Author: Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 1

What do we have right and wrong about the Gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In an earlier post, Bates said these were the parts of the gospel:

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,

4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

5. was buried,

6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

7. appeared to many witnesses,

8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,

9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 734-747). Kindle Edition.

He then asks these rhetorical questions with answers:

Is there anything among the gospel’s ten events with which a Catholic, Orthodox, or major Protestant denomination— past or present— would disagree? No. Is there anything here that Bible-oriented Protestant pastoral leaders who write on salvation would fail to affirm as true— folks like John Piper, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and Paul Washer? No. Would the pope, metropolitans of the Orthodox Church, or the archbishop of Canterbury disagree with the truthfulness of any of these events? No. Are there any Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican doctrinal confessions that would fall afoul of these ten? No.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Location 925). Kindle Edition.

And then goes on to say that while there are some minor streams and rogues that would deny some of these that:

All these streams identify any such rogues as deviant— even heretical— precisely because these ten events are agreed-upon truths within all major Christian bodies.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 928-929). Kindle Edition.

As I said, this book mainly will focus on the Protestant and Catholic divide, but let’s look at this for now. I recently had someone considering Mormonism who was telling me that Christians cannot agree on the gospel. I brought up this work which includes these points. These are not disputed by any of the groups.

I then got asked the question if baptism saved. Now here’s something to consider. I do not think so, but I have Catholic friends who would not for a moment doubt my Christianity because of that. Do I think it’s important to be baptized? Yes. Do I think that if you know the need and are not doing so without a good reason you are being disobedient to an extent? Yes. (For instance, if you have a severe physical condition that could make baptism difficult, that would be understandable. For me, it took a long time because of an intense fear of water like that, but when I saw the importance of it, I still did it.)

So tomorrow, I will devote a post to what Bates has to say about Catholicism. I do not consider myself an expert in that field, so I will be relying on what he has to say about it. Yes my Catholic friends, there will be a section on what he has to say about Protestants getting the gospel wrong also.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 2 Part 2

What is the gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So if we’re going to critique Catholicism and Protestantism, we need to be sure we’re on the same page. So what is the gospel? Bates lists ten parts of the gospel.

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,

4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

5. was buried,

6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

7. appeared to many witnesses,

8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,

9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 734-747). Kindle Edition.

Some people will look over this thinking something seems to be missing that we normally speak of.

There is nothing here about justification or forgiveness in any way. Does Bates not care about those? Of course, he does, but he says they are not in the gospel message itself. Those are truths that exist BECAUSE of the gospel message. Because the gospel is true, forgiveness is available. Because the gospel is true, you can be justified.

This would be the same for the news about the Caesars. Good news, a new Caesar is on the throne! That was enough. That was the news that was good. What he would do would be a result of the good news that he was on the throne. For some, it would be good news. For others who opposed him, not so much.

So how do you respond to a king? This gets us into what faith is. As one ignorant atheist I saw say today speaking about Christians:

They call their beliefs ‘faith’ because, well, there’s not one single shred of evidence. Not one. Otherwise it would be called FACT.

Of course, atheists say this without one single shred of evidence that this is what was meant in the biblical world and do not see the irony. Now they could go out and get a Lexicon and look up the word pistis and see what it means. Nah. That requires too much work.

So what does Bates say?

The royal context makes it highly probable that pistis, traditionally translated as “faith,” is better understood as fidelity, loyalty, or allegiance here. (And this is true for all the occurrences of pistis in Rom. 1: 1– 3: 26.) 16 That is, Paul is emphasizing not mental trust in Jesus’s ability to effect forgiveness, but rather external behavior—“ the obedience characterized by fidelity”: embodied, allegiant obedience to a king.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 820-823). Kindle Edition.

Which would entail if you are showing allegiance to King Jesus, that will include seeking forgiveness for what you have done. This will also then entail political action. It requires a changed life. Hence, the debate about faith vs. works becomes moot. If you are allegiant to Jesus as King, then good works WILL follow. Those works aren’t done so you will be allegiant, but because you are allegiant already.

We’ll continue on to chapter three next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 2

What is the gospel exactly? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Beyond the Salvation Wars which you can order here.

Matthew Bates considers that the most important aspect of the gospel we have left out is that Jesus is king. The gospel has actually become more about what God has done for us rather than what has been done for God in Christ. There is this idea that Jesus did all that He did for you. No. You are included, but He did it first for the Father.

In the New Testament, the word we read translated as gospel is euangelion. Bates says about this that:

Outside the Bible, we find euangelion (“ gospel”) used similarly to describe changes in imperial rule at the time of Jesus. The caesar who reigned when Jesus was born, Octavian, is described by an inscription written in 9 BC as a savior— indeed, a god— because he brought peace, order, and greater public benefits than any of his predecessors. The day of his birth is hailed as “the beginning of the gospel [euangelion] for the world that came by reason of him” primarily because he brought an ugly period of civil war to an end. “Gospel” language here connects to the emergence of a new emperor.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 590-594). Kindle Edition.

N.T. Wright has said before that it is bizarre to imagine someone going around the Roman Empire and saying “Good news. Caesar is on the throne and he has a wonderful plan for your life.” To be sure, to say that the good news is not that God has a wonderful plan for your life does not rule that out. I personally would not use that phrase, but we have to start with what the gospel essentially is and then see the outworkings of that.

Note also that this does not mean that this is good news for every individual. The day after the 2024 election, a lot of people woke up the next day and saw the news and celebrated. A lot of people also woke up and saw the news and mourned. In the ancient world, either way, a new leader would have been proclaimed as good news. The Caesars did not think at all that their rule would be good news for everyone. For instance, anyone who was willing to break the law would not see an enforcer of justice as good news.

In the New Testament, the first good news is not that forgiveness of sins is now available. The Jews already had a system in place for that. The good news is that God is king through Christ. Christ is seated at the right hand of God right now. Christ is king. This is the good news. That is what Judaism did not have. They did not have the Messiah king ruling over them. If you went to the average Jew after the resurrection and said, “Hello. I would like to tell you about how you can receive forgiveness through Jesus”, they would have said, “We have the Law for that, thank you very much.” If you went to the Gentile, they would have said “We have sacrifices and rituals through the gods.” This is even assuming that they even thought they needed forgiveness and if they did, they would be thinking “And why should I care about what this Jesus fellow thinks?”

This also means that Christians should be culture warriors. The Gospel has political implications. Imagine being in the ancient world and saying “There is a new Caesar, but he’s not going to do anything about the ruling system right now.” The statement is bizarre. Now imagine saying “There is a new king on the throne of Heaven, but He doesn’t really care about the culture.” If Jesus is the king, He cares about EVERYTHING!

The kingship of Jesus is so important that Bates says:

When Paul details the gospel’s content in Romans 1: 2– 4, the cross is not even mentioned. Here the gospel is about how God’s promises in Scripture have come to fruition in the Son’s incarnation and enthronement.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 690-692). Kindle Edition.

This does not mean the death of Jesus is unimportant, but even then, Bates points to how that is spoken of in 1 Cor. 13:3-5:

In his description of the gospel, Paul does not say that Jesus died for my or your personal sin, but rather, the Messiah died in behalf of our sins. The emphasis is not on Jesus’s death for your or my personal sins but rather on the king’s death for collective sins. This passage is about what the king has done for an entire group of people.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 707-710). Kindle Edition.

We have individualized the gospel. The idea of a Lone Ranger Christianity would have made no sense to the ancient world. It should make no sense to us today.

This is a lot so far today and I don’t want to rush through this, so I’m going to leave it at this for the second chapter for now. Next time, we’ll see more of the implications of this.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 1

What is the battle going on? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I want to thank Dr. Matthew Bates for sending me a copy of his latest book in electronic format. He and I have had a good relationship since my podcasting days and I consider him a friend. When he has a new book coming out, he contacts me and several others and I always make sure to help him out.

Something I really like about Bates is how easy he is to read and also how needed he is. He writes about doctrines that the popular audience needs to hear and he also writes about them in a way that they can understand. He is an excellent scholar, but he speaks on the popular level. As one in PhD work myself now, it is one of my goals to make sure I never get so academically inclined that I leave the average person behind.

Anyway, his latest book comes out today is Beyond the Salvation Wars. In it, he talks about issues between Catholics and Protestants on the nature of the gospel and the doctrine of salvation. Much of what is said about Catholics could apply to Orthodox Christians, but for many of us in America at least, the former two groups are the most prominent. This is not a criticism. It’s just the way the situation is.

He starts off this first chapter taking us back 500 years in time to the killing of Ulrich Zwingli. This is something I suspect most Catholics today would look back on and not see as a good move. What is interesting for us today is how the two accounts we have of his death go.

The Catholic one talks about the praise given to God for delivering the wicked men into their hands so he could die at their hands. The Protestant one talks about how he looked to God alone and rejected the aid of a priest. It talks about how Zwingli was told to call on the Mother of God and the saints, but Zwingli rejects any help but Christ.

Today, we find all of this strange. I meet regularly with several Catholics on a Zoom call to discuss Aquinas. We get along fine. We know we disagree, and it’s cool. We would never think of excluding one another from salvation and especially never taking up arms and going to war against one another.

So why did they?

For them, this was all about salvation and these people were keeping people from salvation. Catholics and Protestants both thought the other side was doing that. In that case, some of them did think it was acceptable to stop people using violent force if necessary to ensure the eternal salvation of souls. We don’t agree today for the most part, but we can see that for them, it made sense.

As Bates says:

We nod our heads “yes” on Sunday

morning: Jesus is indeed worthy. But we have more pressing concerns: Can you believe what Khloé Kardashian just posted on Instagram? Can Patrick Mahomes orchestrate another comeback win? What’s on Netflix tonight? We declare our passion for the gospel but then wear out our couch cushions. Meanwhile, Catholics and Protestants of the sixteenth century were willing to die for a correct understanding of salvation.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 193-196). Kindle Edition.

And this is Protestants and Catholics both.

Bates then goes on to list reasons for hope in unity eventually and then says:

Protestants cannot responsibly say that Catholics believe an individual is justified by good works instead of God’s grace, for they certainly believe no such thing. Grace is required all along the way by both Catholics and Protestants. Grace, however, is configured differently by each.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 319-320). Kindle Edition.

What is good to see about this is a book of critique like this from a Protestant perspective, would likely list all the things the author thinks the Catholics get wrong. Bates does list those, but he lists the mistakes of those of us who are Protestants as well. He then lists one major problem seeing as a lot of debates hinge on justification and sanctification.

(“ faith/ fidelity”) to the king from the ground up. The individualized distinction between justification and sanctification within classic Protestantism is false. That is, the division between a person’s justification and sanctification has an insufficient scriptural warrant and obscures how Scripture actually describes the salvation process.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 432-434). Kindle Edition.

No. He won’t leave that hanging. He will defend it throughout the book. Bates wants us to be clear on what the gospel is and why it matters. It is only when we know what we are talking about that we can reach unity.

Next time, we’ll look at the second chapter to see what he has to say about the gospel.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 9

What about 1 Timothy 4:1-5? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am once again quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

The Spirit expressly states that in the acharit-hayamim some people will apostatize from the faith by paying attention to deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come from the hypocrisy of liars whose own consciences have been burned, as if with a red-hot branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by those who have come to trust and to know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing received with thanksgiving needs to be rejected, 5 because the word of God and prayer make it holy.

The acharit-hayamim is what you would likely recognize as something such as “The last days.”

This seems like a clear statement. We can eat most any food we want. Right? As long as we receive it with thanksgiving, it is holy. Right?

“Not so fast”, says 119 Ministries.

This means that the false teachers whom Paul gives his warning about are not people teaching obedience to God’s dietary laws. Think about it. If they were, then Messiah Yeshua would be a false teacher when he affirmed the validity of the dietary laws as part of the Torah and said that his followers will do and teach the least of the commandments (Matthew 5:17-20). Paul likewise would be a false teacher since he said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). That indicates that Paul believes the dietary laws in Scripture are profitable for “training in righteousness.” So Paul cannot be saying those who teach obedience to God’s dietary laws are false teachers since he would be putting himself into the same category.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 116-117). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So what is the argument?

It reads as if they are saying, “Yes. If we read it as it is, it does seem to go against our position, but keep in mind that Paul holds that all Scripture is God-breathed and keep in mind what Jesus said about the Law.”

Which means there is no exegesis of the text itself. It is then circular reasoning. Their reasoning of the text must be correct because their reasoning of the other texts must be correct. As I have said earlier throughout this book, I find them lacking and again, I have one simple question about this if that is what they think.

“What about sacrifices?”

After all, the Law contained commands for animal sacrifices and Jesus’s statement in Matthew 5 doesn’t read, “Not one letter will disappear from the Law, except for that stuff about animal sacrifices because I am going to do away with them.”

Thus ends our look at this book. It is sad that in a book that is all about defending the Law, what we did not see at all was, well, a defense of the Law. We didn’t see exegesis of the Law. We didn’t get anything on animal sacrifices or anything of the sort.

Again, there’s a reason this stuff is not convincing.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 8

What about Ephesians and Colossians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The first passage 119 Ministries wants to bring up is in Ephesians 2 and I am using the Complete Jewish Bible.

For he himself is our shalom — he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 15 by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,

The idea is that the case for hostility between Jews and Gentiles has been broken apart by Christ. Here is why 119 Ministries thinks that doesn’t work.

First, aren’t Christians—both Jews and Gentiles—supposed to be set apart (holy) and different from the world?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, and they are both holy and different because they are both members of the same covenant now which could not have been said before. Any Gentile was always welcome in the covenant, but they had to become Jewish first. Now, they don’t.

Second, if Ephesians 2:14-15 is saying that Yeshua abolished God’s Law, then it contradicts Yeshua’s own words: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). So, if we accept the traditional interpretation, then we have Paul directly contradicting Yeshua. Everything we have covered in this book shows that Paul agreed with the Messiah’s teachings, so any interpretation that causes Paul to contradict Yeshua is unacceptable.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this assumes that your prior interpretation is true. That case has been found to be flimsy.

Their third point is that the Law was never a point of division between Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles were always promised to eventually be in the covenant people. Yes. Eventually. Until then, the Law was something that set Jews apart from Gentiles.

The other passage we’ll look at is in Colossians 2.

So don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat. 17 These are a shadow of things that are coming, but the body is of the Messiah.

To which they say that the problem was that the Colossians were not following the Law the way it was meant to be followed. As they say:

An alternative interpretation more consistent with the context of the chapter (and Paul’s teaching elsewhere in Scripture) is that these false teachers were not judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah; they were judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah according to how they taught it should be kept. This makes more sense in light of the next verse, which describes these commands as “a shadow of the things to come” (v. 17). In other words, these commands not only point toward Christ’s work on the cross, but ongoing to his future work. That is why they are a shadow of things “to come,” not just things that have already happened.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 113-114). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

And those things to come have already come. Again, this is basic interpretation.

There’s a reason that this position is a minority one in Christianity today.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 7

So what about the Corinthian epistles? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

119 Ministries dives right in so let’s see what they have to say.

The first passage we’ll look at is 1 Corinthians 7:19, in which Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” As we covered in Chapter 3, Paul cannot mean circumcision itself has no value. Why? Because in the very same verse, Paul also says that “keeping the commandments of God” is what matters. Paul cannot say that circumcision is nothing and, in the same breath, affirm the importance of keeping God’s commandments, which include circumcision.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 97). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So Paul cannot mean circumcision doesn’t matter, so let’s find a way to say that circumcision matters. Except, well, that’s what Paul says. If they want to say the commandments of God include circumcision, then they also include offering sacrifices. Do you get to pick and choose which ones you obey? If no, then start offering sacrifices. If yes, then you are guilty of what you condemn in evangelicals.

They then go to 1 Cor. 9:19-22. I will be quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

For although I am a free man, not bound to do anyone’s bidding, I have made myself a slave to all in order to win as many people as possible. 20 That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. 21 With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah — although I myself am not outside the framework of God’s Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah. 22 With the “weak” I became “weak,” in order to win the “weak.” With all kinds of people I have become all kinds of things, so that in all kinds of circumstances I might save at least some of them.

To which they say:

But wouldn’t it be deceitful and hypocritical of Paul to hold to and exemplify the validity of the Torah to Jews but teach the opposite to Gentiles? Indeed, it would.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 100). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is the kind of interpretation I see from new atheists. This is not hypocrisy. It’s more along the lines of “When in Rome.” If I had Mormons visiting me, I would not start having a cup of tea around them. If you want to engage with Muslims, it’s best to not do so over a ham sandwich. If you want to reach Hindus, inviting them out for a burger is not a good idea. You could be fine with any of these, but you don’t violate the taboos of your audience. Everyone in the ancient world would have understood this. 119 Ministries do not.

We’ll next look at 2 Cor. 3 where they quote a Dr. Colin Kruse saying:

It is important to recognize that Paul does not imply that the law itself was fading away. The law as the expression of the will of God for human conduct is still valid. In fact, Paul says the purpose of God in bringing in the New Covenant of the Spirit was precisely that the righteous demands of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:4).3

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 105). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But if we are to move from one degree of glory to the next, then 119 Ministries is doing the opposite of what Paul desires. He wants us to move from the glory of the old covenant to that of the New. 119 Ministries is wishing to stay with the old covenant.

So next time we’ll look at Ephesians and Colossians.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 6

What about Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians should be where many of the ideas of keeping the law for salvation come to die. Unfortunately, 119 Ministries is convinced otherwise. So what do they have to say? To start, let’s look at how they view the idea that the message of keeping the law was a gospel of men.

However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12). Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men. This is a crucial point! Obviously, the Law of God didn’t come from men; it came from God. And if the false doctrine being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 78). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the Law did come from God, and Paul acknowledges that, but throughout the book he treats the Law as a stepping stone. Going back to the Law when you have faith in Christ is going backwards. That makes that version a gospel of men. If one wanted to observe the Law not for salvation reasons but for traditional reasons, I doubt Paul would have a complaint. His choice not to is for the freedom he has in Christ.

What about Paul challenging Peter in Galatians 2?

Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—that would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 80-81). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

It is not known what was being ate, but Peter living like a Gentile could very well have been eating food that would be considered unclean to the Jewish community. When he backs away from that, then he is creating a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have never been obligated to live like Jews (i.e. Following the Law.) and Peter’s actions would be convincing them that they needed to.

It can also be asked that what difference does 119 Ministries see between ritual conversion and following the Law?

They later on look at Paul talking about the reason for adding the Law and quote James Dunn. (Credit where credit is due. At least he’s a legitimate scholar they would normally disagree with.)

Now In the case of 3.19a the issue centres on the meaning of χάριν [charin]. Here we need to recall that the word is the accusative form of χάρις [charis], ‘grace, favour’, and that its usual meaning as attested elsewhere in usage of the time is ‘for the sake of, on behalf of, on account of.’ This suggests a much more immediately gracious objective for the law than simply ‘to make conscious of transgressions,’ and certainly than ‘to provoke transgressions.’ It suggests, in fact, the purpose of the law as it was generally recognized within the (OT) scriptures and the Judaism of Paul’s time: that is, as a means of dealing with transgressions. In other words, what was probably in mind here was the whole sacrificial cult at whose centre was the provision of means for covering sin and removing guilt, means of atonement. [Emphasis added]2

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 87). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China is unknown. If they agree with Dunn, then we have to ask why do they not offer up sacrifices? 119 Ministries wants to accuse Christians of not following the Law, but if they believe it should be followed and is eternal and doesn’t change, then why are they not offering up sacrifices?

The next point to look at is in Galatians 5 when it is said that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you must follow the whole law.

If circumcision itself caused someone to fall away from Messiah, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? The traditional interpretation just doesn’t fit when considering all the evidence.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 94). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why? Because Timothy was Jewish and if they were witnessing to Jews and the Jews thought Timothy wasn’t circumcised, that would mean that they would likely tune out anything Paul said. Let’s suppose hypothetically that that isn’t correct seeing as it is never spelled out. If it is at least plausible, then we already have an answer. Of course, I think it is correct. The point is that there are ways to interpret this that do fit considering the evidence and considering 119 Ministries doesn’t counter such a simple one, how much research are they doing?

So next time, we’ll look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

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

Book Plunge: The Case Against The Sexual Revolution

Was it all a bad idea? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A long-time friend of mine said he wanted to see me write book reviews of books I enjoyed. (And not just enjoyed laughing at how bad they are.) Fair enough. You all need to know about good books as well. Thus, I am pausing the current book review to do one entry on a book I highly encourage you all to read, The Case Against The Sexual Revolution.

As of my writing this blog, the book is fairly new being published in 2022. I had checked to see if transgenderism was a big thing when she wrote the book. Apparently, it was and still is.

So much in my copy of this book is highlighted and I am going to let some fellow students borrow it, both of them with an interest in this area. Let’s start this by listing her chapter titles.

Sex must be taken seriously.
Men and women are different.
Some desires are bad.
Loveless sex is not empowering.
Consent is not enough.
Violence is not love.
People are not products.
Marriage is good.
Conclusion: Listen to your mother.

I found it interesting that for someone like myself, all of those seem like common sense statements.

I have seen leftists argue against each of these in one way or another.

Let’s start with that first one. How many times have we heard something like “It’s no big deal. It’s just sex.” Anytime someone says, “It’s just sex”, they are not taking it seriously. She starts this off with comparing Marilyn Monroe who underneath it all did not like being treated like an object, with Hugh Hefner who lived his life treating women like objects. In speaking of the idea of sexual freedom, Perry says “Why do so many women desire a kind of sexual freedom that obviously serves male interests?” (p. 8) She later says that women have switched one form of female submission for another, but called the latter liberation. (20)

Having a chapter about men and women being different can be seen as heresy by many on the left today. That being said, the transgender movement has taken on a sort of quasi-religious touch to it. If the body is all there is, then it makes no sense to say you are in the wrong body. There has to be some aspect of the person that is not material in the viewpoint in order to make that aspect align with the body by the mutilation of the body.

In this chapter, Perry has several statistics on how men and women are physically and psychologically different. She says that for many this is common sense, but alas, common sense is not that common today. Men and women approach sex and behave sexually in very different ways and it’s a mistake to think that those ways should be the same for both sexes.

Some desires are bad points to some cases of people such as pedophiles. In many ways, what they desire is spoken of openly and no one seems to blink at all about it. We have an idea that if we strongly desire something, that something is good. Nope. Not at all. We think it is good, no doubt, but that does not mean that it is.

The chapter on loveless sex looks at the hook-up culture today. “Hook-up culture is a terrible deal for women and yet has been presented by liberal feminism as a form of liberation. A truly feminist project would demand that, in the straight dating world, it should be men, not women, who adjust their sexual appetites.” (p. 79)

Once again, I marvel at how it is women think they are embracing this and sticking it to the patriarchy. If you are giving men free sex without requiring any commitment from them or responsibility, you are not hurting them, at least not in a way they think they are being hurt. You are teaching them to use you.

Now in the long run, I do think this hurts men seeing as they do avoid responsibility and fatherhood, but that is not the goal of the feminists. The feminists want to avoid responsibility and motherhood often as well. In an irony, feminists wanting to say they are superior are treating the common masculine approach as if it was the ideal.

Perry also says being desired is not the same as being held in high esteem. A man might want to sleep with a woman because he thinks she’s hot, but he will not want to have children with her. He’s just using her for his own sexual gratification.

The chapter on consent is not enough is a huge stab at the porn industry. Perry outright says on p. 113 that there is no good reason to use porn. Pornography has damaged the viewpoint of sex by men and women both. There are plenty of men who struggle with even being able to perform sexually due to porn use and younger and younger men are needing medications for ED.

In some of my apps, I am sure I see an ad about an app for dating where women tell you what they want, and the first lady talking looks like she’s being choked at the same time. Naturally, this brings to mind the subject of the chapter on violence, Fifty Shades of Grey. Perry is quite troubled with how many women loved this book and has said that if a man can remain aroused while beating you, stay away from him.

People are not products deals with the idea of “sex work.” Treating sex this way makes it just a commodity for trade and ultimately, it makes it be people for trade. Again, this benefits men. Men go to the women not for the idea that they love them, but for what they can get out of them.

Finally, marriage is good. This presents the problems the pill presented for society with the incredible line that “When motherhood became a biological choice for women, fatherhood became a social choice for men.” (p. 167) Men are enabled to shirk their responsibility in raising children and then ultimately, the state becomes the surrogate husband. Perry writes about what her grandmother said about the thesis of the whole book as well. “Women have been conned.” (p. 181)

She also writes about the problems of easy divorce. Making divorce easier was done, no doubt, with a lot of good intentions, but it has made everything worse. I fully agree with this speaking as a divorced man who struggles with fears of rejection and problems of trust still today.

Perry longs for there to be some technology that can enable men and women that encourages men to avoid short-term thinking, for women to be stable and protected, and for children to be raised. She then says such a technology exists. It is clunky sometimes and does fail at times, but it’s here. It’s called monogamous marriage. (p. 181)

This book is phenomenal. It is one that I think every thinker in this field should interact with. Perry is a refreshing voice in this world.

Oh. Did I mention she’s neither conservative nor a Christian? Must have slipped my mind.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 5

What about Romans?

Chapter four really doesn’t have much to comment on, so let’s move to five. In this one, 119 Ministries covers Romans.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Romans 2:12-13) Paul is saying here that, although we are saved by grace, the doers of God’s Law are considered righteous before God and will be justified.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 49). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

For some reason, they leave off the next three verses.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So what were the Gentiles doing that was written on their hearts? Following dietary restrictions? Observing Sabbath? Having the feasts? Practicing circumcision? Offering sacrifices to YHWH? Not wearing mixed fabrics?

Nope. Paul must be talking about another aspect of the law. He has that in mind in the next few verses.

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

These are the moral requirements. Not the requirements that would be considered cultic. (Not in the sense of a cult, but in the sense of pertaining to the ritual practices.)

I can’t imagine why 119 Ministries left this out.

They also say one of the first big debates was in Acts 15 asking if you had to be circumcised to be saved.

Then, they would be instructed in Moses’ teaching every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21). As the Gentiles listen to the Torah, and as the teachers instruct them, they will eventually want to get circumcised in obedience to the Law of God.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 51). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

First off, that’s not what Acts 15:21 says:

For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

That’s from the Complete Jewish Bible. The early church by and large was not meeting in the synagogues but in the houses of the church members.

Second, no. Just no. There would not be a universe out there where the Greeks would hear the message and come to Jesus and then burst out with excitement, “Hey! I want to be circumcised now!”

Then Paul points to David as another example to show how God’s forgiveness is available for everyone who would put their faith in God (Romans 4:6-8). This forgiveness is for not only the Jews but also the Gentiles. Moreover, since Abraham was made righteous by his faith before he was circumcised, Gentiles likewise are made righteous before getting physically circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). The doctrine that some Jews were pushing in the first century—that Gentiles needed to get circumcised as a prerequisite to becoming part of God’s people—is false.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. Unfornuately, 119 Ministries misses the real point of this. They do say that just a few verses earlier Paul says we uphold the Law of God by faith. What Paul actually says is explained in Romans 4. He shows how it is that Abraham was justified. Not by the Law, but by faith. Therefore, if we want to uphold the Torah, we should see the Torah says that Abraham was justified by faith.

Without the Law, we would not have a clear definition of sin.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this is false entirely. The Old Testament can condemn the Gentiles for their wicked actions even though they do not have the Law. They know right from wrong still. Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother. Sodom and Gomorrah knew what they were doing was wrong. Joseph’s brothers knew it was wrong to sell him into slavery. It’s not as if Moses came down from the mountain and some Israelites said, “What? Murder is wrong?! We had no idea!”

Next, they bring up Romans 6.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

And say:

Traditionally, Paul’s statement that believers are not “under the law” has been understood to mean that we are free to disregard God’s Law. However, there is a problem with this interpretation—namely, Paul affirms the ongoing authority of the Law throughout Romans. He says we uphold the Law by faith (3:31). The Law is “holy and righteous and good” (7:12), “spiritual” (7:14), and Paul “delights” in it (7:22) and “serves” it (7:25). He says that believers fulfill the Law’s righteous requirements when we walk according to the Spirit (8:4), and that it’s the carnal mind of man, not the spiritual mind, that rebels against the Law (8:7). Therefore, “not under law” simply can’t mean, “freedom to disregard the Law of God.”

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 56). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I will hold off the interpretation of chapter 7 for when we get there, but we have already seen chapter 3 is just a wrong interpretation. So what of 7?

They start it off saying:

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3) How does it make sense for Paul to say that believers are now free from obeying God’s Law when his entire analogy here is predicated on the validity of the Torah’s laws concerning marriage?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 59). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Because that’s the language his Jewish opponents would understand? Just a guess.

So looking back, Paul says the law is spiritual and righteous and good. Indeed. It comes from God. How could it not be? However, part of the problem with chapter 7 is something that 119 Ministries never brings up. Who is speaking here?

Of course, Paul is writing the letter, but is he giving an autobiographical account? If so, then when was Paul alive apart from the Law? That’s what he says in verse 9.

This is what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

I was once alive outside the framework of Torah. But when the commandment really encountered me, sin sprang to life

Paul was raised a Jew all his life. He was never apart from it. If you go back to chapter 5, Paul references Adam. That is a figure that makes sense here. When he was given the commandment of God, sin sprang to life and took advantage of it. Ben Witherington in What’s in the Word? also says that the early Jews thought the sin in the garden was that of coveting.

Romans 8 then is the victorious life of the Christian.

So in the end, 119 Ministries does not understand Romans.

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