Category: General Christian Teachings

Did God Think Mankind Was A Mistake?

Did the Almighty have second thoughts? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

While this examination of if God can change His mind will start with Scripture, it will be impossible to avoid tradition and reason along the way. Let’s start with a big example in Genesis 6:6-7.

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

To many, the text seems clear, God repented. Yet what does this mean? If God does something wrong, does God need forgiveness? And if God needs forgiveness, who is above Him that can give it? If God needs forgiveness, how can He be good? If it just means regret, what else does God regret that we might not even know about? Could He regret having us in eternity one day?

Tertullian says about this that:

In this way it was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as He always did to take upon Him man’s actual component substances, body and soul, making inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant), “Where art thou, Adam?”—repenting that He had made man, as if He had lacked foresight; tempting Abraham, as if ignorant of what was in man; offended with persons, and then reconciled to them; and whatever other (weaknesses and imperfections) the heretics lay hold of (in their assumptions) as unworthy of God, in order to discredit the Creator, not considering that these circumstances are suitable enough for the Son, who was one day to experience even human sufferings—hunger and thirst, and tears, and actual birth and real death, and in respect of such a dispensation “made by the Father a little less than the angels.”

Thus, God asks a question, but not as if He was ignorant. He repents, but not as if He doesn’t have foresight, and on and on. The language is here for a reason. Tertullian ultimately thinks it’s meant to show us something about Christ when He comes.

In a later account said to describe a debate between Simon Magus and Peter, we read that:

“Therefore also Adam, being made at first after his likeness, is created blind, and is said not to have knowledge of good or evil, and is found a transgressor, and is driven out of paradise, and is punished with death.  In like manner also, he who made him, because he sees not in all places, says with reference to the overthrow of Sodom, ‘Come, and let us go down, and see whether they do according to their cry which comes to me; or if not, that I may know.’  Thus he shows himself ignorant.  And in his saying respecting Adam, ‘Let us drive him out, lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever;’ in saying Lest he is ignorant; and in driving him out lest he should eat and live for ever, he is also envious.  And whereas it is written that ‘God repented that he had made man,’ this implies both repentance and ignorance.  For this reflection is a view by which one, through ignorance, wishes to inquire into the result of the things which he wills, or it is the act of one repenting on account of the event not being according to his expectation.  And whereas it is written, ‘And the Lord smelled a scent of sweetness,’ it is the part of one in need; and his being pleased with the fat of flesh is the part of one who is not good.  But his tempting, as it is written, ‘And God did tempt Abraham,’ is the part of one who is wicked, and who is ignorant of the issue of the experiment.”

I do not think this is historical at all, but i do think it is a representation of Christian thought at the time. The arguments made today by some to show God changes His mind were those made by heretics in the past.

Augustine in the City of God says:

For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented), this is said with reference to man’s expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do.

And he says:

The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin.  His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain.  But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie.  But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching:  not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.

It wasn’t just the fathers who thought this language wasn’t literal. John Calvin said the same thing:

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’ Similar to this is what he says, in the second place, concerning grief; that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief: There is here, therefore, an unexpressed antithesis between that upright nature which had been created by God, and that corruption which sprung from sin. Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put him to grief, let us learn to abhor and to flee from sin. Moreover, this paternal goodness and tenderness ought, in no slight degree, to subdue in us the love of sin; since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopatheia

And Keil and Delitzsch:

The force of ינּחם, “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from the explanatory יתעצּב, “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Samuel 15:29), “quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit” (Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish” (Calvin). The destruction of all, “from man unto beast,” etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall. This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of humanity.

At this point, one could say that all of these people, from the fathers to the Reformers, were wrong about how they saw God. It is entirely possible that they could be. However, to argue that, one needs to make a better case than just “I think God literally has these emotions in Him.”

From a perspective of reason, one has to deny to some extent that God knows the future and did not know what people would do. With that, I do not know how He could be the God of all truth since He would not know all truth but would merely be discovering all truth. There is no way all knowledge could lie in Him since He would be always learning something new.

Many times when I encounter atheists who like to put God on the same moral plane as us as if God has to follow a moral law out there, I say that their argument is not against God, but against Superman. God is on a whole other plane than we are. We should not be surprised if we cannot describe Him entirely with our language and must use what Aquinas called analogical language. A God that would be easy to understand would not be the God of Scripture.

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

Book Plunge: God Doesn’t Whisper

Is God whispering to His people? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Buy this book!

Seriously! What are you waiting for? Buy this book!

As I kept going through this book, I was thinking “I wish I could put this in the hands of every evangelical Christian out there!” The problem pastor Osman is speaking about is one that is present throughout the church. It is the idea that God has a will for your life and He is trying to tell you what it is and you need to be listening for it.

Osman goes after this entirely and he has done his homework looking up the claims of people who teach this and reading their books. I have read books like this here as well and every single one of them is just awful in this area. Pastor Osman is much more thorough than I am in this.

Bonus too! This guy is a pastor! I treasure that because so many pastors seem to fall into the groupthink on this. So many people are making disastrous decisions with their lives and not following proper wisdom for following an unbiblical pattern of decision making.

It puzzles me even more when my fellow Protestants do this. Aren’t we the people who claim that we are people of the book? The Bible is our final authority? We only go with what the Bible teaches? Despite that, we have bought into an idea that is not even taught in the Bible and is our own form of extra-biblical revelation that is to each of us and has us playing a guessing game with the will of God.

It reminds me of what my ex-wife used to struggle with as she would have a dream and the next day be thinking about it all day. She would ask me “What do you think it means?” I always said the same thing to her. “Honey. If you spent as much time trying to understand what Scripture means, which you know comes from God, as you do trying to understand your dreams, which you don’t know come from God, how much better off you would be.”

What does Osman deal with? Still small voice? Yep. Feeling a peace about it? Yep. Being led by the Spirit? Yep. Open doors? Yep. My sheep hear my voice? Definitely. Every biblical distortion out there, he interacts with.

At the same time, there seems to be nothing personal against the people who hold to this methodology often. There is no doubting that many people who hold to this are sincere Christians and think they are doing good. However, sincerity is not enough.

The only section I really disagreed with him on was Muslim dreams. I am entirely open to Muslims having dreams that lead them to Jesus and the difference I think is that these are dreams that are JUST for that purpose. They are not meant to help the Muslim in day-to-day decision-making. Osman and I can debate that hypothetically, but we do agree on the general premise of day-to-day living.

Also, Osman is a cessationist, but that is not necessary for his position. I am not one. I think Craig Keener has presented tremendous evidence that miracles are taking place today. I am open to the possibility that God can speak today if need be, but it needs to be tested and checked and it won’t be something done subjectively. If God speaks, it will be clear. We won’t have to wonder if it’s Him speaking.

Please. Buy this book! Read it and learn it!

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

Do You Need A Dramatic Testimony?

How should your testimony go? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I really don’t care for testimonies. I think too often they go all into “me, me, me.” Personally, my struggle is I spend enough time focusing on myself anyway. I want to go to people and say “Enough about what you think God is doing in your life. (You’re probably wrong anyway.) I want to hear about what you’re doing in the life of God.”

Recently, I had a question come to me where someone was concerned about their salvation. Generally, when someone asks me a question like “How do you know you’re a Christian?” I don’t answer that question. There’s another question behind that. I asked “Why are you doubting you are?” The answer? “Because people give these really dramatic testimonies at my church and I’ve never had a major change in my life like that.”

There is a great danger when we give a testimony that we will make it greater than it is. Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has talked about how if you played in a band in college before you came to Christ, you were suddenly a disenchanted rock star. If you smoked some marijuana before you came, you were a hardcore drug addict who got delivered.

Let me be clear on what I am not saying. I am not saying that some people lack a powerful testimony of something amazing happening in their lives like overcoming a powerful addiction or being healed of a deadly disease. I am not saying that one should never use a testimony at all. I am saying it should not always be a go-to. You need to have other reasons why you believe God is real and Jesus rose from the dead beyond your personal experience or what happens when you encounter another person with a similar experience from another position?

I tend to not talk about my divorce when meeting with people, but when I meet someone who is going through a hard time, especially through a divorce, it’s entirely relevant for me to share so they can know there is a fellow traveler. I also use it when I meet someone who is just struggling with rejection. There is a time and a place.

The danger is that many Christians don’t have a dramatic life change. We live in a culture where there is still a strong background Christianity. They are raised and taught Christian morals and don’t really deviate from them. Then they become Christians. Do they have a dramatic testimony to the world? No. There is likely no major life change. It’s just a progression of what they were already doing.

In our Christian culture, we often try to out-spiritualize one another. I think this is one way the talk on hearing the voice of God being seen as normative influences us. People think “Oooh. I need to know that I’m doing that!” and soon they’re listening to any subjective feeling and thinking that’s God and they’re about to find His will for their lives.

Also notice again, the emphasis is “Me, me, me.”

You don’t need to have a major testimony. You need to have a life of faithfulness and holiness. You need to be looking to grow in your faith every day. I’m not saying you will notice something every day, but you will look back and notice eventually. Few of us growing up would check our height every day, but eventually we reached a point where “Hey. I am taller than I was now.” Physically, I used to have to look up to my mother for instance. Now physically, she would have to look up to me. When did that happen? I couldn’t tell you a date, but it did.

Christians. Stop trying to make your testimony more glamorous than it is. Make it real. It could be simple, and that could be what someone else in the pew needs to hear. Be people of truth, even in your testimony.

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

Book Plunge: Still Unbelievable Chapter 12

Do atheists live in reality? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is the final regular chapter which yes, thankfully means the last writing by David Johnson. He describes his exodus from Christianity by saying he grew up. As he goes on to say quite early on:

In the Christian view of reality, the worst thing you can do is learn to think for yourself, do for yourself, and rely on yourself. The most heinous crime you can commit in Christian never-never land is to grow up.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

This is why Christians built libraries, spread literacy, and built universities and copied the works of the pagans as well. If anyone doesn’t seem to think for themselves, it’s Johnson who just repeats regular atheist slogans. He has simply gone from believing Christian claims uncritically to believing skeptical claims uncritically.

Christians don’t know what is right in any given situation. They are incapable of thinking morally for themselves. They must consult god. Like children, they must mindlessly obey, not think for themselves.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Johnson reveals himself more than he does Christianity. This is modern pop Christianity. It’s not based in Scripture. There’s nothing wrong with going to God and asking for wisdom. I don’t see anything asking Him to tell us what to do. I don’t see anything asking him to give us signs. He gave us wisdom and we are to use it. There’s also nothing wrong with going to wise friends and receiving counsel, but in the end, you must make the decision.

The Christian can never take credit for any good thing they do. They can never feel the slightest bit of pride in their own accomplishments. That is because they are led to believe that they can accomplish nothing without god.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Which is another problem. There is nothing wrong with celebrating your accomplishments. There is a problem if you get a big head from it. It is a false humility when you do something great and say “It wasn’t me. It was the Lord.” You were the instrument the Lord used. Why not delight in that and be thankful?

A relationship with god is a relationship on your knees, apologizing for all the bad things you have done, and taking the blame for things that are not your fault.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

If you read this chapter, you will learn little about Christianity and much about Johnson. If this was his Christianity, I don’t blame him for leaving it. I just would that he would not have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

He then looks at the prayer in John 14 with “Ask me anything in my name and I will do it” and reads it as a blank check saying anyone four years old knows this doesn’t work.

All of the excuses can be lumped into two categories: You are a sinner, and You did it wrong. These are impossible barriers to overcome. As the Bible describes it, of course we’re sinners. We never really stop being sinners. If prayer doesn’t work for you, that means you have some unreported sin in your life holding you back. It is not possible to be in any other state.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Again, what kind of Christianity did Johnson grow up with? Could it just be that God says no? After all, Jesus prayed for another way and there wasn’t one. Was there unrepented sin in his life? Not at all.

In order to hear his voice, we have to listen carefully for it. In order to experience his presence, we have to empty ourselves. It is hard work to live in the Christian reality. Regular reality (otherwise known as reality) is much easier to access. You don’t need to listen for still, small voices.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Christians. Please hear this. This is a methodology that is not taught in Scripture and yet we have treated it as foundational. It does more harm than good and leads to atheism like this.

Next time, we return to Sophie to hear how her testimony ends.

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

 

Christianity Is Not About A Personal Relationship

Does it damage the faith to say Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was recently asked on a Facebook where I commented and said I don’t use personal relationship terminology when talking about Christianity why I don’t. It’s a reasonable question. After all, isn’t Christianity about having a personal relationship with Jesus? Is God impersonal? Isn’t He a Father and we children?

The problem is that when people use this kind of terminology, it actually tends to become a Christianity about them. This gets us to the first problem that originally Christianity wasn’t just me doing Christianity on my own. It was a community. It was the community coming together and supporting one another. We make it highly individualistic.

From there, we add in a number of other notions. God has a specific plan for our lives and we have to find out what that plan is. God wants us to have a specific job, go to a specific school, and marry a specific person. We need to key in so we can find out what God’s plan for our life is.

When someone tells me they want to know what God’s will for their life is, I always tell them I can save them the search. I know what it is. It’s simple. God’s will is to conform you to the likeness of Christ. About the only pushback I think some Christians could give is some Calvinists would say not all have that destiny, but for all Christians, yeah. That’s the goal.

Christianity gradually becomes about what God is doing for you and really helping you reach your personal goals. This even extends all the way to the end of evangelism in many of our attempts. What is the question that we are to ask people. Where are you going to do when you die? Yep. The whole goal of Christianity is to get to Heaven, and as I have said elsewhere, God is there by the way if you’re into that kind of thing.

Overall, something we miss is that Jesus is our king. It’s my understanding that some people are misusing the term Christ is king for something else right now in political conflicts in the Middle East, but there is one way all Christians should agree. Christ is indeed king over everyone. He’s king over all races, languages, nations, and tribes. Everyone you meet is destined to bow down and say that one day. You will either say it now to your benefit or later to your detriment.

Let’s not forget also how when we speak about this personal relationship, that God speaks to us often through our feelings. This is an extremely dangerous precedent and for those of us who claim to be Sola Scriptura, it seems strange that the Bible takes a back seat at this point. Where do we see this in Scripture? Answer. We don’t. We see Scripture talking about wisdom and developing the mind of Christ.

This does not mean that there can be no moments of joy in the Christian life. There can be. Some people can hear a worship song and get caught up in the glory of God, and that’s excellent. If I read a good theology book and get a new insight, I get caught up in the glory of God that way. I’m part of an online Aquinas group led by Catholic friends of mine and I sometimes in discussing Aquinas do really ponder more the nature of God and thoroughly enjoy it.

Yet make no mistake. The way we are with God is to be totally different from the way we are with anyone else. There is no comparison. Jesus is not just your friend and the one who forgives you. He is your king. He is your master. You are supposed to do anything for Him, including lay down your own life.

I find the personal relationship idea ultimately just lowers Jesus and makes it be all about Jesus and me. It’s about what Jesus is doing in us. Jesus is greater.

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

Are We Really People of the Book?

Do we who are Protestants really go by the book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was explaining to someone recently that my spiritual walk as an evangelical is very different from most of my fellow evangelicals. I don’t believe in ideas of feeling led or a call to preach as being normative. I don’t deny that God can do what He wants, but I always have to ask, “What does Scripture say?”

I see my fellow Protestants going on and on about how the Bible is central to our faith and practice. I agree with that. What confuses me is when it comes to this idea of how we live our day-to-day lives, it seems that our experiences rank above what Scripture says. If you want to know how someone knows that being called is a Biblical concept or how to know if a feeling is from God, they will point to experiences.

Now someone can ask “Well what about someone like Saul on the road to Damascus.” Sorry, but I don’t think many pastors who are in the pulpit have an experience of walking down a road, being knocked down and blinded by a light, and having the voice of God speak audibly. If anything, it’s quite arrogant to compare our experiences to Paul’s.

What do we have instead in Scripture? Let’s look at a passage like 1 Timothy 3. If anyone desires to be an overseer, he desires a good thing. In this case, it is talking about deacons in the church. The desire isn’t enough. Paul lists out the requirements. If you don’t meet them, you don’t get to be a deacon. In Titus, the same applies to elders. Paul lists the requirements for an elder and what an elder must be able to do.

Nowhere does he ask “Is the person called?”

What about something like giving to others? I remember being in a church where the pastor would regularly tell us to give as you feel led. Really? Go look at 2 Cor. 8-9. That is the longest passage we have in the New Testament about giving. Nothing is said in there about a feeling of being led. The only such similarity is that it is said that God loves a cheerful giver. Give and give joyfully. How much do you give? You use wisdom to determine that.

One of the great dangers of the normal way is that we can have any number of situations affecting our feelings at any one time. It could be that you’re hungry or that you overate. It could be that you’re sleepy. It could be you’re worried about something or you have a stomach bug or some other illness. It could be you just had a bad argument with your spouse or just spent the last hour stuck in a traffic jam.

So that system that can fluctuate on anything is also where we want to say God is telling us what to do? What on Earth happened to Scripture which is NOT like that? Are we truly people of the book?

And if we go this way, we will pay less attention to Scripture anyway. Not only that, we will give divine authorities to our inner impulses. I remember reading somewhere recently about someone talking about a program they did to service their community. It sounded like it went quite well, but what got me nervous was when they were talking about how God gave them such and such an idea.

Isn’t it presumptuous to say that God is the source of your idea? He might be, but do you want to just give divine authority to something like that? That one isn’t a Protestant thing. I’ve seen Catholics and Orthodox do the same thing.

I also think about how people talk about doing work and saying “I led so and so many people to Jesus” and then stopping and saying, “Well, no. God did it actually.” It sounds humble, but really, it isn’t. Consider 1 Cor. 9. Paul says he becomes all things to all people so that by all means possible “I might save some.” No one thinks Paul is thinking he’s the savior of these people, well aside from ignorant Muslims and atheists who I have seen making that argument. We all know Paul is saying he is the instrument. Yes. God is at work whenever someone comes to Christ, but is it honoring to deny that God used you? Be humbled by it. Accept it and admit the reality that you are a good speaker to these people to lead them to Christ and be thankful. The false humility says that the person and their willingness ultimately doesn’t matter.

God can use you and He can use your preparation and training. If someone asks me a question today about Christianity, they might think the answer only takes a minute or two. It doesn’t. It took several years. Those are just years of having the experience of studying and knowing how to answer.

Also, another aspect of all of this is how we are in our walks with God should not be dependent on our feelings, which again fluctuate. You can be miserable and close with God and right with God. Job was. You can be happy and be far from God and not right with him. Do I need to point out how many people this can apply to today?

So what would be the standard I’d use? Beyond just asking if you hold to a biblical faith, which even the demons believe many of our core doctrines, I could add in something the demons definitely can’t do. Growing in walking like Christ and trusting in God every day. Is your day-to-day living better than it was in the past? Are you having more victory over sin? Are you loving your neighbor well?

If you base any relationship in your life on your emotions, it will be doomed to fail at some point. If you’re married, you should know this. If you’re a parent, you should definitely know this. (How many mothers wake up with joy at 3 A.M. when they have to get up the next day because their baby is crying and needs something and won’t go back to sleep until he gets it?) Emotions come and go. Enjoy and learn from them, but don’t take them as divine. They are not.

Go back to the book.

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

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian Chapter 3

Is the Trinity dogma? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, we’re again going to not bother dealing with the number of times Buzzard repeats the same Shema and Unitarian arguments ad nauseum. Of course, had he eliminated them, this book would be considerably shorter, thus part of my great regret he didn’t. At any rate, in this chapter, Buzzard wants to pit biblical fact against dogma. That’s fine, but I contend the dogma is only on one side.

So at one point, he cites Karen Armstrong on the Trinity saying the makers of the dogma did not intend for the doctrine to be subjected to reasoned analysis.

It’s hard to believe anyone claiming to be taken seriously on church history could think such a thing. I don’t know what got Armstrong to think such a thing if she is being represented accurately and I don’t know why Buzzard would even believe such a thing. These guys were analyzing every single bit of their theology, but their doctrine of God was one they were going to be careless about?

He also says Gregory of Nazianzus considered three men ought to be one since they shared a common humanity. Unfortunately, this is not quoted at all. It’s my understanding that Gregory was asking why that wouldn’t be the case and was responding to that.

He barely touches Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 just saying that this doesn’t mean the three are one God. On their own? No. In connection with all the other data we have? They certainly help the case. Buzzard has nothing to say about the Matthew reference referring to the singular name of three different persons.

He also says the word God never refers to all three persons. In the Old Testament, I think this would be far more likely. However, with the New Testament, I think the term God is normally referred to the Father and Lord refers to Jesus. There are exceptions, of course, but this seems to be the general principle. If anything, that God has to be given the explanation of, the Father, regularly shows that some differentiation is going on.

Romans 9:5 and 1 John 5:20 are both mentioned, but they are not interacted with. Instead, right after that, lo and behold, Buzzard references the Shema. It’s getting to the point where Buzzard pointing to the Shema is like Mormons pointing to their testimony relentlessly.

He says that for Jesus to say He was God while presenting His Father as God would lead the people to think there were two Gods. I agree with this. Hence, I think if the Trinity is to be revealed correctly, it has to be done slowly and cautiously. Unfortunately, Buzzard never goes down this route.

Buzzard also says the same thing about if Jesus had said “I am God.” However, he says that Jesus’s dependence on God doesn’t make sense. What would He prefer Jesus to say? “I don’t need the Father for anything. I can do whatever I want!” We certainly wouldn’t have a Trinity then.

Buzzard says Christian Theology speaks of God as He and not it, but does the Trinity consider God to be a person? He references Lewis in Christian Reflections saying that Christianity does not believe God to be a person but a Trinity of persons. Lewis says this saying that it’s the same way a cube is not the same as a square. This does not mean that one cannot use singular pronouns when speaking of God though. Buzzard gives no reason to think we can’t.

He also says that the term Echad used in the Shema refers to a one. Yes, but the word echad also refers to a unity one, just as the man and woman become one flesh, even there are definitely two bodies. He also refers to N.T. Wright and the Christianization of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:4-6. Buzzard doesn’t reply to the arguments but if anything, pits Paul against Jesus.

This is a quite strange path. Are we going to look at Scripture and say what Jesus says is more valid than Paul if we think all of it is God-breathed? If there is no contradiction, then Paul will fully agree with Jesus. Is this what it takes to avoid the Trinity?

He says something about Psalm 110:1, but that’s largely spoken of in a later chapter.

He returns to Wright and the Shema in 1 Cor. 8 but instead of dealing with Wright’s argument, goes to his talking point again and says that Paul sees God as one person in 1 Tim. 2:5 and in Gal. 3:20. Neither of these say God is one person and he even adds in the word person in Gal. 3:20.

He then returns to Wright and says God and Jesus are not Lord in the same sense. Amusingly, he accuses Wright of begging the question, despite how many times Buzzard trumpets the Shema. If we go with Buzzard, then if there is one Lord, then the Father cannot be Lord. Does Buzzard want to go that route? When he gets to Bauckham saying the same thing, Buzzard says this wouldn’t be done since it would violate the creed and adding a person to the Godhead was unthinkable.

But keep in mind, Wright is the one begging the question.

So once again, Buzzard has pretty much one argument consistently. It doesn’t work no matter how many times he repeats it.

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

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian Chapter 1

What is the foundation of Christology? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t know if this one will be as long as the prologue since Buzzard’s whole argument seems to be to reference Mark 12:29, Deut 6:4, and say “Shema” and “Monotheism” over and over. He does reference Ken Samples talking about the importance of the Shema, which all Trinitarians would agree with. At the same time, he does seem to reference Ken Samples as if Samples would agree with him. He would not. I have interviewed Samples and he is indeed an orthodox Trinitarian.

Buzzard does say there is not a word of such revolutionary changes in the nature of God in the New Testament, but this could also be because the idea of a multiplicity in the Godhead was not unfamiliar to the Jews. There is no interaction with the intertestamental literature thus far that I have seen that did inform the Jewish background of Second Temple Judaism Jesus lived in. ONe such work would be the Wisdom of Solomon where Wisdom is presented in terms reminiscent of that of God in passages like the Exodus. I highly encourage readers to read How God Became Jesus. (Unfortunately, my copy is back in Tennessee.)

Buzzard also writes about how a Calvinist pastor once called him a heretic. This is seen as an unloving attitude, but is it? If the pastor really thinks that, is that not more of a warning to Buzzard? We can say all we want that perhaps the tact wasn’t there, but how are we to assume it was done out of an unloving spirit.

Despite this, the next part talks about him speaking and some older ladies in the church come up after his talk and beg he and his family to repent lest they face eternal hellfire. Whatever you think about the doctrine of Hell, I have no doubt the ladies came from a place of love, but Buzzard is apparently upset about that as well. It could just be that Buzzard doesn’t like to be challenged. He also says they seemed unaware of the Unitarian creed (Assumption again) of Jesus and any knowledge of the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was absent.

Ah yes. If only those stupid old ladies were as informed as Dr. Buzzard is. They should be grateful that he just graces them with his presence.

When we get to the history of the doctrine, he talks about the controversy after Arius and says that the fact that there was such controversy should alert us that there is a problem. There wasn’t any of this with the doctrine of God in the ministry of Jesus. In this, there is a big question unanswered.

Why were Jews at the time upset about the ministry of the early church following in the footsteps of Jesus? What were Jesus and His followers doing that was so shocking? Buzzard has already said it wasn’t their doctrine of God, so what was it? What created such a scandal? Thus far, I have no idea from Buzzard.

Also, when the Arian controversy started, it wasn’t the Trinity that was the new doctrine bringing about chaos. It was Arianism. In other words, had someone not been upsetting the apple cart, there would have been no controversy. Also, as was said before, there were problems in actions on both sides. Buzzard will only give you one side.

He also writes about how the average Englishman (Which Buzzard is) who believes in the Trinity doesn’t often understand it. So what? For one thing, if you fully understand your doctrine of God, you have a pretty small God. One problem comes with the question of asking if Jesus is God.

While He is, when we say this, we are using shorthand. It is a statement that Jesus fully possesses the nature of God in His being. It does not mean that Jesus is the Father. We are speaking of God in a sense of nature.

Buzzard also says Jesus foresaw a time of killing coming in John 16:2. Why does Buzzard need to look to the Arian controversy? That killing started with Stephen and keep in mind, Buzzard can’t say it was over the doctrine of God by his own position, so what was it?

He also says that in Matthew 16 Jesus could have said about His identity “I am God, and upon this rock, I will build my church.” Sure. That would have solved everything. Then the question would be “Are you the Father?” This is why the understanding of the Trinity was a gradual matter. Jesus had to show who He is and He also had to show He is not the Father. He trusted us to work it out.

Buzzard actually knows this because he says the same thing when replying to Witherington. He goes a step further and says that any claim to be the God of Israel would have been nonsensical. No Jew would understand it. First off, if that’s the case, then it’s obvious why Jesus didn’t say it. Second, would it be nonsensical? Buzzard has not told us why. He has just assumed it.

The final section has Buzzard saying that the creed was unitarian and thus if Jesus was said to be God, then there would have to be two gods since God is unipersonal. Thus, Buzzard’s assumption that the Shema is Unitarian, which he has not demonstrated, drives his doctrine. We all agree that if God is unipersonal, then two persons cannot be God. The question is “Is God unipersonal?” I can fully say I agree with the Shema. How could I not? I just don’t agree with Buzzard’s interpretation of it.

We will continue next time.

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

Book Plunge: Jesus Was Not A Trinitarian

What do I think of Anthony Buzzard’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as one who is interacting a lot with JWs on Facebook, I was looking through my Kindle library to find a book arguing against the Trinity and came across this one. I had read a few years ago a book he co-authored on the Trinity as Christianity’s self-inflicted wound. I figured I would go through this one.

Unfortunately, this book is just awful. If you played a drinking game every time you see the term “Shema” or “Unitarian” or anything of that sort, you would die quickly of alcohol poisoning. Thus far, Buzzard really has one argument and he repeats it over and over and over again.

Let’s look at this first instance.

“In these chapters I return often to the central creed of Jesus, the Shema (Deut. 6: 4; Mark 12: 29). I carry on a running dialogue with many distinguished scholars who have commented on Jesus and his strict monotheism. I propose that a vast amount of Christian literature confirms my thesis that Jesus insisted on this unitarian creed.”

Let’s analyze this. The first sentence has the Shema as the central creed. That’s fine. Every Jew would know the Shema well as the defining statement of monotheism of Israel. However, we have a problem when we get to the second sentence when he talks about Jesus and His strict monotheism.

Question. What is meant by strict monotheism? As a Trinitarian, I contend I am a strict monotheist. Is Buzzard saying that strict monotheism equals Unitarian? Is he stating that Trinitarians aren’t monotheists? He has not said what is meant by this term and is likely packing in some assumptions.

However, the final sentence really clinches that possibility. He makes a statement in the first sentence about this being a creed, in the second about strict monotheism, and then all of a sudden in the last sentence a monotheistic creed has become inextricably a unitarian creed. No argument has been made for this position.

The big problem is that Buzzard consistently does this throughout this book. Mark Twain once said that if you took “And it came to pass” out of the Book of Mormon, you’d have a pamphlet. I wonder what he would say if he read Buzzard’s book where he makes the same argument time and time again.

Looking back at this, this is really a sleight of hand that most readers will not catch. For the sake of argument, Buzzard could be right that the Shema is unitarian. However, he needs to argue that and not just assert it.

He does the same thing again here:

I do not think that the New Testament ever reports Jesus as claiming to be the God of Israel, the one true God. Why then should Jesus’ followers adhere to a belief which Jesus gave no indication of holding? If being a Christian means following Jesus Christ, then a Christian’s first aim would be to share the same view of God as expressed by Jesus. The creed of Jesus would automatically be the creed of his followers. Jesus, as the scriptural records reveal, made it perfectly clear who he believed God to be. But churches have done much to make Jesus’ perception of the identity of God at least bewildering if not incomprehensible.

Look at this. The first part of Jesus’s claims is highly questionable as I will demonstrate in later chapters. However, notice this. At the start, Buzzard says this is his opinion that Jesus never claimed this. Fine. However, then he asks why His followers should hold a belief Jesus gave no indication of holding. There is that switch again. We have gone from opinion to a fact that Jesus gave no indication that He had this opinion of Himself. Then once again, Buzzard points back to the creed, AGAIN.

Later, he says that when the church got power in the time of Constantine, they took to persecuting heretics. There is no mention that the Arians were also doing their own persecution. Why was Athanasius in exile? Why was he falsely accused of crimes? He was accused of murdering the bishop Arsenius.

When the charges were brought, the accusers brought forth a human hand they said belonged to Arsenius. Athanasius had a powerful rebuttal when he brought in Arsenius to the courtroom, alive and well, and showed that he still had two hands. Arians were hardly sugar and spice and everything nice.

Buzzard won’t tell you that. He only tells you about what those evil Trinitarians were doing. He even goes so far as to say that could it be the church held a non-Jewish creed because they were really anti-Semites? Such a statement tells me little about the early church, but it tells me volumes about Buzzard.

So thus far, I hope you’ve seen that this will be an interesting one. We’ll see if we get any interesting arguments sometime and I could possibly do a word search sometime through Kindle to see how many times certain words are overused. Keep an eye out for smuggling in assumptions. It seems to be something Buzzard is proficient at.

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

Can God Be Tempted?

If Jesus is fully God, how can He be tempted? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was in a JW discussion group on Facebook recently and one of them shared about how in James, it says that God cannot be tempted, but in Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted. Well, that seems to be a problem. If Jesus is God, how can He be tempted?

Let’s right off say that when someone says Jesus is God, they are using theological shorthand. We are not saying Jesus is the Trinity or Jesus is the Father, something 99% of the arguments in this group are unaware of. We are saying that Jesus fully partakes of the divine substance.

We can say also that Jesus in His deity cannot be tempted, but in His humanity that is a different matter. That would be enough to settle the matter. However, there is another nuance I want to bring to this.

When James talks about temptation, he is talking about temptation from within. Where do our struggles ultimately come from? They come from within because of wrong desires we have within us. James is saying that God is not tempted from within.

In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in Psalm 105:14 and 77:41 (Psalm 106 and 78 for us), both of them use the exact same word for tempted that James uses to describe what Israel did to God in the wilderness. My opponent in the group had said that temptation is tempted when I tried to explain the different temptations. The problem with this is that if you play that route, then you will have a contradiction. After all, if that is the case, then James is wrong and God was tempted.

James is not wrong. James is saying that the Israelites were trying to get God to do something and God wasn’t having it. It was completely ineffectual. After all, what could you tempt God with anyway? Can you make some kind of threat to Him? Can you offer Him anything that He needs? It’s nonsensical.

If anything, we could even perhaps see a parallel here. Israel tempts God in the wilderness. The devil tempts Jesus in the wilderness. This is not saying Israel is the devil, but both of them were playing roles of tempting the deity. Neither of them were successful.

The problem with anti-Trinitarian arguments like this and so many others is that they are basically lazy arguments. There is no attempt to look and see if anyone in 2,000 years of church history has ever answered such a question before. This is what I largely see from Jehovah’s Witnesses, unfortunately. They don’t know what their opponents believe and most of their arguments are against modalism.

The other sad news is that many Christians are unaware of this and will fall for weak arguments because they were never taught about what is really meant by the doctrine of the Trinity. We need to do better. We have a unique doctrine of a unique God and we need to be able to better defend that and show what a difference it makes.

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