Category: Apologetics

The Brother of the Lord

Is James really a brother to a historical figure? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote about the problem of internet atheists and gave the Christ-myth as an example. I can anticipate that someone will ask me about the claims of Richard Carrier. I figured it would be good to look at some of the claims that are made against Jesus being a real historical figure and for a start, thought that I’d look at the passage that talks about James being the brother of the Lord.

Now if James is a brother to someone, it would be self-evident that that person either now exists or at one time did exist. You can still be the sibling of someone who is dead after all. If it is the case that Jesus now existed or even at one time did exist (Perhaps for the sake of argument, he never rose from the dead), then the Christ-myth theory is false.

There can be no doubt that the NT often uses the term “brother” and “brethren” in a spiritual sense. This is still used today of course. The question we have to ask is “Does this mean that every time the text identifies someone as a brother, it means in a spiritual sense?” This would be a highly problematic feature since it would mean no one could positively be identified as someone’s brother in the text.

Could there be any way to make a stronger case? Yes. I think there is. I would like to start with the Galatians passage that’s usually brought up. This text is Galatians 1:19 and reads as follows:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Now this is often dismissed since we know about the case of spiritual brothers. Yes. We certainly do. However, to state that it can often refer to spiritual brethren in the NT is not to argue that in this case, it means a spiritual brother. Here are some reasons I think it does not.

First off, we have a specific identifier remark. James is a brother. A brother of who? A brother of Jesus. This is to set him apart from numerous other people named James. Keep in mind James was an extremely common name in the time of the NT. How do you know which James, it’s the one who is an apostle and more importantly, the brother of the Lord.

Note also that to identify someone by their brother is something extraordinary. Most people would have been identified by their father. This James is identified by the person he is a brother of. This indicates that the person he is a brother of would have been well-known in the church.

Second, James is set apart from others. Would not John and Peter have also been considered brothers of the Lord in a spiritual sense? Yet this is not said of John or Peter. Some have speculated a group called “the brothers of the Lord” and that James belonged to this and none others. Unfortunately, we have no mention of such a group. It is created wholesale to fit the theory. We do, instead, have references to brothers in the NT, even physical brothers, and thus no ad hoc creation is needed.

Third, this reference shows up in Josephus. In there, we find a reference to James, the brother of Jesus. This occurs in Antiquities 20.9.1. The whole reads as follows:

“Antiquities 20.9.1. “And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.” ”

A Christian inserting such a passage would not say Jesus was called Christ. They would say Jesus was the Christ. (Especially if such a person had inserted the earlier reference in Josephus entirely) Josephus scholars have no problem accepting this passage. Some think the final Jesus is the one being talked about, but there is no evidence that this Jesus was ever called the Christ and if so, there’s no reason why he would have been made high priest. In fact, if the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah, it is most certain a high priest could not be Messiah. (Hebrews explains Jesus being one from a Christian perspective)

There are other references in the NT that I think lend support to the idea of brothers not having to be a spiritual term.

1 Cor. 9:5 “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

Again, why should I create an ad hoc group when instead I could just say these are the brothers of the Lord. Why would apostles not be included in such a group? Why would Cephas not be included in such a group?

Jude 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,

Once again, why should I think this is referring to something spiritual. Jude would be identifying himself by a famous marker. He does not identify himself as a brother of Jesus, likely so as not to draw attention to himself and be seeking to steal honor from others. He instead goes with the brother of James, which would be a famous one, and why not the one who is a brother of Jesus. Could Jude be saying James is a spiritual brother, but no one else? The more natural reading fits best.

It is for reasons like this that I do not think the brother of the Lord claim of Carrier being a spiritual brother really holds waters. To argue otherwise is to adjust the evidence to fit the theory and vice-versa.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

If anyone is interested, a friend of Deeper Waters also translated this post into Spanish.

El Hermano del Señor
¿Es Santiago en verdad el hermano de una figura histórica? Hablemos de esto en Aguas Profundas.

Ayer escribí sobre el problema de los ateos de internet y puse como ejemplo al Cristo mítico. Puedo anticipar que alguno me preguntará por las afirmaciones de Richard Carrier. Se me ocurrió que sería bueno dar un vistazo a algunos de los reclamos que se hacen en contra de que Jesús sea una figura histórica, y para empezar pensé en el pasaje que habla sobre Santiago como el hermano del Señor.

Ahora, si Santiago es hermano de alguien, sería obvio que esa persona o bien existe ahora o existió alguna vez. Después de todo uno todavía puede ser hermano de alguien que está muerto. Si es el caso que Jesús existiera ahora o que alguna vez existió (quizá, para propósitos de argumentación, nunca resucitó de los muertos), entonces la teoría del Cristo mítico es falsa.

No puede haber duda de que el NT a menudo usa el término “hermano” y “hermanos” en un sentido espiritual. Esto por supuesto todavía se usa hoy. La pregunta que hay que hacer es “¿Quiere decir esto que cada vez que el texto identifica a alguien como un hermano, significa en un sentido espiritual?” Esa sería una característica altamente problemática, ya que significaría que nadie podría ser identificado positivamente como hermano de alguien en el texto.
¿Podríamos decir algo más contundente al respecto? Sí. Creo que podemos. Me gustaría empezar con el pasaje de Gálatas que usualmente se toma como ilustración. El texto es Gálatas 1:19 y dice como sigue:

“No vi a ningún otro de los apóstoles; sólo vi a Santiago, el hermano del Señor.”

Ahora, a menudo se descarta este versículo puesto que sabemos del caso de los hermanos espirituales. Sí. Ciertamente sabemos. Sin embargo, decir que a menudo puede referirse a hermanos espirituales en el NT, no es argumento de que en este caso significa un hermano espiritual. Aquí hay algunas razones por las que pienso que no:

Primero, tenemos una marca de identificación específica. Santiago es un hermano. ¿Hermano de quién? Hermano de Jesús. Con esto se lo distingue de otras numerosas personas llamadas Santiago. Hay que recordar que Santiago era un nombre extremadamente común en el tiempo del NT. “¿De qué Santiago hablas?” “El que es un apóstol y, más importante, el hermano del Señor.”

Note además que identificar a alguien por su hermano es algo extraordinario. La mayoría de personas eran identificadas por su padre. Este Santiago es identificado por la persona de quien es hermano. Esto indica que la persona de quien él es hermano habría sido bien conocida en la Iglesia.

Segundo, Santiago es distinguido de otros. ¿No habrían también Juan y Pedro sido considerados hermanos del Señor en un sentido espiritual? Aun así, esto no se dice de Juan y Pedro. Algunos han especulado sobre un grupo llamado “los hermanos del Señor” y que Santiago pertenecía a este grupo y los otros no.

Desafortunadamente, no tenemos mención de tal grupo. Es inventado por completo para ajustarse a la teoría. Sí tenemos, en cambio, referencias a hermanos en el NT, incluso hermanos de carne, y por tanto no se necesita una creación ad hoc.

Tercero, esta referencia aparece en Josefo. Allí, encontramos una referencia a Santiago, el hermano del Señor. Esto ocurre en Antigüedades 20.9.1. El pasaje entero reza así:

Antigüedades 20.9.1 “Y ahora César, después de enterarse de la muerte de Festo, envió a Albino a Judea como procurador. Pero el rey removió a José del sumo sacerdocio, y confirió la sucesión a esa dignidad sobre el hijo de Ananías, llamado también Ananías. Ahora según se dice, este Ananías mayor probó ser muy afortunado; porque tenía cinco hijos los cuales habían todos ejercido el oficio de sumo sacerdotes delante de Dios, y él mismo había ostentado esa dignidad mucho tiempo antes, algo que nunca había ocurrido a ninguno de nuestros sumo sacerdotes. Pero éste Ananías más joven, quien como ya hemos dicho tomó el sumo sacerdocio, era un hombre de temperamento osado, y muy insolente; el cual así mismo era de la secta de los Saduceos, los cuales son muy rígidos para juzgar ofensores, por encima del resto de los judíos, como ya hemos observado; cuando, por lo tanto, siendo que era esa clase de hombre, y creía que se le ofrecía, como Festo estaba ahora muerto, y Albino estaba de camino, convocó al Sanedrín de jueces, y trajo delante de ellos al hermano de Jesús, llamado el Cristo, cuyo nombre era Santiago, y a algunos otros; y cuando hubo formado acusación contra ellos como infractores de la ley, los entregó par ser apedreados: pero los ciudadanos más moderados y afectos a la ley, se indignaron; y enviaron mensajeros al rey, pidiéndole que por carta exhortara a Ananías a que, en adelante, no hiciera tales cosas, pues lo realizado no estaba bien. Algunos de ellos fueron al encuentro de Albino, que venía de Alejandría; le pidieron que no permitiera que Ananías, sin su consentimiento, convocara al sanedrín. Albino, convencido, envió una carta a Ananías, en la cual lleno de indignación le anunciaba que tomaría venganza contra él. Luego el rey Agripa le quitó el sumo sacerdocio, el cual ejerció por tres meses, y puso en su lugar a Jesús, hijo de Dameo.” Un cristiano que insertara tal pasaje no diría que Jesús era llamado el Cristo. Ellos dirían que Jesús era el Cristo. (Especialmente si tal persona había insertado la referencia anterior en Josefo en su totalidad) Los eruditos en Josefo no tienen problemas para aceptar este pasaje. Algunos piensan que el Jesús que se menciona de último es al que Josefo se refiere, pero no hay evidencia de que este Jesús era llamado el Cristo, y si fuera así, no hay razón para que lo hubieran hecho sumo sacerdote. De hecho, si el Mesías era de la tribu de Judá, es muy seguro que un sumo sacerdote no podía ser Mesías. (Hebreos explica que Jesús lo es, desde una perspectiva cristiana) Hay otras referencias en el NT que pienso dan apoyo a la idea de que “hermanos” no tiene que ser un término espiritual.

1 Cor. 9:5 “¿No tenemos derecho de traer con nosotros una hermana por mujer como también los otros apóstoles, y los hermanos del Señor, y Cefas?” De nuevo, ¿Por qué tendría alguien que crear un grupo ad hoc cuando en su lugar podría decir “estos son los hermanos del Señor”? ¿Por qué no estarían incluidos los apóstoles en tal grupo? ¿Por qué Cefas no estaría incluido en ese grupo? Judas 1:1 “Judas, siervo de Jesucristo y hermano de Santiago” Una vez más, ¿Por qué deberíamos pensar que esto se refiere a algo espiritual? Judas se estaría identificando con un marcador famoso. Él no se identifica como hermano de Jesús, probablemente para no llamar la atención sobre sí mismo ni robar el honor de otros. En su lugar, se identifica como el hermano de Santiago, y no como el hermano de Jesús. ¿Acaso dice Judas que Santiago es un hermano espiritual, pero nadie más? La lectura más natural encaja mejor.
Es por razones como ésta que no creo que la afirmación de Carrier de que el “hermano del Señor” es algo espiritual quede en pie. Argumentar lo contrario es ajustar la evidencia para que encaje en la teoría y vice-versa.

En Cristo,
Nick Peters

Why I Ignore Most Internet Atheists

Why is it sometimes best to just not bother? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Before leaping into the meat of this post, let’s make a few clarifications.

No. Not every atheist is an internet atheist. I refer to a general type of person by this. If you are on the internet and an atheist and are highly informed and can show it and have done your homework on what you and I both believe, then I do not consider you an internet atheist.

Yes. I realize too many Christians are just as ignorant. If you think I’ve been silent on this matter, then you haven’t been reading my blog at all. I have often castigated the church for not doing the proper job of educating the laity on what they believe and why.

Having said that, let’s go into what it is I’m writing about.

I thought about this yesterday after listening to J. Warner Wallace do a podcast on Christ mythers. These are the atheists that go around saying Jesus never even existed and that he’s a copycat of Mithras, Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, etc.

The sad part is that they think they know what they’re talking about. They don’t. They have not read any scholarship on the issue. Instead, they’re getting their information from internet sites or perhaps even worse, a site like Wikipedia. (Never ever in a debate do I look at a Wikipedia link. If you think the information there is true, you can find it elsewhere.)

Modern NT scholarship does not even consider this possibility. This includes liberal and conservative, Christian and atheist. A way to get a great laugh is to go to a group like the Society of Biblical Literature and announce that you are a Christ-myther. Yet despite this, the virus of the Christ-myth still spreads.

As an example, around Easter, I commented on an article Gary Habermas had in a national newspaper on the resurrection. Internet atheists came out in droves. One of them posted this little gem:

“It’s obviously nonsense. It’s not even a given that Jesus existed. There are books which say he didn’t exist. Albert Schweitzer wrote a book called “The Quest For The Historical Jesus” and said; ‘There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus.The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never existed.”
Albert Schweitzer from “The Quest For The Historical Jesus’ ”

I can assure you something about this internet atheist beyond the fact he’s uneducated on this. He has never once read Schweitzer. Schweitzer held that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Strange that he would hold such a position about someone who never even existed.

So what is the quote saying? It’s saying that the Jesus that has been traditionally believed in by orthodox Christianity never existed. Our view of Jesus was entirely wrong. It is not at all saying that there never was a historical Jesus.

To be sure, I think Schweitzer’s position is wrong, but it’s not as wrong as the other. As Stuart on the Big Bang Theory said “It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. It’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.” It’s a little wrong to say Jesus never did miracles, preached and founded the Kingdom on Earth, etc. It’s very wrong to say he never existed.

These same types keep repeating this mantra that they get from the new atheists about “No evidence! No evidence!” (Most anyone who treats the new atheists as making serious arguments is an internet atheist) Now you could say that there is insufficient evidence. You could say I believe based on wrong evidence or a wrong interpretation of the evidence. Yet why insist that if I believe something it is because there is no evidence? (Unfortunately, the main reason I can think of is that too many Christians do just that.)

It also includes a definition of faith that means belief without evidence. I would just once like to see the new atheists present evidence for this belief. Is this what the Bible means by faith? Can they produce a Greek or NT Lexicon that has that definition for pistis, the Greek word for faith?

Those who take this position are invincible in their ignorance unfortunately. It is as if they have this allergy that if there is some shred of evidence for anything Christian, then there is a huge crisis. I, as a Christian, would have no problem accepting the existence of Muhammad or Buddha. I just think the belief systems they espouse are wrong.

So after awhile, I have come to the conclusion that such opponents are not worth dialoguing with. There are plenty of people online who have the time to deal with such. I no longer do. When it comes down to the choice of reading that book more to understand the scholarship behind an issue or responding to someone who shows no sign of listening to reason and will take a good portion of my time, which do I choose? I have my own family to spend with and study to do and responding to internet atheists is not a wise investment of my time.

If you are an atheist reading this, then I suggest you avoid being one of these people. Take the time to read someone who disagrees. Many atheists look at the YEC community and say “Look! They don’t pay attention to the majority of scientists and astronomers on the age of the Earth and have bad science and think that only their position is correct despite the rest of the world speaking with one voice on this.”

Okay. Let’s suppose that’s true. That’s the exact same thing internet atheists do when they embrace the Christ myth. They don’t pay attention to the overwhelming majority of scholars on the issue and have bad scholarship and think their position is the only correct one despite the rest of the world speaking with one voice on this.

If you are someone who comes up seriously arguing for ideas I know are blatantly false and yet refuse to listen to reason or evidence on the position because you’ve already convinced yourself there can be none, why should I waste my time? I would rather dialogue with someone who I think will listen and not only that, will give me a challenging dialogue.

In conclusion, what’s needed on both sides is people becoming more familiar with what they believe and what their opponents believe. My time is limited. I have no desire to waste it on fruitless endeavors when others can argue there instead.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Are All Beliefs To Be Respected?

Are we misunderstanding respect? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Quite recently, I have seen several interactions in the internet world with people of different beliefs and each time I have seen statements like “I respect your beliefs” or “Let’s all try to respect the beliefs of one another.” I understand why some people make such sentiments, but I cannot help but think that they are fundamentally built on an error.

For instance, let’s suppose I think a belief is fundamentally false. In fact, not only do I think that the belief is false, but I also think that it is dangerously false? If you have the belief that torturing babies for fun is okay, I am not going to tell you that I respect your belief. I am going to oppose your belief with all that I have. It is as far as I’m concerned, not just a wrong view, but a wicked one, and why should I respect something that I think is evil?

Now some of you are saying “But not all beliefs are like that.” Correct. There are varying degrees. I do not agree with a dispensationalist approach, for instance, but I can respect that it seeks to uphold the Lordship of Christ and to find a place for Israel. I just think the views are wrong. I cannot thus respect is as a whole, but I can give respect where it is due. I can also respect the rights of people to hold beliefs that I think are in error in some places. My own spouse after all is a dispensationalist.

Ultimately, what we are seeking to really have is respect for the rights of people to hold certain beliefs. We do value freedom, but we know some beliefs are dangerous to hold, such as the belief that it’s okay to murder your neighbor. When people act on such a belief, we respond by locking them up or giving them the death penalty.

Note also in this that it is not just what beliefs are held that matter, but how they are held. I have more respect for an atheist who can well argue for his viewpoint than I do for a Christian who can give no reason why they believe what they believe. I think the atheist is at least taking reality far more seriously than the Christian is. Even if I agree with the Christian on the essential matters, their approach is not one that I respect as it is simply the result of a blind leap.

Let us make clear where we stand. Some beliefs are wrong and we must oppose them, but this does not necessarily mean opposition to the holder of the beliefs. It all depends on how much they have researched their beliefs and how much they have researched the side that they critique. To use an example, I cannot respect the new atheism, even though I can respect some atheists. Why? The new atheism has done squat to understand the beliefs of those they argue against and consistently put up straw man after straw man.

Respect ultimately is not just given. It is earned. If you show up in the marketplace of ideas and know how to argue your beliefs and know what your opponents believe, you will get respected. If not, you won’t.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Apologetics Inoculation

Are we prepared for missions service? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Let’s suppose your church group was wanting to go on a mission trip to a country in Africa. You were told that you are going to an area where Malaria is common. There is a harmless vaccination you can get to inoculate you against the disease that is also inexpensive. Or, you could go and get it and afterwards have a much harder time recovering from the sickness and enjoying all the effects of it.

Which one do you do?

I would hope that most of you would say “I’m not going to be foolhardy! By all means give me some prevention against the disease!”

If this is your position, then I ask that you be consistent.

At a recent event where I spoke on Inerrancy, I was interacting with students when one of them started speaking about the objections to the truth of Scripture and saying “Why was I not told about these in advance? Why did I have to wait until I was a sophomore in college to have these thrown at me?” Rest assured these weren’t thrown by those who are Christians just having doubts, but by those with education actively trying to show that the text is wrong.

Meanwhile, some readers know I recently wrote on the case of Tanya Simmonds that can be found here. The response to what was in her mind a devastating essay by myself and readers was just the unbelievability of the idea that this counted as a serious refutation.

The former student is still seeking truth. Simmonds, on the other hand, is a casualty. In fact, the former student could have well turned into a Simmonds herself. In each case, the disease of apostasy could have been more likely to be prevented if inoculation had taken place earlier.

What would this have consisted of? Teaching apologetics to our youth. This does not mean that they need to be William Lane Craig, but they need a basic knowledge. We send our students to school saying they need to know from the ground up how to do reading, writing, and arithmetic. This is the only way they will succeed in the real world. We don’t do the same thing with their Christianity, what we should consider the most important aspect of their lives. We simply give the impression that God will take care of them.

God is not meant to be an excuse for our laziness any more than one would go into a country with Malaria without an inoculation saying “God will take care of me.” If such is your approach, be consistent and never go to the grocery store or grow food, God will take care of you. Never wear a seat belt. God will take care of you. Never even read your Bible. God will tell you what you need to know.

There are some diseases that can be cured if they are caught. Some cannot be. Some could go either way. Apostasy falls into the last category. Sometimes, you could win someone back, but it’s extremely difficult. Why not get it so you don’t have to do that in the first place and do this by just basic education at least?

Many pastors will hesitate to speak on the difficulties of a text. Suppose a pastor wants to speak on the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. Many a pastor could be hesitant to mention textual variants. The reality is that this is like talking to children about sex. A parent might be hesitant to do this, but if they don’t talk to their children about sex, someone else will. If a pastor does not present a Christian account of textual variation, the person in the pew will get a non-Christian account. In our modern world of the internet, it is a guarantee.

If you are a pastor unwilling to present to your congregation the challenges of the text, then I urge you to turn in your resignation and give the pastorate to someone who will really protect the flock and warn them of possible dangers on the horizon.

Our youth are going out into a disease-ridden culture. If we do not present them with the tools to deal with it, let us not be surprised when they fall victim. It is a sad reality that the tools are right there, they are easy to apply, and yet they so often are not. For many, they’d prefer to deny the problem is even real, yet if we are people of truth, this cannot be an option. We must ensure the safety of our youth immediately.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Escapist Mentality

Do you want to die and be with Jesus? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In Philippians, Paul tells us that he desires to die and be with Christ. Does that fit anyone else? How many people really want to die and be with Christ? I have met several Christians that it seems their #1 desire at this point is they just want Christ to return so they can get out of this world. They want to die and be with Him.

Astute readers could be thinking, “Nick. That’s not the whole verse! Don’t you know how it ends?!”

Of course I do. I wanted to just emphasize the one part for now. What Paul said is that yes, he does desire that, but to go on living is more necessary.

Keep in mind, he said that in jail as well.

I consider Paul to be quite realistic in his approach. There is nothing wrong with looking forward to being with Christ. Yet Paul says this when it could be that death is right around the corner and he’s not sure which way things will go. Today, many Christians take a different approach. They want to die just because they want out of this world.

Note that last part is just as problematic to me. We have this idea that this world is an awful place and that we need to abandon ship and go back to the homeland. What if this world is the homeland? What if my overall position is right and the goal of God is to bring Heaven to Earth? Now this isn’t something that comes by political advancement or government actions, though we should seek the best in those areas, but by a divine act of God through the preaching of the gospel.

We should all be ready if need be to die for Jesus, but we should seek all the more to live for Him. Dying is scary, but quite simple. Once it’s done, it’s done. Living is a lifetime action that requires constantly dying to yourself. Dying for Jesus could be a way to bypass the harder task of living for Him.

We as Christians are called to engage the culture. We are not called to escape it, and too often we are escaping it and hiding in our little Christian caves and only interacting with people who agree with us. You might be building yourself up, but you’re not doing much for the culture that way.

This also includes pastors. Too many pastors just want to speak to like-minded people and don’t know what to do when the skeptic shows up with hard questions. It takes little courage to stand up to people who already agree with you and tell them what they already agree with. It’s like standing up in Hollywood and saying you support redefining marriage. If I want to hear about the courage of someone in Hollywood speaking out, I’ll wait until one of them has the guts to accept an award at the Academy Awards or some similar event and say they think marriage should only be between one man and one woman for life.

I prefer to engage the culture instead since I also think my eternity depends on what I did with this life. Did I live it in service of Jesus Christ? Did I leave this world a better place than I did when I came into it? I want it to be that when I stand before the throne, I will hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I want to know that any future descendants I have will be better off and if we don’t have children ourselves, I want to know that the world will be better for everyone else’s children.

This also fits in with the therapeutic nature of Christianity today. We want to feel safe and secure. It’s why ministries that do that get so much support, but apologetics ministries, like this one, don’t get much. Many people are interested in what helps them feel good. They’re not as interested in material that makes them think or engages the culture.

Of course, there are other ministries worth supporting. There’s nothing wrong with giving to your local church, which you should do, or supporting charities that help out with physical and mental conditions and such for people, or help families in crisis, or many other good things, but too many people can just give to a ministry and think that means they’ve done their part in Christian service. Well that is a part of it, but it’s not the whole deal. It would be like saying you hired a maid and therefore you cleaned your house. If you can afford a maid, great, but don’t speak about it like you’re the one really working.

The irony is that many of these Christians want to escape the world because it’s so evil and not realizing that their failure to engage the culture is making it worse for them and everyone else. You don’t like the way the world is? Neither do I. In fact, neither does God. That’s why Christ came! If you don’t like it, then instead of running away, do something about it.

In this battle, myself and other apologists I think are the ones on the front lines directly debating those seeking to do away with the only hope we have. Not everyone is meant to do that. I get it. I think everyone should have a basic apologetic argument for themselves, but not everyone is meant to be a professional apologist. Then do your own part.

We’ve already mentioned financial support. That’s good and should be done, but also be an encourager for those on the front lines. Go help out those in need. Volunteer at your church. Be willing to go on a mission trip. Seek to study the Bible and learn more about what it means to be like Christ and show that to the world. There are countless ways you can serve Christ.

When your work is done, you will be called into the presence of Jesus. You can look forward to that, but make sure your sole goal in life is not to escape what you see around you. You are where you live and you are when you live as well for a reason. Acts 17 tells us that. Your existence is not a mistake, but what you do with it could be. Seek to live the life for Christ.

If we will actually engage the culture, we will be amazed at what could happen. I think we could really end the marriage debate easily. We could do so much to stop the silent holocaust of abortion in our land. The spreading and living of the gospel will also do more to stop mass shootings than any law the government can pass.

Save the world. Engage the culture. Be Christian.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Things Ancient People Did

Were the ancient people stupid and superstitious? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I’ve been debating on an article that Dr. Gary Habermas wrote for the Washington Post for Easter on reasons Jesus rose from the dead. Consistently, an argument that I have seen is one that says that the ancient people believed in a lot of this superstitious nonsense and that this didn’t happen in an age of science where people know better.

Oh really?

For the sake of those with that mindset, I’d like to point out to you some activities that the ancient people did.

#1-Ancient people had sex.

Yeah. This might seem like a shocker, but ancient people were really interested in having kids. After all, that was how you had a productive home life and made sure your family name was passed on. Their preferred method of getting to have kids was through having sex. They didn’t sit around and wait for virgins to get pregnant and then be overjoyed at the thought that they were now parents. Even back in Abraham’s day when he was told he should have a kid through Hagar by Sarah, he decided to sleep with her. When Lot’s daughters wanted to have kids without another man around, they got their Dad drunk and slept with him. They seemed to realize that there was this connection intrinsically between sex and babies.

#2-Ancient people built boats.

Sometimes, ancient people wanted to travel on the water. There was a whole industry for this and the ships would be used for battle as well as transport. In order to be able to move on the water, the ancient people built boats. They realized quite easily that when men start to walk on the water, they don’t last too long. They could not explain why this was, but they figured if they want to move on the water, they’d better build something that can.

#3-Ancient people grew food.

Believe it or not, ancient people worked long hours just to make one loaf of bread for their families. They planted seeds and cared for them in the hopes that they would have a good harvest. Why did they do these things? They did them because they did not expect food to just instantly pop up on their doorstep. They had this strange idea that they would actually have to work to produce food.

#4-Ancient people made wine.

Ancient people loved to drink wine, and they did not expect that if they just left water in a jar in the house, that it would suddenly turn into wine. Instead, they went through a long process in order to get the wine that they wanted. Once again, it’s a strange idea to some today I’m sure, but the ancients did it.

#5-Ancient people had doctors.

Of course, their doctors weren’t as good as ours today, but they had doctors who sought to have natural theories. Galen, for instance, believed that there had be a balance between the four humours of the body. He was wrong, but this theory was one that was perfectly natural. Like in any age, there were some quacks, but there were some who did seek those natural treatments.

#6-Ancient people buried their dead.

When someone died, the ancient people would bury them. Why? They didn’t need much experience to know that dead people stay dead. No one expected that when uncle Jacob died, that he would by some chance suddenly wind up on their doorstep within a week. They were dead and that was it. They had abundant evidence for this. People staying dead seemed to be a consistent pattern.

Why do we say all of this? Because ancient people would know what a miracle was. They had a basic idea of the natural order even if they couldn’t explain how it all worked. We can say they were wrong about miracles taking place, but we cannot say they were wrong in being able to tell what would qualify as a miracle. Suppose they were wrong about Jesus coming back from the dead. That would not mean that they would not know that had He come back, it would have been a miracle.

Were some people superstitious? Sure. So are some people today who read their horoscopes and such. Were they superstitious because they believed in miracles and deities? No. To have such an approach is to beg the question in favor of an atheistic worldview as being the only rational worldview through a circular argument.

By all means, say the ancients could have been wrong, but let’s not establish idiocy to them where it is not due.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

When Youth Aren’t Prepared

Are the youth at your church ready? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

If you’re a youth pastor, I strongly urge you to listen to this post. If you are a parent of youth, I urge you to listen. We often say the children are the future of our country. That is correct. They are also the future of Christianity in our country and we need to be reaching them.

We are not.

Statistics are showing that a majority of youth are leaving the faith when they come to college. Some of you are saying “That will never be my child!” The reality is, every child has parents and a lot of parents are saying the exact same thing. God won’t give you special favor just because you’re you if you’re not living in obedience to what He said in raising youth. God won’t shine special favor on a church just because they have a good worship band and “teach faithfully the Word of God” if they’re not honoring their intellectual responsibility to their youth.

You are not to use God as an excuse to cover up your laziness. You are not to use holiness as a cover-up for sinfulness in other areas.

As it stands, when our youth go off to college, often they enter atheism central and as a result, they will be challenged. Sunday School will go up against 25+ years of atheism. What are the possible results? I can think of three.

#1-Apostasy.

This is the most common one. Students in church will have emotions and experiences. They will face “facts.” How do you argue against those? This is especially true if their faith has been married to extra beliefs besides the resurrection of Jesus. Is your faith destroyed if evolution is a fact? Is it if the world is more than 10,000 years old? Is it if there is one error in the Bible? Is it if you find out we don’t have the original text of Scripture? Is it if you find the KJV is not perfect?

I’ve seen such claims before. I’ve seen people scared at the thought of an old Earth. I’ve seen them in a panic over evolution. I’ve had ministry students call me when they find out there are problems with the KJV and want to know what to do. I’ve seen panic over supposed contradictions. Every time the question comes back to “Did Jesus rise?” If He did, everything else is secondary.

Unfortunately, too many won’t reach out for answers. They will apostasize and assume they had a strong understanding of the faith they left. They didn’t. Still, they will think that and that makes them all the more difficult to reach again. Not only that, they are going out and reproducing their own ignorance in others. This is a dangerous option most will take.

#2-Shutdown.

Some Christians will refuse to abandon their faith. Good for them. Unfortunately, they will do nothing to seek to deal with the problem. They will only retreat further in themselves. They will say that someone can have their facts, but they will have their faith.

These students will retreat within themselves and retreat to people of like mind. They will gather together in their own isolation chambers so they can be safe from the culture. (Some of these chambers are called “Churches.”) They will not interact with the culture and when threats comes, they will not answer the questions but chase them away not wanting to consider they could be wrong.

These people are in the Kingdom, but they are also unfortunately great hindrances to the Kingdom and creating more fundy atheists by their approach.

#3-Study

This is by far the minority. Some people will actually determine that they want to know the truth and will study. Many of them will find the answers and they will become strong defenders of the faith and lead a rich and vibrant Christian life. The problem is that they had this in them all along but the church prior had never shown them a better way. Likely, they could have grown up in an isolation chamber.

Just imagine the good that could have been done had these people been taught this all their lives. They were not. It took a crisis to get them to that point, but at least they got to that point. The sad reality is few will be the ones who study and if they want to, many churches will in fact discourage them from doing so or look down on them. After all, those are the “unspiritual” people who need evidence and don’t have “faith.”

The reality is, the church needs #3 the most. It is like Paul said. The ones who are shamed are the ones God uses. The world will look down on those who take seriously the life of the mind now, but they are the ones who are also honoring what God said to do, to love Him with all their mind.

A caveat. Of course not everyone is an intellectual, but there is a difference between not being an intellectual and being an anti-intellectual. No Christian should be the latter. All Christians should at least know those they can go to who can help in a time of need. They should want to respect and encourage such people.

For our youth, we need to be preparing them. We don’t want them to be tragedies.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Partially Right

Is there some truth to be learned from those who are wrong? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My wife struggles with depression. We have a good friend who has recommended literature to us that she has made sure to tell us is not part of the Word of Faith movement. If you don’t know what I mean by that, I mean the people who are “name it, claim it” types. I still want to review any material before I share it with Allie, but I’d like to use this kind of example to illustrate a point.

The Word of Faith movement is wrong. I do not doubt that. Yet there is a way in which there is something true to what they say. It is not in the extra-mental world. You cannot say that you want to be a billionaire and lo and behold, you will wind up being a billionaire. That being said, your attitude can certainly affect whether or not you will become a billionaire. If you regularly tell yourself you have no chance of being successful in business, then you will not be likely to reach your goal.

What you declare will not change the outside world, but it will affect you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have lately been seeing tremendous value in what is called “Cognitive-behavioral therapy” and I would add in that I think it’s Scriptural, such as in “As a man thinketh in his heart, so shall he be.” Your thoughts do affect you.

Now I could write a whole post on the effects of this kind of approach, but I choose to not do that. Instead, I’d like to point out that because someone is wrong on the main issues, it does not mean that there is nothing that can be learned from them at all. For instance, we’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on our door. I do not doubt the JWs have helped many people. I find I can agree with much of their material on the reliability of Scripture. They are wrong on the main issues of course, but I will take what I can.

How about reading liberal scholars of the Bible? By all means do so. Yes. They are wrong on central issues, but they are not without their insights into the text. I have had discussions with groups where I am able to bring up points that have been made by liberal scholars and had them be helpful to the discussion.

What about reading atheists? Again, by all means. Just because someone is wrong on the big issues again does not mean there is nothing to be gained. If anything, you can gain insight into the criticisms of why you believe what you believe and by learning to address those criticisms, you can strengthen your own position. It is incredibly helpful to go into a debate and be sure of what the other side is going to say before they say it.

The Jesuits once said that the philosophers were gifts to the church. Saint Augustine said “All truth is God’s truth.” I encourage readers to be looking for truth wherever they can. Remember, to discount something immediately based on the source is a genetic fallacy. It is wrong for non-Christians to do it to us. Don’t do it to them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Ideological bullies

Is all bullying physical? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I blogged on bullying. I had in mind more physical and social bullying than anything else. I appreciate the insights of a commenter on TheologyWeb as well who pointed out most of the advice we give is terrible. For instance, a kid is to go tell an adult? Yeah. That’ll really help the next time the adult isn’t around. No. That will mean the kid gets teased even more.

The best advice I know of to deal with a physical bully is simply that when he throws a punch, you punch right back.

“But aren’t we to turn the other cheek?”

Turning the other cheek refers to receiving a private insult at worst. A slap on the cheek was not really a physical assault, although it involved a physical action. We have no record of Jesus saying “If you get punched in the face, you stand there and just bleed.”

“But Jesus went to the cross and did not resist.”

Jesus was also not dealing with bullies per se but was dealing with the government of the time and He was not seeking to be a revolutionary. Furthermore, Jesus’s own purpose in coming to the Earth was to go to the cross. Why would He go and resist it then? Not only that, there is a difference between standing up and foolhardiness. Peter would be taking on a crowd of about 200 who came to arrest Jesus. The disciples reportedly had two swords.

There is courage, and then there is rash stupidity.

Therefore, I strongly believe in self-defense. If someone goes after my family, I can assure you there will be no cheek turning going on. This is the well-being of my family at stake and I will do what I can to defend it.

What about social bullies? These are bullies who simply give insults and don’t give physical confrontation. They’re the ones who stand on the side and say “You’re ugly! You’re stupid!” and things like that.

Ignore them.

These people often want any reaction that they can get and if you react to them, it is just giving them what they want. Pay them no attention because frankly, they’re not worth it.

Now let’s move on to ideological bullies.

Case in point: Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is the man who at the Reason Rally said to the audience of atheists that when you meet people who are religious, mock them. Ridicule them in public.

With people like this, I say return the favor.

“Whoa. That sounds like a different line than what I’d expect.”

These people are not just insulting you. They are wanting you to apostasize. They want you to be embarrassed because you’re a Christian. Maybe you know enough to see through their shallow reasoning, or lack thereof, but what about others. Do you want this to be the mindset of people who your loved ones will interact with who don’t know apologetics like you do?

In the OT, if you were encouraging someone to apostasize, the penalty was death. Now I’m not saying we do that today since we are no longer a theocracy in that way, but I am saying we ought to take it seriously. Note also that anyone who has read the God Delusion and is somewhat informed knows that Richard Dawkins does not have a clue about what he speaks. I could easily teach high schoolers to deal with Dawkins.

This is the mindset that makes someone like Dawkins even worse. They think they know so much about religion and they don’t. They will say they don’t need to study it because it is not worth studying. Don’t believe that? Just look at the Courtier’s reply, which is an exercise in laziness. It is even mocking the idea that one should study theology and philosophy and history.

And it is an idea I encounter most every day.

“I don’t need to read scholarship! I don’t need to study! I just go by the plain literal sense and the literal sense is nonsense!” (Unfortunately, too many Christians also think they don’t need scholarship and study.)

“Who cares if all NT scholars think Jesus was crucified?” (Would we get the same if we said “Who cares if all biologists think macroevolution is true?”)

“All you have is faith!” (I have yet to see a new atheist show me a definition of “pistis” which is the Greek word for faith, that means to believe without evidence.)

The list goes on. Everyone believe the Earth was flat! We oppose science! There’s no evidence for what you believe! You just have an emotional need! I find it quite amusing when people say it’s because of how I feel or that I think God is talking to me, particularly since being an Aspie, the feeling side of faith is not that strong and I don’t buy into the “God told me” mentality. If anything gets me excited, it’s really reading a good book on history or theology or something of that sort. Learning is exciting.

These people are usually not interested in truth. They don’t care about why you believe what you believe. They care about tearing you down. They want to not only tear you down. They want to tear down any Christians they meet. On the internet, they’re rampant. Always keep this in mind. The person who will go after you will also go after those who are less capable of defending themselves and will delight in getting someone to abandon Christianity.

They are what the Bible calls wolves.

They are the reason a good shepherd carries a rod.

They are the reason a good shepherd uses a rod.

Now to be fair, being confrontational is not something everyone does. I realize that, and I think that’s also good. We need all types in evangelism. Some people are quite good at friendship evangelism. God bless them. We need them. Some people will not respond until you stand up to them, and that is where those of us who confront step in, following right in line with what Jesus does in Matthew 23.

Does that make a confronter a bully?

Let me ask you this. You are the parent of a boy who is about 8 years old, and he comes home one day crying because a 10 year-old bully knocked him to the ground and laughed about it. You are the parent. You tell your son to not stand there and take it. Next time, he is to fight this bully back and not take it.

Your son is standing up for himself.

Is he then a bully?

Change the situation a bit. Your son is ten and is on the playground and sees a little girl of about seven being pushed over by an eight year old boy. Your son goes after and knocks the boy to the ground and gets the girl up.

Is your son being a bully?

In both cases, no. He is defending himself in the first case and defending another in the second.

You are here in defense of the gospel and of your fellow believers. I can already hear the objection of some people.

“Don’t defend your faith. Let God do that.”

My question is always the same. “Do you take the same approach to evangelism?”

Someone else might quote that Spurgeon when asked about defending the Bible said he’d rather defend a lion.

This sounds so good and holy, but it is oh so not. Josephus wrote, for instance, that Jews of his day were to die for the Torah if need be. Are we to treat our Scriptures any less sacredly? The Bible if not accurately studied will not defend itself. It is not its own thinking book. If you throw a Bible into a fire, it will burn like any other book. Now of course the Bible has cut to the heart of many people who read it, but for those who despised it, they can often get nothing but more mockery. These people are treating our Scriptures, which we say come from God, with contempt. That means they are mocking our God. God is the one we claim to be the greatest good and yet we think we can say “Go ahead. That’s fine.” Would you settle if someone made mockery about your mother for instance?

For those of us who can defend our faith, let’s remember that on this playground, we have brothers and sisters who can’t. We are their line of defense. We are the ones that they are counting on and if we do not stand up to the opposition, then they will not stop. This happens not just in religion, but also in politics.

Why do so many people get their way who shouldn’t? Because they know they can run ramshackle over anyone else. They know that their opponents are more concerned about how they will be seen in the eyes of the public instead of caring about what’s right and wrong. They know that their opponents don’t want to be seen as “intolerant” or “closed-minded.”

Well yes. I am intolerant and closed-minded in many ways. I do not tolerate good ideas and I am closed-minded to what I think is evil. If you wish to push something on me, my loved ones, or my society that I think is evil overall, it would be wrong of me to not do something just because I’m afraid of how I’ll look to the public.

When bullies are stood up to, after awhile, they back down. They want to look out for #1 because most all bullies are incredibly insecure. They are concerned about their own social status. To give them what they fear is something that they cannot handle. For opponents of Christianity they will either stop or they will just keep embarrassing themselves by showing that they have no good arguments.

“Well don’t you want to win these people over to Jesus?”

No.

“No?”

It’d be nice to win them over some day of course. These people right now don’t care about truth. They care about attacking the flock. I am more concerned about the well-being of the flock than I am about the well-being of wolves.

There are times you stand up to an ideological bully like this and they do back down. They do admit they were in the wrong about something. You know what you learn about that person then?

They really aren’t a bully. Or at least they were and they are willing to change. What happens then? This person gets the red carpet of friendship. After all, there are people out there who honestly have real questions keeping them from Christianity. There are people who really want to know if Jesus rose from the dead and don’t dismiss it. They’re skeptical, and that’s excellent, but they’re not dismissive. These are people who are actually willing to read a scholarly book that disagrees with them. These are people who come to the debate having done their homework. I have people I know who are like this. When I stand up to someone and they back down after that, we often have an excellent dialogue and I am pleased to call them friend.

How do you know which is which? If you don’t know, by all means, be cautious. Again, if this isn’t you, don’t be someone you’re not. For me, I have always enjoyed sarcasm and satire and a finely crafted barb. Often times, my replies to my opponents can be more subtle but still meant to embarrass, because they are being embarrassing and attacking the cause of Christ.

Do you want what you think is moral to be shown in the world around you? Stand up for it and fight the ones opposed to it on ideological grounds. (To go into physical confrontation during an ideological debate is to lose the debate) If you will not stand up for what you believe in, why should anyone else think it’s worth believing in? If you will not stand up for Christ, why should it be that He would stand up for you on the last day?

Friends. We have truth on our side. We can deal with ideological bullies. The question is, will we?

In Christ,

Nick Peters

 

Is The Cold Case Still Valid?

What can be said to the Gospel Coalition’s review of Cold Case Christianity? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Someone in the CAA (Christian Apologetics Alliance) brought to my attention a review of Cold-Case Christianity by the Gospel Coalition’s Gus Pritchard. It’s my thinking that Cold-Case Christianity could be one of the most powerful books to advance the gospel in some time and realizing that Jim Wallace is probably a busy guy, I figured I’d have the fun of dealing with someone who wants to go after the book.

Pritchard starts by saying that his thoughts on the book were like winning the lottery. It might seem to bring some happiness at the start, but in the end, it will only lead to misery. I take it to mean that we might think this is a good argument at the beginning, but in the end we will see that it will not reach those people it is designed to reach.

Well for that, we will have to wait and see, but many people have come to Christ by reading something like Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” I suspect many will come to Christ through Wallace’s book, or at least move further on their journey or even just get started. This is the kind of book that Greg Koukl, Wallace’s employer now, would say could “put a rock in their shoe.”

Pritchard is not totally negative. He does affirm that Wallace has good thoughts on reasoning skills. This is something I agreed with as well. He also does say the book is entirely readable, which is something else I agree with. The second item he agreed with, and I saved this for last for soon to be obvious reasons, was the importance of recognizing our presuppositions.

Yeah. It’s clear where this is going.

So for the start, I am going to state my presupposition. I am going to presuppose the evidentialist view and presuppose that the presuppositional approach does not work.

Glad we got that out of the way.

Let’s look at what Pritchard himself says:

“First, Cold-Case Christianity places far too much emphasis on the role of extrabiblical sources. No doubt there is a legitimate role for biblical archaeology and extrabiblical writing from antiquity. Christianity is, after all, a faith firmly rooted in human history. But there is a grave danger when truth is suspended because of an apparent lack of corroboration from extrabiblical sources. And Wallace, I’m afraid, wanders too close to this dark side of apologetics.”

The dark side of apologetics? Did I somehow step into a Star Wars universe?

Yes. How horrible to show that the Bible is backed up by sources outside of it. How terrible to show that these events did not happen in a vacuum. Thankfully, no one in the Bible took this approach.

Except for the fact that when the gospel was being preached, there were no gospels per se and there were no epistles. Paul told Agrippa that the events done weren’t done in a corner. In other words, investigate the claims for yourself! The early testimony was eyewitness testimony. Sources like Tacitus and others show the eyewitnesses were right! This was not done in a corner! This was done out in the open! Archaeology helps us confirm the biblical writings and shows that unlike the pagan myths, these events were rooted in a place and time. Is there some danger that our faith will be destroyed by outside sources?

It really becomes a fideistic approach. If your worldview is true, you should have no problem putting it to the strictest scrutiny. If it is not, then you will have a problem. No Christian should fear further research into what they believe. No Christian should have a problem with extra-biblical sources. Now I do agree there is a problem with stating that EVERYTHING must be backed extra-biblically. I think this is a prejudice we too often have where nothing in the Bible can be considered historical unless it’s verified somewhere else. A gospel account alone could count as a historical claim itself that can be investigated, and indeed is in NT scholarship, but where we can get extra-biblical evidence, I’m all for it.

Pritchard goes on to say:

“All of chapter 12, for instance, is devoted to proving the Gospels have external corroborative evidence—“evidence that are independent of the Gospel documents yet verify the claims of the text” (183). Wallace then addresses the historicity of the pool of Bethesda and makes another worrying statement: “For many years, there was no evidence for such a place outside of John’s Gospel. Because Christianity makes historical claims, archaeology ought to be a tool we can use to see if these claims are, in fact, true” (201-202, emphasis added).”

Yes. Obviously a horrible remark. If we are to approach the unbeliever and tell them examining the case of Christianity will show it to be true, what is wrong with saying we will abandon it if it is false? In fact, if someone becomes convinced that Christianity is not true, they shouldn’t remain a Christian. I would also contend that that person has made a mistake in their research somewhere along the way.

Christianity is a faith that is rooted in evidences so we should be able to use evidences to demonstrate it. I have often been told by those of the presuppositional bent that the approach is used all the time in the Bible. The problem is I can’t find one. I get told passages like “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Yes. It is. Wisdom refers to godly living. It doesn’t refer to confirming the gospel to be true. When I look at the apostles in every case, I see them pointing to evidences. These evidences can vary. With Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, they did use the Old Testament, because this was a source that was already accepted, much like one could use the Koran in evangelizing Muslims, or the Book of Mormon in evangelizing Mormons. With the Gentiles that weren’t God-fearers, they would point to eyewitness testimony as well as do miracles. Each of those are evidentialist!

Let’s continue with Pritchard:

“In other words, Wallace seems to suggest we cannot affirm the truth of the Gospel accounts without the stamp of approval from archaeology and other extrabiblical sources. Such reasoning is dangerous, not least because it cannot affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. But also, it places the final court of appeal in the realm of extrabiblical sources rather than of God’s all-sufficient, all-powerful Word.”

There are some statements that I think are made to sound holy, but really aren’t. In fact, I think it gets to be an idolization of Scripture. We have this idea that when the Bible refers to the “Word of God” it means the Bible. I seriously doubt this. The Bible usually uses the term “Scriptures” instead and the Word of God refers either to Jesus or some command of God. Of course, in that sense, Scripture is the Word of God, but it is false to take the usages of the term in the Bible and give them a meaning never intended. In fact, it often turns the Bible into a magic book.

For instance, how many times have I heard someone say “God’s Word will not return to Him void.” The implication is that if you go out and give Scripture, it will produce results. (Kind of like how the devil quoted Scripture to Jesus?) No. The words of the Bible are not like words in a magic book that have an independent power on their own.  Of course, Scripture is something powerful, but like anything else, it must be used properly. You do not just go out there and read Scripture and get results.

Pritchard says that this cannot affirm the Inerrancy of the Bible. As we have said numerous times here, Inerrancy can become a sort of sacred cow that people think they must protect, which to me produces more problems than it solves. For instance, if it must be the case that Inerrancy is to be true for Christianity to be true, then you are really saying history cannot confirm the Bible. We cannot take an independent historical approach and confirm that Jesus rose from the dead. We have to take a leap of faith into Scripture. If Christianity is a historical faith, how could it be that it could not be confirmed historically, especially when the first hearers of the gospel were told to go out and investigate it!

Second, apologetics becomes a “Stump the Bible Scholar” game where if there is one contradiction that the person cannot solve immediately, then all of the Bible is to be thrown out. Are we to say that if there is a contradiction based on how many horses king Solomon had (Which there isn’t) then nothing in the Bible is true? It means Jesus didn’t exist? It means He didn’t rise? That the truthfulness of Luke depends on the truthfulness of the writers of Kings and Chronicles?

It is sad that I have seen Christians saying this. I have seen them say that if there is an error in the Bible then Christianity is not true and Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Friends. The Bible is extremely important. It is the greatest testimony we have to the life of Christ. It is our great guide for matters of faith and practice.

But the Bible did not die on the cross for you.

The Bible is not the sacrifice for your sins.

The Bible did not rise again.

You are out there getting people to come to Jesus. You are not out there getting people to come to Inerrancy. Now if I find an error in the Bible, will I have to change my view of Scripture? Yeah. I would. I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I also do not expect to find such an error after over a decade of doing this kind of work and seeing most every contradiction umpteen times.

The position assumes the Bible is in a vacuum and we have to handle it differently from other texts to show it is true. No. I say that if you handle the Bible the exact same way you handle other texts, it will come out on top. The Bible usually gets a different treatment because it has great claims about Jesus and it treats miracles as real. The Bible requires a call on someone’s life and that is something that is resisted.

After this, there is the usual talk about how people are really God-hating rebellious sinners and aren’t capable of examining the evidence. It’s a wonder then how Wallace came to the faith or someone like Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis or others. Aren’t these included in the category of God-hating rebellious sinners? Are we going to get into a “No True Scotsman” approach now?

The reality is some people will reject every piece of evidence that is given to them. Some people do not want Christianity to be true and will resist it. This is not doubted by anyone I know. Some will be open though. Some people really are searching for something. A book like Wallace’s could be what reaches them.

Let’s also note other benefits of this.

First, it will help the Christian who is struggling. Some Christians want more than a feeling in their hearts. In fact, I think every Christian should want more. If all you have is a personal testimony and how you feel, then why not be a Mormon? If you point to anything beyond personal testimony and feelings, then you are being evidentialist in your approach.

Second, in the public arena, it might not change the opponent, but it can shut him down, which I think is a goal to seek for. There are people who want to destroy our flock like wolves go after sheep. If they are not interested in truth, then you’re not aiming for them. Just shut them down somehow. To see the arguments of the opposition shut down publicly can be and has been a source of encouragement to the Christian.

Third, it helps those of us who are arguing to more regularly learn the evidences. Nothing helps you memorize the material like having to use it again and again. The more you have to say this stuff, the better you get at it.

If the person is open, they will come. If they are not, they will want. I do not see how this would be a problem even with a Calvinist approach. One can say that none will come until the Father draws them but the means of drawing could be a good evidentialist argument.

I conclude by still holding that Wallace’s book is one that I think should be given to those who are seeking truth on a regular basis. I look forward to hearing about it being conveniently “left” on an airplane seat or in a hotel lobby for the curious reader. I look forward to church’s doing book studies of this book. I look forward to college and seminaries using it in apologetics classes.

Thus, I cannot accept Pritchard and while he hesitates to recommend Wallace’s book, I hesitate even more to use Pritchard’s approach. (Of course, I could just be a rebellious God-hating sinner.)

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Pritchard’s review can be found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/cold-case_christianity