Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 8

Does Jesus offend? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

To be fair, with this first chapter of Richard Hays’s in this book, I think it’s important to agree that yes, Jesus is an offending figure to many. He was in His own time. Mr. Rogers doesn’t get crucified. Jesus was a problem to those around Him.

It’s a shame that this wasn’t thought of more as Richard Hays worked through this book. Jesus never sugar-coated or changed the gospel just to please people. I still remember the first time it was pointed out to me that when the rich young ruler walked away from Jesus after being told to sell everything, Jesus let Him walk away.

Yet despite this, we are being told that God has in fact changed His standards on an issue to go in a way that is less offensive to our culture. It’s awfully fascinating that the area Jesus wants to change us on is always our position on sex. We need to be more lenient there and let more things be allowed sexually.

If you have been wondering if all of this is about welcoming people, but still telling them to repent of sinful behavior, which would be just fine, then no. That is shown expressly to not be so.

Of course, if we go to the four Gospels looking for Jesus’s explicit teachings about homosexuality, we will look in vain; there’s not a word on this topic in the Gospels. But these foundational texts might offer us something else, perhaps something better: a collection of stories that teach us how to reframe ethical questions in light of God’s scandalously merciful character. As we revisit these well-known stories, I propose that we keep asking ourselves this question: How might the Gospel stories of Jesus’s convention-altering words and actions affect our thinking about norms for sexual relationships in our time?

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 125). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes. Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships. He didn’t need to. This wasn’t a big debate in ancient Israel. Divorce? Big debate. Same-sex relationships? Not a bit.

What would more likely need to be shown is anyone from ancient Israel who held to any sort of position like that of the Hayses. If anything, Jesus’s silence should show his agreement on the Torah. Also, when questioned about marriage, He explicitly brought up that God made them male and female. After that, the two were to be brought together. That part was never under question.

If the theme of this book was that we need to show God’s love to same-sex attracted people in that saying while they struggle, God still loves them in their struggle and is willing to help them as they struggle, then I would have no problem. Every Christian should agree with that and celebrate that. That is not what we got. We ultimately get a god we can’t trust who just makes it up as He goes along.

Next time, we’ll look more at what Richard Hays has to say.

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

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 6

Does God go too far? Let’s plunge into the Deeper  Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Christopher tells us about how God goes too far sometimes in His judgment. Surely, I’m exaggerating that. Right?

If only I was.

God destroys in wrath, but God also repeatedly repents of his wrath. God changes his mind about his methods and decisions. Sometimes this takes the form of realizing after the fact that punishment has gone too far.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 91). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So we have then a story of a God who gets angry and then brings about destruction and then says “oopsie. I went too far that time.”

Excuse me. Why should I trust this god with anything? This doesn’t come across as the loving god that the Hayses want us to believe in. This comes across as a flippant god who will fly off on a whim and then want to say at the end, “Hey. A few lives lost. No harm done. Right?”

The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 92). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s nice to know that Christopher has declared with one sentence that thousands of years of theologians and scholars didn’t take the Bible seriously. Where would we be without his magnificent wisdom to guide us? It would be bad enough to say that all of them were wrong. I am to believe that the church fathers, the medieval writers, and the reformers who held to classical doctrines didn’t take the Bible seriously?

Christopher brings up Calvin, who apparently didn’t take the Bible seriously. Whether you are a full-fledged 5-point Calvinist or a total devotee of Arminius, most all would agree at least that love his doctrine or hate it, Calvin took the Bible seriously. So what did Calvin say?

Calvin goes on to explain that “the change of mind is to be taken figuratively,” like every instance in which God is described in human terms. These descriptions of God are “accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it.”

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 95). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Which is a reasonable idea and what has been held for thousands of years. Unfortunately, it is also one Christopher doesn’t interact with. I remember when I was going through this book at first that I shared a quote on Facebook and someone said that the Bible says God doesn’t change His mind. Being humorous, I said “Well, maybe God changed His mind on if He changes His mind.” I thought it was funny.

And yet what do I soon see in the book itself?

All this tends to undermine the relevance of these statements. But in light of what we know about the Bible as a whole, it may be better to admit that there are indeed contrasting perspectives in dialogue with each other in the Bible. So if the Bible as a whole is the word of God, then perhaps we should say that God changes his mind about whether he changes his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 96). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Just even thinking about this leads to nonsense. God changes His mind on if He changes His mind? Did He forget His past apparently and that He had changed His mind? Did He say “I don’t change my mind” and then say “Oh. I do change my mind here” and then say “Well, I have changed my mind and now state that I never change my mind.” Do you need a Tylenol yet?

In the end of this chapter then, Christopher has written about a god who he says shows mercy. Unfortunately, we cannot trust this mercy since he could change his mind for all we know. Maybe tomorrow he will change his mind and decide to thoroughly punish all people who claim he changed his mind and that also say he is LGBTQ friendly.

The Hayses are an example of what happens when you fail to take seriously the history of the text and the tradition it came out of.

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

 

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 5

Did God change His mind on war? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Christopher Hays says there is no better example of God changing His mind in the text than on looking at the way the Bible presents war.

So there’s a history here of war in Israel and then Christopher drops this on us:

Why would Isaiah have been concerned about a reaction against Cyrus? Perhaps because his anointing as king was a violation of the Mosaic law, which said: “you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your brothers you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (Deut 17:15).10 That was the word of the Lord—but now the Lord has changed his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 88). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I must have missed that part when Cyrus sat on the throne of David in Jerusalem…

Largely, what is in this chapter is an emotional appeal. If God’s plan was for the salvation of these people, why would He go to war against them? Well for starters, He did. Second, God’s plan was for things to come in the fullness of time. That would include having to protect Israel from those who wished to destroy her as well.

At this, many will go to the New Testament, which Christopher does not do, which is fine since he is focusing on the Old Testament. I personally do not think the New Testament is meant to give us instructions on warfare and when it is right to go to war or not. Most of us will never be in that position. Here in America, only 45 different people have ever been president and had to make the decision to send us into war or not.

The New Testament is more written to the average every day person. We do not know what foreign policy advice Jesus or Paul or any of the apostles would have given to a king if need be. We do know what rank and file people were instructed to do, but even then, instructions to turn the other cheek were not given in response to life-threatening violence, but to personal insults, meaning to stop the cycle of retaliation.

Ultimately, something that needs to be pointed out is that if God could change His covenants like Christopher says He did with Cyrus, how could anyone trust Him for salvation? He made a covenant promise with Israel and then broke it on His own? Why should I not think He won’t do the same with me someday if God changes His mind? If God can change His mind on what marriage is, then maybe God will change His mind and say you can marry your minor cousin someday and hey, who could say otherwise?

Christopher’s god is one that I do not recognize. I am thankful the God of Scripture is not like that.

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

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

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

Remember how last time I said it gets worse?

Prepare yourselves. Here it comes.

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

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

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

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

And yet, it gets worse.

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

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

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

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

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons.

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

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

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

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

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

Look at that paragraph very carefully.

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

And what does Christopher draw from this in the end?

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

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

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

No. No, it isn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But getting back to Zelophehad….

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

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

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

Later he says about the daughters that

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

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

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

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

Alas, it gets even worse.

Next time.

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

Why Did Listverse Let Andrew Handley Write On This?

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

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

Andrew Handley is not one of them.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, no.

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

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

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

My ministry partner has two videos on this here.

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

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

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

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

Next is David.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mean! Mean! Mean!

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

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

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

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

Eighth is Joshua and this is what Handley says:

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

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

They were filled with people?

Too bad he never demonstrates that.

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

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

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

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

I have written about this here.

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

Oh by the way, think back to Sisera.

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

BAD!

Israel is dividing up women allegedly?

ALSO BAD!

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

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

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

Come again?

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

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

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

None.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God made a mistake?

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

In describing the story of Hagar, he says:

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

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

God bends principles of justice?

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

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

And yet this is just the start.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, this was not done.

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

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

So everything sounds good. Right?

Just wait….

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

Book Plunge: Irreligion — Atheists, Agnostics, and Brights

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

Unintentionally, Paulos starts off this chapter with a howler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Irreligion — Pascal’s Wager

Should you take the bet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As it turns out, last night I was listening to Playing with Reality on Audible. The author started talking about Pascal and how he got into gambling as a hobby and then started looking at ways to predict outcomes. This became trying to predict the future. Probability theory began right here. Such an example also was Pascal’s Wager, an argument not really understood today.

Paulos writes about it:

1. We can choose to believe God exists, or we can choose not to so believe.
2. If we reject God and act accordingly, we risk everlasting agony and torment if He does exist (what statisticians call a Type I error) but enjoy fleeting earthly delights if He doesn’t.
3. If we accept God and act accordingly, we risk little if He doesn’t exist (what’s called a Type II error) but enjoy endless heavenly bliss if He does.
4. It’s in our self-interest to accept God’s existence.
5. Therefore God exists.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (pp. 133-134). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

The problem Paulos sees is that this could be used for Islam or any other system.

Okay.

And?

People don’t bother to understand Pascal. Pascal is talking to those who are sitting on the fence between Christianity and unbelief. He is only including two positions because those are the two his audience in mind is wrestling with. He says “You’re already playing the game! Might as well bet on the side where you can at least win something!”

Is that an argument Christianity is true? No. Is it an argument for why you should become a Christian? Yes. Of course, he goes deeper than that addressing questions such as if this is fake and other such matters. If all you know about Pascal is just his wager, you really have no business talking about him.

In talking about God’s existing, Paulos goes on to say that:

But forget probability for the moment. Is it even clear what “God is” statements mean? Echoing Bill Clinton, I note that they depend on what the meaning of “is” is. Here, for example, are three possible meanings of “is” involving God: (1) God is complexity; (2) God is omniscient; (3) there is a God. The first “is” is the “is” of identity; it’s symbolized by G = C. The second “is” is the “is” of predication; G has the property omniscience, symbolized by O(G). The third “is” is existential; there is, or there exists, an entity that is God-like, symbolized by ∃xG(x). (It’s not hard to equivocally move back and forth between these meanings of “is” to arrive at quite dubious conclusions. For example, from “God is love,” “Love is blind,” and “My father’s brother is blind,” we might conclude, “There is a God, and he is my uncle.”)

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 136). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

With the final syllogism, it has four terms so it’s invalid right at the start. Let’s still be generous.

God is love.
Love is blind.
God is blind.

This could work, but we have to ask what is love in each sense. The modern phrase means something very different from the biblical usage.

Love is blind.
My father’s uncle is blind.
My father’s uncle is love.

This time, the fallacy is in the form of the argument. Imagine if I said:

Dogs have four legs.
Shiro has four legs.
Shiro is a dog.

He would beg to differ!

On top of that, the real tragedy is that Paulos asks a great question. What does a “God is” statement mean? Unfortunately, he doesn’t explore that question at all. He just throws it out and ignores it.

He then goes on to say that:

The connections among morality, prudence, and religion are complicated and beyond my concerns here. I would like to counter, however, the claim regularly made by religious people that atheists and agnostics are somehow less moral or law-abiding than they. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and I suspect whatever average difference there is along the nebulous dimension of morality has the opposite algebraic sign.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 139). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Personally, I don’t know people making this claim. That being said, Tom Holland in his Dominion has argued that this is also because we still have a background Christianity. I contend that the further we move away from that, the worse we are going to get. He also cites Japan as an atheistic country as a counter-example, when it is much more complicated than he presents.

There really isn’t much here. He still gives no grounding for goodness whatsoever and he doesn’t bother to understand what he is talking about. Also, considering what he’s said earlier in this book, I don’t think Paulos is the one to talk to us about how to be moral.

Next time, we’ll see what he has to say about “Brights!”

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