crusade?

But apparently, making a satire about not having Geisler speak at your conferences for denying inerrancy is unacceptable. Actually doing that in reality as Geisler has done to his opponents is entirely acceptable.

“There is no reason why critical NT interpreters cannot be cordial in fostering an atmosphere of discovery rather than elevating fraternity above orthodoxy. Though ad hominem can be an effective way to make an orthodox view look “radical,” it is actually Bird, Blomberg, and Licona’s view of Scripture that are alien to the church’s view of Scripture from its beginning and to the ICBI definition.”

I’ll give you a hint who the first person was who was not cordial in this and his initials are N and G. Yet with this last sentence, it makes one wonder if Holden and others think when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, that He also included all the statements in ICBI. ICBI has been lifted up as the standard definition of Inerrancy of the church historically. It is a wonder how this could be known without knowing authorial intent of the speakers of the past, but oh well. Could it be instead that a view that wants to divorce the text from its social context and culture is actually the one that is aberrant.

Now rather than go through all of this, let’s skip down to get to some real meat. Note that in all of this so far, not one thing has really been said about the subject matter of the title. From ICBI we get

“We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.”

And the question then is “What presents itself as factual?” For instance, the temptation narratives present themselves as factual accounts. How did they happen? Was Jesus first tempted to jump from the temple or was he first tempted to worship the devil? OT narrative accounts of the Israelites totally destroying the Amalekites then have just a few chapters later the Amalekites showing up again to fight. This has been the problem with interpreting the texts in a literalistic fashion. (Interestingly, according to Holly Ordway who is an expert on literature at HBU, the word literal really means “according to the intent of the author.”)

“What is more, Article XVIII rejects “the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching…” ”

And once again, the mistake is made that you cannot dehistoricize a text that was never meant to be historical to begin with. If the case is made that it is not to be read as historical, one needs to make an argument why it is wrong by showing the flaws in the opponent’s argument. One does not do so by just saying “Well they’re wrong!”

“Any attempt to arrive at the biblical author’s unexpressed intentions to dehistoricize his expressed intentions through extra-biblical literature is guess work. The biblical author’s unexpressed intentions are lost to us at his death, so nothing short of a séance will suffice in securing unexpressed intent!”

And insofar as it goes, this is correct. We do have to guess. We often have to guess what is meant when we have the author of a piece right there. This includes all forms of language. How many guys out looking for a lady have asked their friends the question “Is that girl flirting with me?” just by body language? How many times has a husband or wife expected their spouse to “get the message” without saying something explicitly?

Could it be Holden’s problem is he wants absolute 100% security?

Well if that’s what he wants, he won’t get it.

What people do in this case is they make a strong case and seek to not grant 100% certainty, but seek to remove reasonable doubt. This is the standard in court cases in our country. You can still make a strong case and go with reasonable likelihood.

And what if we say that we are certain all these texts have to be taken literalistically? What happens then when something like Galileo happens? The text was often being interpreted in a literalistic way? What was most persuasive in showing us that was wrong? Extra-Biblical information. Would that be seen as dehistoricizing the text?

“Similarity in genre does not secure our knowledge of unexpressed authorial intent no matter how “similar” it is to the Gospels, since we would still be left without knowing whether the biblical author’s intent was the same as the pagan author’s intent. Anything else is pure speculation. This method elevates what the author intended to say over and above what he did actually say.”

But in fact, if Geisler and Holden say we have to take these as historical, then upon what grounds will they deny that other accounts are not to be taken as historical? Do they take the miracles of Apollonius in the same way? Do they take the events at the death of Caesar and others the same way? How do they get to the Biblical text being the right one without begging the question?

Also, it is not pure speculation. I suspect Holden thinks this because he has not really interacted with NT scholarship. It is reasonable assumptions made based on the evidence.

We could go on with this, but there would just be more of the same. What we see going on with Holden is just paranoia and panic. What is truly fearful to me is not that some would use historical criticism to argue against the text. That will happen regardless. What is fearful to me is evangelicals being frightened at that thought? Why? Will the Bible not stand up? For me, I can say throw at the text all the tests that you want to. If our scholarship is done rightly and honestly then in the end, if the text is inerrant, it will come out unscathed.

Now we’ll just sit back and wait to see if Geisler will respond to the challenges presented or just keep pushing the panic button.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Holden’s piece can be found here.