Category: Apologetics

Why Apologetics Should Be A Requirement For Every Pastor.

Are you fit to lead the flock? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Imagine you live in the first century and you’re a shepherd. You are leading your flock to the water when lo and behold, you notice a wolf is coming. Being the good shepherd, you approach the wolf and say,

“Greetings friend. Come and let us understand your desires with the flock. Let us sit down and share a meal together. You may come and freely interact with my flock and I will allow you to do so.”

You seem puzzled later on when you notice that you have less sheep than you did before.

Or, picture this scenario.

This time you see the wolf and come up to him and get your rod and begin to chase him away. The flock is safe and the wolf knows to not come by.

Which shepherd is truly the good shepherd?

Now let’s talk about another flock, the church. In the church, there are people of all levels. There are some who are seniors and have been in church all their lives. There are youth who are just now getting to make their faith their own. There are the middle-aged who grew up in the church or have just decided to come to church after becoming parents. With them being parents, there are new children in the church who need someone to look out for them as well until they make their faith their own.

Over them is a man that we call the pastor who is to be a shepherd to the flock.

Now while they’re in the building, they could be safe from various threats, but you, the pastor cannot be a babysitter and watch your flock every day and this is one way the people differ from a literal flock of sheep. However, you can equip them so that they can be prepared. Prepared for what?

Well that twelve year-old boy you have in your audience? He’s going to be on YouTube looking up a favorite Christian song he learned in your church one day and on the side under related videos, he’s going to see something from a group like the Rational Response Squad telling him about all the errors in the Bible and why there is no God. Is that boy prepared if he happens to click that link?

That fifteen year-old boy? Well he’s thinking about getting his driver’s license soon and is already thinking about his freedom. While he’s on his computer, he’s not looking up music. He’s looking for ways to impress his girlfriend when lo and behold, here comes this email inviting him to come to a site so he can “understand” women all the more. Why not? His best buds in school are already starting to talk about their sexual exploits.

See that sixteen year-old girl? Well she’s being given permission to date now and is looking forward to it, but her friends at school are telling her that she needs to sleep with a guy so she can really understand if he loves her or not and hey, don’t worry about pregnancy. As long as he uses a condom it’s okay and if worse comes to worse, you can just get an abortion. Oh it’s not a life. Science has established that. It’s only those bigoted Christians who think that.

How about those eighteen year-olds? They’re graduating and have the whole world ahead of them and are getting ready to go off to college. After a lifetime of Sunday School, they will be put face to face with 25 years of atheism in the form of a professor and all they have is just being told what Jesus has done for them, which the professor will nicely dismiss as a delusion that they grew up with. They need to learn some critical thinking and realize feeling something doesn’t make it so.

How about that middle-aged couple? Their marriage is in trouble right now because he’s considering having an affair. What’s the big deal? If it feels right, do it. He’s just following his heart after all.

That other couple over there? He’s about to be put in a position where he will have to do something unethical at work in order to keep his job. Now sure, it will damage his Christian testimony and his reputation for life, but he has nowhere else to go because the church also has not been a bastion of help for people but has rather chose to focus only on their emotional needs and preaching the same feel-good message for years.

There’s yet another couple. Right now, they’re a bit confused. You see, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been visiting them and they’ve been learning some things that their pastor hasn’t taught them. They’ve learned that the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible and that the Greek scholars really know that John 1:1 doesn’t mean what they think it means. They’ve been invited to the Kingdom Hall and these people are so nice and loving, how can they not be Christians? Besides, who are we to judge?

That elderly woman over there? Her husband just passed away and thankfully, you consoled her through the funeral service but now she’s been watching this guy on TV who’s a preacher and he’s promising her that she will be provided for if she makes a faith donation. Now the church has always supported faith and surely she thinks the pastor will. She just needs to take that social security check she’s going to live on and mail it to this preacher. Surely God will reward her. That’s faith after all. Right?

This is only a start of what is going on in your church at this moment.

And you might not know any of these stories are happening.

It is essential that you learn apologetics for these situations. Why should that boy believe there is a God? Why should he not engage in pornography? Why should a girl not sleep around? As we go through the list we see questions of truth, ethics, the nature of faith, etc. No doubt I’ve only given a small subsection of all the problems that could take place in a church. There are myriads more that can and do happen.

Do you have that rod ready?

Pastor. You need apologetics. Now please understand I am not saying you need to be a specialist, but if you are told about apologetics and you answer “What’s that?” then I firmly believe you have no business leading the flock as you are unprepared to defend them and you’re just setting them up to be eaten by wolves.

I realize you’re a busy guy. You have to do your Bible Study to prepare a sermon as well as your own study for your own edification. You have to have a prayer life. You have to be on call for if a member of your congregation has a 3 A.M. emergency where they call you and need you to visit them at the hospital. You have to attend meetings on all manner of subjects at the church. You have to do counseling. Never mind you also have to have time for your own family be it dating your wife, watching your son’s football games, or attending your daughter’s piano recitals.

You have a busy and important job. I understand that.

Here are just two things to do.

First, get some basics. Once you have those basics, such as starting with the books Lee Strobel has written interviewing leading Christian scholars, then at least get the places where people can go to. Give them resources online and offline they can check out for information. This is assuming you don’t make this a specialist area. If you do, God bless you. If not, that’s fine. Not everyone can do that and God bless you as well, but know the basics.

Second, if you really can’t specialize here, then make sure you know someone who does. I think it would be great if every congregation had an apologetics go-to guy. You need someone who knows the information or knows the very best place to get the information. We have ministers of music and youth ministers and such today. It will be a blessed day in the church when congregations also set up ministers of apologetics.

Now suppose you reject this advice. You just want to give them the Bible alone.

Well when they get their Bible attacked and all they have to retreat to is a feeling, we’ll have several Christians that if they keep their faith even, will be of no use because they will not speak out about it and will not act on it out of sheer fear of the world around them. They will form a bifurcation between their faith and the way they live their lives and never shall the two meet. You’ll pretty much simply have a mutual support group that will be able to do nothing to win people over to Jesus Christ.

And when your congregation eventually dies from old age, that church will die with it.

This is a new age where people need more than “The Bible Says So” and “I feel Jesus in my heart.” If we were going to go on a mission to a foreign country, we would seek to learn the language and the culture of that country. Why is it that when we evangelize our neighbor who thinks differently than we do, we don’t seek to understand his language and culture? You need to know how to evangelize the man in China if you wish to speak to him. You need to know how to evangelize your next-door neighbor if you wish to speak to him and both can involve entering another culture.

Now if your opinion is along the lines of “Well I never” then you need to get rid of that pride. Having a strong feeling that you should preach is not reason enough that you should preach. If you think it is, then you’re in for a world of hurt when the Mormons visit your flock and they develop a strong feeling that the Book of Mormon is true. Be willing to humble yourself and learn about the defense of your flock. Their very souls could be on the line and you will be judged one day for how you lead them. You can complain here, but before God, there are no excuses.

Be prepared for the wolves, and then prepare your flock.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Christianity Exclusive?

Is it a problem if Christianity is an exclusive belief system? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I just started pondering this question as I was reading “New Testament History: A Narrative Account” by Ben Witherington on how Luke wrote to show an inclusive faith and that today, we are told that Christianity is an exclusive faith.

This is often seen as a mark against Christianity. If Christianity is true, why is it so exclusive? Some could want to support universalism in this case. I don’t doubt that many of us would like it if universalism is true. We would love to empty out Hell. Wanting it to be true does not make it true and at the start, we need to realize that just because we want something, there is no requirement that we get what we want.

Let’s start by comparing Christianity at the start to other religions. What was required?

To be a good Jew, you needed to observe the Torah and you needed to be circumcised. I think most men today in considering whether to choose a religion would be quite thankful if they did not have to undergo something like that.

Paganism also had its requirements. You had to practice the rituals in order to learn the secrets of knowledge to keep going forward. You would often have to offer sacrifices. (Aren’t you glad you don’t have to sacrifice an animal regularly to please god? It’d sure change the pet industry) On the other hand, some might consider it a benefit that to be a pagan in some cases, you had to have ritual sex.

There is no doubt that Christianity called for a life of holiness, but at the same time, the initiation rite was quite simple. You simply had to believe in Jesus and get baptized. Baptism could even be put off.

Friends. I have been hydrophobic all my life and I had my baptism years after I had surgery, a surgery that involved putting a steel rod in my spine. Despite having dread about going underwater and despite having a steel rod, I was able to be bent long enough for a good traditional baptism. Don’t give me excuses about why it couldn’t be done. (And I do not doubt that in some cases it could not be done that are extreme, such as paralysis)

Did it matter if you were a Jew or a Gentile? Nope. Did circumcision matter? No. Did you have to keep the Law? Nope. Did you have to offer up sacrifices? Nope. Did you have to look after secret knowledge? Nope. Did it matter if you were male or female? Nope. Did it matter if you were free or slave? Nope. Did it matter if you were rich or poor? Nope. Your social status did not matter one iota.

But yet Christianity is still claimed to be exclusive because we believe we are right on religion and everyone else is wrong.

So does everyone else who has an opinion on religion!

Even if you are an inclusivist, you think that people are exclusivist are wrong! They’re just included in the blessings of your system as well. It will not do to say “Christians think other opinions are wrong!” It boils down to saying “Anyone who thinks a religious opinion is wrong is exclusive.” If that is the case, then to say that someone’s opinion on religion is wrong is also a religious opinion and that is exclusive!

This is just the way that truth is. If you believe something is true, you are automatically excluding all that disagrees with that opinion. If you think 64 times 64 = 4,096, you are automatically excluding all answers that are not 4,096. Saying that that equation is exclusive will not change reality.

This is problematic if you want to go after Christians for believing that their belief system is true. What other reason should they have for believing it? Now some Christians could have dumb reasons for thinking it is true, but that will not change the fact that if it is true, then it simply is true.

“But why should it be that only Christians get the benefits of being Christians?”

Now in our society, you can get some benefits you have not invested in, but those are benefits equally given to everyone and not specifically given to you because of who you are. In the Roman society, everyone was allowed to use the Roman roads, but everyone knew who paid for those roads and built them. Today, we can all use the road system or systems like a public library. However, if there are some systems that you have to pay into, then only paying members get those privileges because they are the ones making the commitment.

This is the case even with instances that we don’t necessarily pay for. For instance, if somebody decided they wanted my wife sexually, I would not allow that at all. Why? I’m the one who has made a lifelong commitment to her and I’m the only one who can have that privilege. No other person no matter how close they are can have that. The same for me. I do not give myself to any other woman. Only my wife can have me sexually.

Does that mean I hate other women? No more than it means that she hates other men. It means that we recognize the commitment and what benefits come with the commitment. It would be cheapening to our lifelong commitment to say that other people can enjoy the privileges of the commitment without the sacrifice.

For the person on the outside of Christianity looking in, what good does it do to say Christianity is exclusive? You are not going to get Christians to change their belief system or the Scriptures just because you don’t like it. Christianity will always teach that Jesus is the only way a man can be justified. That would be for us an insult to the sacrifice of Jesus if we said otherwise and to the dignity and honor of God.

So you complain that you do not get the blessings of Christianity? Bear with this thought. If Christianity is not true and the Christian deity does not exist, then you definitely don’t get the benefits because there is no one to give the benefits. I see Islam as an exclusive faith, but I do not complain about not getting my seventy virgins when I die, simply because I do not believe Allah really exists as thought in Muslim thought and therefore, there is no one to give me those seventy virgins.

Likewise, Christian revelation to be true must come from the Christian concept of God, but if that concept is not true, then there is no blessing that can truly be given. If they are not given, then you are missing out on the blessings of Christianity to begin with.

Do you think you should get the blessings of Christianity without being a Christian? Upon what basis? Should you get the benefits of exercise without exercising? Should you get the benefits of study without doing study? I could bring up the benefits of marriage but several already think they should get all the sex they want without commitment. Still, I hope most would agree at least with the first two.

Our entitlement society often says otherwise so much so that we think the laws of the universe ought to alter in order to make sure that we’re happy. If you are one who thinks that God owes you the benefits of being a Christian without having to be a Christian, then on what basis are these benefits owed to you? State your case! Why should God have to do this for you? What obligation to you is He under? (Keep in mind, it won’t do any good to say He doesn’t exist since you don’t get the benefits any way then.)

In all this complaining about Christianity being exclusive, sadly there is one question that is not asked and it seems that the question of exclusivity is often raised to avoid this question. That is the question of if Christianity is true. If it is true, then asking it to change will not have any effect. One must accept truth as it is. If it is not true, then what do you care? Why complain that a false system is not giving you any blessings? Just forget it and move on.

But if Christianity is true, it is your duty to believe in it. To not believe in it when it is shown to be true is to live in a denial of reality. It shows that you are definitely one who Christianity would say shows what the nature of Hell is, reshaping the world so that your will and desires are paramount. If you come to the belief that God has spoken, you will have to decide if His will and way are better or if yours are. If you think yours are and that you want to live a life without the way of God impacting it, then He will grant you your wish. If you want to live a life that thinks His way is most important, He will also grant your wish.

At any rate, let us cease talking about attitudes of a system and instead just discuss the fundamentals of the system. Is it true?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Why Youth Need Apologetics

Does it matter that the youth at your church get apologetics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I was out walking today past a church when someone saw me who knew me from the past and asked what I was up to. In talking to him, I told about my work with Ratio Christi and asked if the youth of the church were getting anything in apologetics and he told me no. I offered my help and he told me “You like this stuff don’t you.” My reply was that it was not that I liked it, but that it is necessary.

We are multi-faceted creatures. We all know that. Even someone like me who is intellectual strongly has a great emotional and social need. This is something that thankfully marriage has helped to deal with which leads to more strengthening in the intellectual field. Emotional people need something to believe in as well and the socialites should want to be united in truth with their societies.

Our churches tend to deal when it comes to religion with the emotional and social side of faith. The intellectual side falls to the wayside, which makes it problematic when there are several children who grow up with an intellectual bent and do not ever get to hear about the difference their lives can make. My Christianity was always a part of my life, but nowhere near what it was after I saw the intellectual roots of my faith and what a difference it makes and how to think about it.

We seem to have this idea in the church today that we need to draw our youth to having a religious experience and once they have that experience, that will sustain them for the rest of their lives.

How many people on a new job have a great first day and look forward to more and then within a year or two if not even that long are already sick of their job?

We often speak of marriages that have a honeymoon period but when the honeymoon is over, no matter how much fun was had, the couple is not set to go on without a euphoric high of love. Most marriage counselors would tell you that if marriage lasting depended on a euphoria of love, most people would have to get remarried every couple of years.

How many parents are elated to finally have a baby born, but ask them if that same elation is there when the child cries at 3 in the morning wanting to be fed and Mom and Dad have a busy day planned.

The idea of “Hooked on a Feeling” has not served us well and when it comes to the most important truth in someone’s life, we’re telling people to do exactly that.

The problem is that if all there is is emotion, what happens when a stronger emotion comes by. Consider the boy and girl in the youth group who are dating and one night watching a movie and the parents have already gone to bed and some kissing gets started and before too long a lot of hormonal juices are going.

Do we really think that for a boy and girl caught in the moment that all of a sudden a verse popping into mind from St. Paul is going to be enough to deter them? That is a strong strong feeling and you can be sure that without having a place for sexuality in their worldview that they will give in to the pressure. (Note also if the church promised them they’d feel guilt afterwards and they don’t, they might think that maybe the church was wrong about a bunch of other stuff as well.)

When a college professor is up in front of his class railing on them against religion, is it really going to be enough for a student to be thinking about the love of Jesus if he is not even convinced at that point that Jesus is real? Now it could be that he will retreat and say “Well I may not have facts for my views, but I have faith!”

Such a student would have indeed saved himself. The problem is that is the only person he has saved and will save. He has shut himself off from any chance of having an impact on the Kingdom. After all, why should he go out and evangelize if he does not have any facts to share? Is he not supposed to teach the truth? Have we forgotten the concept of truth? Is it so absent to us that we forget that truth means that there are certain propositions Christians are to hold to be true and we are to pass them on?

The reality is, kids can learn this. Even if a child is not of an intellectual bent, they can at least learn enough that they know basic foundations and where to go for more information. They will have a knowledge of how Christianity informs their whole worldview, nay, is their whole worldview.

Such children will be better equipped to face a dark world and reach it for Christ. Such children will be better students, better children to their parents, better brothers and sisters, and eventually, they will be better spouses and parents.

Why? They will have no cognitive dissonance. They will see that Christianity is not just something that they take to church with them on Sunday and it will be really special when they die. They will see Christianity is a belief they can base their lives on and while it has great benefits when one dies, the reality of what it means and the difference it makes starts right now.

Our youth need apologetics and when we see the percentages increasing of students losing their faith, let us not blame atheists. Atheists are not to blame for being atheists. Christians are to blame for not being Christians. Atheists may be the ones that turn them away, but Christians are the ones who have not given them anything substantial to really be turning to.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Presenting Jesus as Real

Is Jesus truly as real as the air we breathe? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

To begin with, this post is not about making an apologetics case. That does not mean that this post is useless with apologetics. On the contrary, I think it is of utmost importance for how we do apologetics today and also how we do evangelism. It is a concern that the methods we have that are so successful may not be as successful as we think.

I was thinking this today outside of a church responsible for a large local revival. If I met the pastor, I might ask how many conversions took place. I am sure I would get a sizable number. How many disciples then? Ah. That might be a more difficult question. How many times was Jesus really presented as a historical reality who walked among us? That could be a bit ambiguous.

Of course Jesus is presented that way! We open up our Bibles and there he is!

Indeed, there he is, but do we not pause to consider that the early church did not have a gospel save the Old Testament and the Old Testament does not include in it the life and death of Jesus. One can point to prophecies, but there is no explicit message as there is in the New Testament.

To say we open up our Bibles is excellent if you’re talking to people who already know the Bible is from God. It is not for those who do not. When asked by many why they should believe the Bible, it is quite likely that the answer that one will get is “faith.”

By what reason should one not believe the Book of Mormon? By what reason should one not believe the Koran? If these are not by faith, the great danger is that there will simply be an appeal to emotion. The sad problem is that the Mormon will quite easily also point to an emotion and say by what basis do you accept your emotion as being from God and not His?

This can also happen with miracle claims as well and we must admit that. It can often be assumed that the Christian rejects all virgin births and all resurrections, except for in the case of Jesus. There is absent any notion that Jesus’s are the ones that actually do have a historical case for them.

Let us be upfront about miracles then. There is no reason to reject miracles from other religions prima facie. Let us be open-minded with them as we want others to be with ours. We do not want to accept all claims blindly, but it is just as bad to reject all claims blindly.

So what are we to do?

In Season 3 of Smallville, Clark Kent finds out that his father Jor-El might actually have visited Earth at one time and even passed through Smallville. Clark tells his father Jonathan that up until now Jor-El had been a distant and powerful friend, but what if he really had come down here? Maybe he was more like Clark than Clark realized.

To be sure, Jesus did become fully human, but let us not think that God is like us. He is not. We are to be like Him instead. I am not like the image that I see in the mirror. The image that I see in the mirror is like me. That being said, what of the distant and powerful friend?

That is often how Jesus can be presented. Jesus is at a distance and He’s powerful, but what is it that He is doing in life? Too often, it is presented as if Jesus is there to fix a lot of your problems. Financial struggles? Jesus can help you. Struggle with alcoholism? Try Jesus. Problematic children at home? Jesus can help you be a good parent. Marriage problems? Jesus can help you be a good spouse.

I am not disagreeing with any of these in reality. I do think that if you truly follow Jesus, it should affect your lifestyle in various ways. My concern is that this reduces Jesus to simply the latest self-help cure. Do we have any evidence that this is what Jesus was like for the first century Christians?

Doubtful. To be a Christian then was to sign your own death warrant. How many would sign a death warrant just because the children were a problem when the cult just down the street could help me with that as well and as a special bonus, you get to participate in these great orgies rather than having to live the strict moral code the Christians followed. Oh yes. Let’s not forget that also the emperor didn’t care if you joined that group so your life could be safe.

So what does it mean if we present Jesus that way and instead get the answer back that “Medication does that for me” or “I happen to be seeing a really good therapist and he’s helped me immensely” or “Have you not read the latest self-help book?”

Now once again, I am not against any of the above mentioned, but I am against presenting Jesus as if He’s just the better product amongst competition. It’s not as if we want to make an infomercial saying “Try Jesus. We guarantee full satisfaction or your money back!”

When it comes to presenting Him, are we presenting Him as real? We can often ask people how they know the reality of Jesus and we are presented with an emotional response. The Mormons will also give the exact same answer for how they know that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

This puts us in a danger. What if your sole basis for knowing that Jesus is real is a feeling? You are a sitting duck then for the Mormon. When you have that contrary feeling from the Mormons, will you suddenly switch to Joseph Smith? Will he be a better product?

What also when you hear atheistic and liberal professors go against your most cherished beliefs that you hold on that basis? Will you go on believing but with a cognitive dissonance that thinks you have to jettison reality in order to be a Christian, or will you just abandon the faith? In either case, you will be useless for the Kingdom if not even a detriment.

The other danger is that basing it on a feeling will instead produce a chasing not after Jesus, not after holiness, but rather after a feeling. When you feel X, then the world is right, but there could be all manner of reasons for not feeling X at a point in time. Perhaps you have a cold or you had a bad night’s sleep or you ate the wrong thing or had an argument with your spouse.

This is how addictions are made and with an addiction, one does not seek the object of the addiction but rather one seeks the feeling that comes from the object. The person does not want drugs for drugs but drugs for a high. The person does not want sex out of love for the other, but rather out of seeking a strong experience and really good sensations.

Using the last example, how many people would like their marriage to be based on a feeling? Most would say that if they did that, they would have to get a new spouse every two to three years. What woman would like to know that her husband likes having her around for sexual joy, but other than that, oh well?

Now am I totally opposed to feelings in all of this? Absolutely not! Some of you out there are very emotionally oriented and praise God for it. I have no problem. Some of you like myself are more rationally oriented. Let us make sure that neither looks down on the other. We need both types. I am against a blind emotionalism. I am also against a cold intellectualism.

What I am saying is that the emotional person needs to have an emotion that is rooted in truth. A rational person needs to have an argument that produces a difference in the world. That gets us to the point then of presenting Jesus as real.

If we claim that Jesus is as real to us as the air that we breathe, we need to live that out. Jesus cannot be just the end of a syllogism or a study of historical research. He also cannot be the quick fix in our lives alone. Jesus can be the one who helps us with our problems and also the result of a historical study, but He is surely much more than that.

Jesus made the claim that He is the king of all creation. All of eternity depends on Him. If He is risen, then life has meaning. If He is not, then let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Jesus did not come down here to do miracles alone as if He was showing off His divinity. Each miracle He did had a greater purpose than just helping the person in need.

Jesus also did not come solely to forgive us of our sins. He came for that, but He did not come for just that. He came to bring life to a world that was dying. That would include the forgiveness of sins, but it would also include the transformation of lives and then that of society.

Yet for us, the transformation seems to be what we can get through self-help, therapy, or medication and the goods that He gives us are really happy feelings whenever we think about Him. Would the such have been said for another king at the time, such as Caesar? “Try Caesar as king! You’ll like him and you’ll be a better parent too!”

It is when we realize that Jesus is King, Lord, and Judge, that we come to realize how it is that we must live. History is not about us and our feelings and pitiful little desires. It is all about Him. He is really the central focus of the universe. All roads do truly end at Jesus. Some end with Him as friend. Others end with Him as foe. All end with Him as Judge giving the ultimate verdict.

Perhaps when we realize that, we will be partaking in a Kingdom agenda and with that will come again what came in the first century and onward, the transformation of society. Perhaps when we put Jesus on the throne again and take ourselves off we will come to see the good He can do. Perhaps when we realize that the way of Christ is better than our way will we start living our lives accordingly. We will realize Jesus is not distant. He is ever-present and at any time can take us out of the picture if He so desires. He does not need us for anything. We need Him for everything.

It is my sincere hope that when we do all of this, we will then get to the apologetic of backing our evangelism with the case for Jesus as the Risen King and why we believe such. When we do such, could it be that then we will have our revolution that we need to stop a world in moral decline?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

D.A. Carson and Presuppositionalism

Has D.A. Carson given us a sound proof of the existence of God? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

First off, my thanks to the people of Asbury Seminary who when they saw through Ratio Christi that I needed a new computer came to the rescue and today, I am writing this blog on a new computer, making it the first one on this one. I look forward to seeing what all this computer can do.

I now have my speakers hooked up which they hadn’t been so I took some time to watch a video sent to me by Adam Tucker of Ratio Christi who appreciates my work on looking at presuppositionalism. The video is a four minute one by D.A. Carson on if God exists. There will be a link at the bottom.

Let’s start with some positives. First off, we all owe a great debt to Carson for the work that he has done in biblical studies over the years. While I disagree with his presuppositionalism, I do acknowledge the work that he has done for the kingdom that will be a benefit for generations to come.

I also do not question his great desire to see conversion as he calls it take place. Personally, I don’t prefer to speak about conversion but more about discipleship, but I know what Carson means by the term so I will not quibble hairs at this point.

Looking at his video, Carson makes many of the same statements. To begin with, he says that we are assuming that we can know something independently of God. Now as a Christian, I do agree that God is the basis of all knowledge. I have no problem with that idea. What I have a problem with is coming to the unbeliever as if that is something that is already known.

There are a number of philosophers who will say they know many things while being atheists, and I agree with them. They do not find the presuppositional answer convincing and I’d say the reason they don’t is presuppositionalism strikes me as a modern idea based on having absolute certainty only even on such questions as “Do I exist?” or “Is reason valid?” Sorry, but to ask the question of if reason is valid means from the get go are we going to use the first tool we’ve got or not? Will the conversation continue reasonably or unreasonably?

Descartes would be pleased. Others before him would be surprised the question is even asked. This is not to say there’s anything wrong with the question of reason. I do agree that if we are merely the result of a cosmic accident, it would seem odd that we trust our reasoning, but that is only after much argumentation.

For the older philosophers, you could not start with an idea and get a fact, and I agree. This is why I reject the ontological argument. You cannot start with an idea of God and then get to the real God. An idea does not become a fact in that way.

Carson then tells us that to ask the question is to put us in the judgment seat and making God merely the end of a syllogism. This kind of statement is repeated which is saying something for a video only four minutes long. To begin with, as a classical apologist, I find it insulting to say I treat God merely as the end of a syllogism. Once I reach God, I must come to grasp with what it is I have reached rather than just saying “Well that was fun. What’s the next argument?”

Second, we are not in the judgment seat in the sense that our judgment determines if God exists or not, but rather in the sense that we decide if we think the evidence is conclusive enough for us that God exists. Everyone knows that either God exists or not regardless of what we think. God can exist and the world have nothing but atheists. God can not exist and the world be full of nothing but theists.

Carson does ask questions about how someone would explain numerous X’s. As soon as he’s done this, he’s no longer in presuppositional mode as the person is being asked to make a judgment on a kind of evidence. Even the presuppositional argument itself is presented as an evidence.

Carson also says that arguments for God’s existence are not done this way in the Bible with atheists. I can only think of one part in the Bible where atheists could be addressed and that is in Acts 17. Frankly, we also don’t know much about what he said, but from what we have, he does not ask them the basis of their knowledge.

Carson then tells us about how many people will just read the Bible and God will open their eyes. No Christian will deny this. To say this happens is not the same as saying this is the only way a conversion takes place. It can also be done through good argumentation. Also, the early Christians were not converted this way. They could not read the story of Jesus as the gospels weren’t written yet. Even if they had been, few of them could read so they would again have the same problem.

The problem in the end is while the approach can consistently explain the questions that we have, consistency does not equal correspondence. Because there is a solution that works, it does not mean that that is indeed the true solution. The only way we can know is if it corresponds to reality.

In conclusion, I do applaud much that Carson has done, but there are good arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection as well. We need to use them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

D.A. Carson’s talk: http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/07/14/da-carson-and-presuppositional-apologetics/

Reason Rally: Do You Know The Bible?

Does having read the Bible mean you know the Bible? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One step I’ve taken for dialogue with people of other faiths like Muslims or Mormons is to have read their religious works. Thus, I have read the Koran and I have read the BOM, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Abraham. However, that does not mean that I will claim to know these books well, certainly not as well as the adherents of those who treat those books as divine revelation.

In other areas, one can read the plays of Shakespeare, such as Romeo and Juliet, and have a basic understanding of what is going on, but to get a substantial understanding, one really needs to study the culture of Shakespeare and the style of writing he used and the meaning of the words back then.

Richard Dawkins recently made a big deal about how many Christians don’t know their Bibles because they did not know the name of the first gospel in the NT. I agree that that is problematic, but let us suppose someone does know the name of the first gospel in the NT? So what? That does not prove that they know the gospel. That proves they can memorize.

N.T. Wright has issued a challenge in a lecture to encourage people to memorize the book of Ephesians verse by verse. Let us suppose that someone did do that. It does not matter if they are an atheist or a Christian. At the end of the process, even if they can quote the whole book verbatim, does that mean that they know the book?

Again, not really. They can know the words of the book, but that is not the same as knowing the content and what those words all mean. Scholars can spend their lives studying just one book of the Bible and still have much about that book that they do not know.

This, of course, does not mean that a simple message cannot be grasped by reading the book. One can read the book and understand that there is no longer a divide between Jew and Gentile and that our lives ought to be lived knowing that Christ has torn apart this wall of division.

To grasp the simple message is not the same as to grasp the deep message. I could tell you about the Brothers Karamazov since I have read the book, but that does not mean that I could tell you as much as a professor of Russian Literature could tell you about the book.

What many atheists have done is what I’ve done with the BOM and other works. They have read the works and assumed that because they’ve read them, that they thus have an understanding of them. In a sense, you do have an understanding of them, but it is not really a substantial understanding of them. Indeed, many Christians, far too many, lack a substantial understanding of their Bibles.

To really understand the Bible, one needs to study many areas. Just what are these and why do they matter?

First, studying the languages would be very helpful. We do have numerous references on Greek and Hebrew that can help the layman who has not learned them yet (And I freely confess I need to still find a good teacher of these languages for myself), but the most helpful way is to be able to read them yourself.

With knowing the languages, you have to know not only the word, but what the word meant to the author. For instance, we are often told that for the NT, faith meant to believe in something without evidence. The Greek word for faith is “pistis.” Is that what it means? What someone can do, and many have done this for us as well, is to do a word study of the word not just in the New Testament, but in other works. Did Aristotle use it? Did Seneca? Did Plato? Did the Jews at Qumran? Did the Septuagint? How else can we find this word being used?

If we come with our own definitions of what the word means, we are not only misrepresenting the author and making them say what they never meant to say, but we are in fact missing the true message that the author of the work in question wishes to convey.

Second, you need a study of history. In reading the gospels, we read about Pharisees and Sadducees. They do not show up anywhere in the Old Testament. Who were these groups? Did they just come out of nowhere? What was going on in Israel at the time? What was the relation to Rome? Did the Jews coming out of exile have anything to say about what was going on?

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. What did this mean? Were there other Messianic claimants? How did the idea of the Messiah fit into the history of the Jews? When Jesus made the claim to them, what would they think about him in relation to the presence of Rome at the time?

When Paul is writing his epistles, what is going on? When he says “Jesus is Lord” is he just having an old-fashioned revival service where we just shout “Praise the Lord!” or is he in fact making a direct challenge where he is saying “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not!”?

Third, you need to know about the landscape at the time. Paul wrote to Philippi, a Roman colony at the time. Does it make a difference when he writes and tells them that their citizenship is in Heaven, especially in light of the fact that all of them would have been citizens of Rome?

Fourth, you need to know about the surrounding culture? What was the big deal about honor in the world of Jesus and the New Testament? When the Old Testament talks about slavery, how did that work in the culture back then? Does it matter that there was not a grocery store just down the street for every one?

What about the Old Testament Law with this? Why would God give a darn about tattoos? Are we supposed to put up railings around our roof? If we say we believe in “Do not murder” but do not believe in “Do not wear mixed fabrics” are we just being arbitrary?

Fifth, you need to study hermeneutics. What is the way the text is to be interpreted? When Jesus tells us that we are to hate our father and mother, is this to be taken literally or not? When the proverbs are read, are these ironclad or just generalities? When Jesus tells about the calamities of Matthew 24, are these to be read literally or not? How are we to understand what the text means?

Sixth, with that text, you need to understand textual criticism. How did we get the Bible that we have today? What role did oral tradition play in it? How was the Old Testament passed down to us? How is it that the New Testament has been passed down to us? Can we really trust that the text was copied accurately?

Seventh, you need to understand post-NT history. What was going on at Nicea? Who were the Early Church Fathers? Has the Reformation shaped our understanding of the culture? Are we reading the Trinity into the Bible or out of the Bible? (For the record, we read it out)

Eighth, you need to study theology. What is the doctrine of God in Christian thinking? Does the Trinity really teach that God is one person and three persons, or is it something really quite different? What does it mean when we say God is omnipotent? If we say God is impassible, what does it mean and does it really make a difference?

Ninth, you must be well-read in what real scholars are saying. Of course, Christians can feel free to read devotional literature. We should be discerning in what we read. There is no doubt good application to much of what the Bible says, but we want to make sure that application is faithful to the text. Devotional material needs to be rooted in scholarly understanding.

When we read a text that is puzzling, we not only wrestle with it ourselves, but we also see what other great minds said about it. Perhaps a Calvinist could be helped by reading what an Arminian like Wesley said about a text. Perhaps a Preterist could be helped by reading what a Dispensationalist like Darby said about the text. We need to be open to reading other thinkers who came before us and interacted with the text. We Christians should not be so arrogant, as I believe Spurgeon said, to believe that we are the only ones the Holy Spirit has ever shared truth with.

The man of the book will be a man of many books. The Bible has a message that is simple in some ways. However, it is also a complex book and one does not fully understand it just by reading on one’s own or getting even a basic understanding in the text through Sunday School or other such means.

Please note also that at this point, I am not even telling anyone to agree with the Bible. You can understand the Bible and still think it is wrong. I would disagree, but it can improve our discussion if we find out that those we dialogue with have really understood the text.

With the Reason Rally coming up, what I expect is simply argument from outrage with new atheists taking passages they do not understand and arguing about them. As it stands, I already in a place I dialogue at have seen arguments concerning Elisha and the two bears, a woefully misunderstood story. Note that saying there is something in the Bible you do not like is not the same as saying it is false. I do not like being told I am a sinner and that my way is not always the best way, but it is there in the Bible and I learn to accept it.

Hopefully, a number of atheists will be willing to do their homework and go get some books by evangelical scholars on studying the text. Atheists have long wanted Christians to study evolution before criticizing it. I agree. I would not be qualified to criticize evolution even if I had read the entirety of the Origin of Species. That would be just a start. I’d need to hunker down and really study the subject matter in much the same way.

Will atheists do the same? I’m skeptical, but we can hope.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally: Why Christians Should Accept Science

Is there really a war going on? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

With the Reason Rally coming up, one objection Christians can expect to face is that their beliefs are at war with science. Is this really the case? For fundamentalists on both sides, there has long been a battle going on between science and religion. Meanwhile, also on both sides, there have been some in the center hammering out a peace treaty while trying to dodge the bullets that are being shot.

Is there a basis for this antagonism. I think so. We Christians are largely to blame also for not holding to our intellectual grounds. In the past, when the question of evolution came in the Scopes Monkey Trial, the best side was not put forward and it became a question of science vs. religion. Later on, as liberals began entering our Seminaries, rather than stay and fight, we backed away and started our own schools. Unfortunately, that would leave the liberals behind at a prestigious school. With no opposition, it was not a shock which way those schools went.

The case can go back further, though I believe it is dangerous for the atheists to do so. They can try to appeal to Galileo, but I would urge them to not do so. Galileo’s beef with the church was only secondary. He was a believer himself and his biggest warfare was with the philosophy of his day in the secular community. The dangerous parallel with the atheists is that they could be making the same mistake with the ID movement that Christians can be accused of with evolution. Galileo was in the minority going against the majority in the secular world in the area of science. Some might say “But ID does not have facts on their side now!” That could be the case. However, it is definitely the case that Galileo did not have conclusive evidence for his position either.

I in fact contend that both sides are making a mistake. Too many Christians have argued against evolution not on scientific grounds per se, but because they do not like a supposed conclusion, meaning that evolution would obviously mean that there is no God and Jesus did not rise from the dead. Atheists have argued against ID often while stating scientific reasons, but as well for not wanting there to be a designer to the universe. What both sides need to do is in fact encourage the other to do the best work that they can and challenge one another in the scientific community and let iron sharpen iron.

Make no mistake. Everyone in the scientific community should be interested in truth for the sake of truth. I would hope that if ID was true, an atheist scientist would want to know and if so, to back it. I would hope that if evolution was true, a Christian scientist would want to know it and if so, also back it. We are people of truth as Christians, or so we claim, and we should seek truth in all areas, including the scientific ones. In fact, to do otherwise is more of a position of Gnosticism. We do not want to separate the world of matter from the world of Christianity.

In order to be candid here, I will also point out that I am not a scientist. I do not speak as a scientist. If you want to come and argue against the claims of ID, go ahead and do so. I have no desire to engage you as I have no dog in the fight whatsoever. If you want to tell me why evolution is or is not true, go ahead and try, but I have no desire to respond. I have no dog in that fight either.

Which is how I think it should be. Now let us suppose you are a scientist and you say “I study this on a scientific basis and I have serious questions concerning Darwin’s theory.” Then on a scientific basis, bring forth those objections and if the other side can answer them, then they are answered. If they cannot, depending on the severity, it could cripple them seriously or just be a minor bump in the road they need to work through.

For myself as a non-scientist, I will not speak that way. I am just fine discussing metaphysical implications, but not the scientific data itself. Does that mean I have no opinion? Of course I do. We all do. I just do not have an informed opinion and I readily admit that. I often say that I do not want people like Dawkins and Meyers who do not have credentials in philosophy and theology and biblical studies to speak on those areas. I try to live out my conviction as well in that since I do not have the necessary study in science, I will not speak on science as science.

What I am speaking on here is a philosophy of science and how science should be approached which is quite different. Let me state that there are things in science that fascinate me and one such example is space. I understand there is a mountain on Mars twice the size of Everest. I hear that under one of Jupiter’s moons could be an underwater ocean. I have heard of lightning bolts that stretch the length of our galaxy. Reports have come of a distant quasar that in one second gives off enough energy to power Earth’s electric needs for one million years.

Things like this lead me to worship. I stand in awe of the God who created such wonders. This was what drove early Christian scientists. They wanted to see how God had made the universe. They figured that God was rational and He made a world that was rational and we could understand it.

This is not God-of-the-Gaps! This was started in fact because there were gaps and we wanted them filled! Now could it be for the sake of argument that some gaps are filled in by miracle? Maybe. Maybe the origin of life is one such gap. We won’t know until we try and it will not work to just plug in God and hope against hope that no one studies it and finds an answer lest God be out of a job, as if God’s only business was scientific business.

Nor will it work to just say that this does not matter. We are not Gnostic. The material world is part of God’s creation and we should in fact be wanting to find all that we can. All truth is God’s truth. We claim to be people of truth and that is not just “spiritual” truth but also truth about the material world. One thing is clear in Genesis. God said that this world is good and we should agree. Even though it is fallen, it is still good.

What are we to do? Christians who do not have studies in science should not argue science. I have long said that people like Dawkins and Meyers who are not studied in biblical studies, theology, or philosophy, should not speak on those topics. They are studied in science. Let them speak on science. Note however that this does not mean they can speak on the metaphysical or philosophical implications of a scientific discovery. They speak on the finding itself and leave the philosophy and metaphysics to those in those fields.

This is fair entirely after all. If we do not want them speaking where they have no study, then if we have no study in an area, let us not speak as well. However, let us be quick to argue against the god-of-the-gaps idea. Let us make it clear that we want as little gaps in our knowledge as possible. We want to know as much about the universe as we can.

However, we must always oppose scientism wherever it raises its head. By this, I mean the belief that all knowledge is that which is verifiable scientifically. This statement itself is not verifiable scientifically. We must say that we accept scientific truths, but we accept truths in other areas that are not known by the scientific method.

We must also be people who think that while science gives us great and important truths, it does not give us the greatest ones. Science can help connect my computer to yours somehow so you can read my blog. i will not attempt to explain that. When I move and have my game systems hooked up, I have to call someone to do it. I cannot do that kind of thing. Some of you will probably say my terminology about one computer connecting to another is inaccurate with the internet. That’s fine. I don’t claim to be accurate there. My point is just that it can explain why there is some sort of connection, but it cannot explain why you should care about what I say or what knowledge itself is.

When I enjoy intimate time with my wife, science can tell me exactly what is happening in our bodies at the time, but it cannot explain to me why it is we do that, what it means, and if there are any dishonorable practices there. Science can help me when I have a disease to give me a cure, but it cannot tell me why I should seek to free others from disease or why it is my life is really worth living in the first place. Science can help me to send money from a distance to my fellow man in need, (Such as you can do by donating to this blog) but it cannot tell me why I should give a rip about him to begin with. In these cases, science is an aid to the understanding of greater truths that are prior.

Unfortunately, by promoting a warfare, I believe both sides lose. Christians will lose because many great minds that could work wonders in the scientific field for Christ will not go in thinking that they are entering enemy territory. Who knows which one could cure cancer for instance? Atheists will lose because in encouraging the idea that there is a war, many will take their religion much more seriously than science and will be anti-science then. Atheists will end up creating the ideology that they do not want to see.

In reality, the final battle will not be won in the scientific community as it cannot be the final arbiter. Both sides must be open to the truth claims of the other. For we Christians, if evolution is true, we should want to know it and for that reason, should encourage the best research in the evolutionary community. For atheists, if ID is true, they should want to know it and seek to encourage the best research in the ID community. Too often, we can be tempted to look at just a conclusion we do not want to support and assume the means is a threat then. We must instead abandon that and say “We will go with whatever is found to be true.”

Of course, this will be with varying degrees of evidence. No Christian should want to abandon a position on evidence that can rightly be called new and sketchy at the time. No atheist should want to do the same. We should all seek to be people following the evidence where it leads, but we Christians must especially be such since we claim to be people of truth.

We want the atheist community to follow the philosophical and historical arguments. We want them to see philosophy points to God and history shows that Jesus rose and we have evidence. If we are not willing to follow scientific evidence where it leads, why should we expect them to follow philosophical and historical evidence? Let us set the example.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally: The Problems With New Atheism

Why is the New Atheism not a threat? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The Reason Rally is largely a work of the new atheist movement. This has largely taken off after 9/11 with atheists seeking to have an even more prominent role in society. Mind you I have no problem with that. Atheists have as much right as anyone else to seek to change the laws to be in accordance with what they think is best and they have every right to state their views publicly, meet publicly, etc.

The problem is not that they are doing this. In reality, I do not see the new atheists as a problem. Rather, I see them as a blessing in much the same way The Da Vinci Code was. The Da Vinci Code started a conversation and Christians who were interested would better inform themselves about the truths of what it is they believe. I believe the New Atheists have done the same thing. They’ve made the dialogue public.

However, the blessing is not only have they made the dialogue public, but they have not presented a very strong case and one that a series at any church that was led by someone skilled in apologetics could train someone to answer. Due to their being seen as authorities, they are taken far more seriously and leading many atheists to think this is the cream of the crop.

If it is, then the crop has gone very bad. Dawkins, the leading speaker of the new atheism is not qualified in philosophy or theology or biblical studies to speak on any of these matters, but does so anyway. The atheist thinking “The God Delusion” presents sound arguments, walks away thinking, as an example, that the Thomistic arguments are easily dealt with.

That is, until he meets a Thomist who knows those arguments.

At that point, the atheist sadly usually does not see the flaws in the arguments, but instead still holds to them because, well Pope Dawkins has spoken and the case is closed. The reality is Dawkins could go to anyone out there who studies Thomism and be told that his positions are straw men and the arguments he has do not work.

Furthermore, with the high interest in science, we can expect to see more of scientism from the new atheist side. No Christian should be anti-science, but we should all be anti-scientism. We need to realize that there are other forms of finding truth out there and for most of us, the most important truths we know are not scientific in nature.

The benefit for us is this verificationism is easily dealt with. As I have stated earlier, for an atheist like this, science for them is essentially what Scripture is for the Christian. Instead of having Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we have Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and quite likely we can expect Meyers to be next in line.

With Dawkins being a leading speaker at this rally, we can expect more of the same. What this will do is just lead to further reinforcement. Just as much as Christians can cloister themselves away from the world at times in isolation to reinforce one another in beliefs that they hold without evidence, atheists can do the same. This is not to say all Christians believe without evidence. I certainly don’t and several others don’t. This is to say that there are several who do. There are several atheists of the Dawkins type who also hold their anti-religious beliefs without evidence.

Thus, not only do I think the Reason Rally is not really a threat, but it will also be a boon to Christians. If atheists want to keep availing themselves of material by the new atheists, we can expect that their side will ultimately suffer. Let us not make the same mistake however of growing lax in our efforts and make sure the sources we have and the ones we choose to have represent us are the best that they can be.

What atheists need to do is in fact distance themselves from meetings like the Reason Rally and to avoid the new atheists. They are better off going to older atheists of the past. Not only that, they need to make sure that they avail themselves of evangelical scholarship so they can be sure they know what their opponents are really arguing.

If atheists want to still go to this rally, please do go ahead. The more I see there, the more hope I will have for the spread of Christianity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally: Pleased for P.Z.

Will P.Z. Myers change his policy after Reason Rally? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

P.Z. Myers isn’t too happy. Who is he? He’s the evolutionary biologist who is the blogger at Pharyngula. Apparently, he’s upset that a number of Christians plan to attend the Reason Rally. The post can be found here. Now he’s made a statement about a personal policy of his that I’d like to comment on.

I’m beginning to feel like my long-standing personal policy of not intruding on their church services needs to be questioned, because man, is this ever arrogant and obnoxious.

First off, a problem with us. One thing that I am sure of is that in a lot of churches, if someone like Meyers showed up, they would not be ready. Where there could be well over 100 Christians, not one of them would be able to give an answer and most of them would say that you just have to have faith.

Ugh. Makes me sick.

If you’re someone new to the faith, maybe I could grant you some leeway, but by and large our churches are failing at this point. We are not educating our members and sometimes I can understand why atheists think they are the champions of reason because there are too many Christians out there who aren’t thinking about their faith. They’re just living in their own world content with just knowing that Jesus loves them.

These churches will be trounced and there will be casualties leading to either new atheists who really don’t think seriously about religion (Several of which you can find on Meyers’s own blog) or else the situation of the Christians in these churches just further retreating into themselves and cutting themselves off from the world.

You will have a hard time getting the gospel to the world the more you retreat inside yourself.

That gets us to another point. Why is it that we have made churches more like isolation chambers. Now I do know we need places to congregate, but these should also be places where unbelievers can expect to have their questions on Christianity answered and where they can think they can go to to get those questions answered instead of having the mindset of “Just let them be.”

In fact, in 1 Cor. 14 Paul talks about how Christians should behave for when unbelievers come in. He is talking about the appearance that we will have before a world that is watching. Why is it that the church is not seen as a beacon of intellectualism? It is because we Christians did abandon intellectual grounds among the laity and much amongst the leadership as well. If we think the new atheist movement is truly lacking in reason, which I think they are, it is because the church lacked it first.

However, as to what Meyers has said, I will say that whatever church I find myself in, and I do not know which that will be since my wife and I will be moving soon, I would be delighted for Meyers to come to my church and to ask the hardest questions that he can think of. In fact, I would actually celebrate that opportunity. I would love to tell all my friends and family that Meyers came to my church today.

It would be ideal if this could happen in any church, but sadly, it wouldn’t. As I said, too many are unprepared and there will be a lot of casualties in the faith in several churches. Whose fault is this? It is not the fault of Christianity. It is not the fault of the new atheists. It is our fault.

Our churches do several great ministries by and large. We are often willing to set up soup kitchens and food pantries for those in need. We will help people with their bills when things get too difficult for them financially. We will help them with alcoholism and working through a divorce and with grief counseling when a loved one dies and we will send missionaries overseas to spread the gospel.

How much is the church investing in apologetics?

If Christianity is not true, then we are doing some nice things, but we are to be pitied for believing a lie.

Yet I am regularly concerned about churches that will spend millions on big buildings and gyms and everything else, but when it comes to supporting the work of the apologists, the ones who are on the front lines defending all the other work that is going on, there is nothing.

That’s why the people at True Reason also need your support. They are out there on the front lines. For my own self, I’m out there as well. This blog is not the only thing I do, but there is a donate button for a reason. It is people like you that keep this going.

Maybe if the church returns to being a force in intellectualism again and regains our apologetic ability, maybe we’ll actually start seeing a turnaround. Many of us complain about the evil we see in our society, but our idea is to sit back and just pray. Prayer is a good thing to do. It is never to be used as an excuse to laziness. I suggest we use Nehemiah 4:9 as an example. When the walls of Jerusalem were being rebuilt and the people were in danger, Nehemiah said they prayed and posted a guard. We, the apologists, are the guard. Support us and pray for us as well. Some of you I am sure cannot support financially, and in that case do pray, but also be an encouragement. Those of us on the front lines need it more than you realize.

Be a support today. When Meyers comes to your church, be ready to prevent casualties.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally and Dawkins’s Boeing Crash

Does the Boeing 747 argument come down for a smooth landing or totally crash? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

With the Reason Rally coming up and Richard Dawkins speaking, we can be sure new atheists will be wanting to promote Dawkins’s main argument against theism. He refers to this as the ultimate Boeing 747 argument. From my perspective, it is in fact the ultimate crash landing.

Dawkins asks us to realize that we Christians believe that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. In all of this, we must serve a God that is complex. Now if we believe that complex things on Earth require a designer, then God must be infinitely more complex and God Himself must need a designer, so who designed the designer?

Really, the question of “Who made God?” is one I might expect a child in Sunday School to ask. I don’t expect an Oxford writer with a PH.D. to ask this kind of question and think that it is the ultimate stumper. I even remember one atheist telling me that David Hume refuted all of Aquinas by asking this question. The reality is, Aquinas would react to the question the way I do. It would be with laughter.

How much is wrong with this argument? To begin with, let’s suppose that it is true that complex things need designers. Then we can point out that the complexity we see in life does require a designer. If complex things do not require a designer, then we can just as easily say God does not either.

Supposing also we get to a creator of the universe, if we are asked how He came to be and we answer “We don’t know, but we have enough evidence that He is there,” then the position STILL needs to be dealt with. Because it is not known how God would come to be, it does not mean that He is not there. There could still be a creator outside the universe.

A lot of readers are thinking “Geez Nick. Aren’t you assuming the big question? Aren’t you assuming that God came to be?” Not at all! I am granting that possibility for the sake of argument, but that is the biggest flaw. Dawkins has not shown that God “came to be” or is in the category of “Things made.”

For Dawkins who believes in a materialist universe, it is not surprising that he thinks of God in terms of matter. This is an assumption he does not give evidence for. Christians do not hold God to be material and if he wishes to argue against our belief system, he needs to treat it as it is. He cannot just make God material.

In fact, I instead hold to the idea that God is simple. By saying God is simple, I do not mean that He is easy to understand. This is a misunderstanding that can regularly happen. Am I saying that because God is simple that He is easy to fathom? Not for a second. Simplicity refers to His nature. It does not refer to our understanding of His nature.

Let us follow the route of Aquinas and consider what we see here on Earth. We have beings that are a combination of matter and form. My wife and I both possess human natures, but the natures we have are differentiated by the matter that we have. We do not possess the same matter and are different persons thus.

If we walk down the street, we could see poodles, pugs, terriers, pit bulls, dalmations, great danes, etc. All of these could be quite different, but in all of them we could recognize something that is called dog. This is the form of dog and there are variations of that form and differentiations expressed through matter.

On the other hand, my wife and I could think about a future child of ours. We can imagine him or her and even give a name. At this point, this child is not real. The child is only real insofar as there is something being imagined. He is real the way we could say Clark Kent is real.

Now let us suppose we had the idea and then the idea became a reality. What would have been added? It would have been existence. There is a distinction then between matter and form and existence.

After we humans, in Christian thought, there are angels next and angels are not material. Still, angels have forms, or we could say essences, and then they have existence. This is also why Aquinas says that each angel is its own essence since they cannot be differentiated by matter.

Now the atheists might want to say “Angels aren’t real!” You’re free to think that, but in the Christian view angels are real and it will not work against the argument to say “You can’t say that because angels aren’t real.” You need to understand the system and then show the flaw in the system itself instead of just asserting it.

So now we come up to God. How is God different? For God, there is no distinction between existence and essence. God’s own essence is what it means to be. He is not limited by anything else. If he were, He would be just another creature in need of a creator as well. If you know what it means to truly exist without limitations, just look at God. Think of anything that exists and remove any limitations and as the limitations are removed, you are getting to God.

To ask then “Who made God?” is to ask a question like “Who created existence?” In that case, either an existent being did it, in which case He could not have created existence itself for he already exists, or existence was created by non-existence, which is just absurd.

While new atheists might jump up and down with this question as if they have found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the reality is that this kind of objection just makes them look further like a joke.

Let’s hope this question will finally be put to rest.

In Christ,
Nick Peters