Category: New Testament

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 3

What do Protestants get wrong about the gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

While working on my Master’s, part of the requirements for the scholarship I had were to go out and do evangelism on a weekly basis. (And if you would like to become a supporter for me on my PhD scholarship, go here.) You need to understand that for me, speaking behind a computer screen is super easy, but speaking face-to-face is horrid. Therefore, since we went out in pairs, the other person usually initiated the conversation.

I knew where that conversation would normally start. “If you died today, do you know if you would go to Heaven?” I hated it. Imagine that question. It doesn’t ask you anything about what you think about Jesus. It doesn’t ask you about God. It asks about you and you alone. It is all about you.

Now I know my fellow evangelicals mean well with this, but I inwardly cringed every time. Not only that, if you encounter someone who is in their 20’s, they’re thinking they won’t die for a long time and odds are, they’re right. It’s as if Christianity is only relevant when you die.

Bates says that Protestants do indeed get the gospel wrong. As he says, Protestants think that:

The gospel is primarily about how an individual person can get saved.

The gospel is that Jesus has done it all for you so that you don’t have to do anything yourself for salvation.

The gospel can be accurately summarized as Jesus died for your sins so that you can be forgiven when you die.

The gospel is the Romans Road: God is righteous, humans are sinners, Jesus Christ is the savior, so repent and believe.

The gospel is uniquely centered on the cross. The gospel is Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. Period.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1027-1032). Kindle Edition.

I would want to be happy when I heard someone became a Christian through our efforts, but I am a cynic. I want to see this person a year later and see how they are doing. That is when I will be more assured that they did something serious when they made the decision.

Bates has two more errors he wants to add:

The gospel includes the personal receipt of justification by faith.

The gospel does not include social and political action.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1042-1044). Kindle Edition.

In other words, Bates says that how you respond to the gospel is not part of the gospel itself. Also, the typical view says becoming a Christian does not mean you are expected to do anything politically or socially. He argues, and I agree, that indeed you are expected to.

Not holding back, Bates says the problem goes all the way back to the beginning:

When Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation, he identified “justification by faith” as the essence of the gospel. Thereafter Protestants have tended to follow suit. For example, in various books John MacArthur, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul— the list could be multiplied— all claim that justification by faith is the heart of the gospel. MacArthur calls justification by faith “the core and touchstone of the gospel according to Paul” and summarizes, “Justification by faith is the linchpin of Paul’s teaching on the gospel.”  R. C. Sproul states, “Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.”  John Piper is even more effusive: “I am thrilled to call justification the heart of the gospel.”

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1059-1064). Kindle Edition.

So to my Catholic and Orthodox friends, Bates isn’t holding back. I personally think there were a number of errors in Catholicism that needed to be dealt with and I suspect many Catholics today would say that there were indeed problems that Luther addressed. If you think people can buy their way into eternity by purchasing an indulgence, that is a problem. That being said, could it be that Protestantism and Catholicism were not really arguing about the gospel in reality but were differing over secondary issues?

Bates says that justification by faith is never described as the gospel in the Bible. Not even once. He also says that when the gospel is described as good news, it is communal good, not individual. To use an analogy again, the recent election outcome was good news to some people, bad news to others, but those who thought it good news thought it good news for everyone and vice-versa for those who thought it bad news.

This also means that when someone becomes a Christian, they enter into a community. The community exists prior. The gospel is there before they are. They are entering the group of those who swear allegiance to King Jesus. This gets us to where justification by faith comes in.

As part of the gospel, corporate justification has already been won by King Jesus for himself and whoever happens to be part of his church. The gospel itself does not include personal justification by faith but does include the promise that a person can be justified by faith if that person meets the condition of faith.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1208-1218). Kindle Edition.

Some might ask about the good news still. How is it good news if the person doesn’t become a Christian? Bates has in mind people like Greg Gilbert and John Piper. To them, he says:

Piper and Gilbert’s position inadvertently taints the gospel with our culture’s narcissistic individualism: the gospel can’t count as good news unless I personally get something out of it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1227-1229). Kindle Edition.

Even if no one ever became a Christian, Jesus would still be king. God would have still been on the throne. Of course, it is good when someone becomes a Christian, but the quality of the news does not change based on what we do with it.

What about issues of justice and political action? Those are worth their own coverage. We’ll deal with them next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 2

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

In this section, Bates contends that one of the big problems with Catholic salvation is the idea of sacraments. Bates says that there is very little about the gospel in official Catholic works. To back his case, he says this:

The Paschal mystery of Christ’s cross and Resurrection stands at the center of the Good News that the apostles, and the Church following them, are to proclaim to the world. God’s saving plan was accomplished “once for all” by the redemptive death of his Son Jesus Christ. (§ 571)

That’s it. My edition of the Catechism has 688 pages. The gospel gets only two sentences. To say that “the gospel” is woefully underemphasized by official Catholic teaching understates the magnitude of the problem.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 957-961). Kindle Edition.

He then goes on to say that confirmation, the eucharist, and baptism get 144 pages of mention.

He also says there is a lack of emphasis on kingship and says that Protestants and Catholics should pause to applaud the Orthodox community for their emphasis on kingship. Of course, the Catholic church holds that Jesus is the Messiah, but Bates says the emphasis in a service is on forgiveness. This does not mean forgiveness should not be taught, but that forgiveness should be taught in the light of Jesus as King.

The last big problem that Bates has is with the idea of creeds. He does not oppose creeds, but says too often the creeds do not pay enough attention to Jesus as King. Humorously, I can think of how N.T. Wright has said that he can imagine the Gospel writers being at the Council of Nicea and seeing the creed being written where they go from “Born of the Virgin Mary” straight to “Crucified under Pontius Pilate”, and saying, “We spent quite a lot of time on some of that material in-between and we think you should say something about that.

Bates says that in his experience teaching in higher education in a Catholic setting, the message is not really known as the gospel so much as the faith. A small difference to some perhaps, but it could be significant. Does there need to be more emphasis on what is the content of the gospel?

It is important to note that in all of this, Bates does not accuse Catholics of holding to a false gospel. He considers them brothers and sisters in Christ. Of course, this does not mean that everyone who is a Catholic is a Christian any more than everyone who is a Protestant is a Christian. Insofar as they hold to the gospel points and live in allegiance to King Jesus as described by Bates, he sees them as Christians.

Unfortunately, for those of us on the Protestant side, while we might be the Jews watching the Gentiles get slammed by Paul in Romans 1, that same hammer is going to turn towards us. Bates is going to talk about the problems he sees in Protestantism. We’ll discuss those next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 1

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

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

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

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

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

5. was buried,

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

7. appeared to many witnesses,

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

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

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

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

He then asks these rhetorical questions with answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 2 Part 2

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

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

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

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

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

5. was buried,

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

7. appeared to many witnesses,

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

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

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what does Bates say?

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

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

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

We’ll continue on to chapter three next time.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The kingship of Jesus is so important that Bates says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 16

Who are the strong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So let’s just jump right into it with a quote from this chapter.

The gospel is a word about mercy, all the way down. No one deserves mercy, but we all need it.8 And in the end—in some unfathomable way—God will show mercy to all.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 197). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Possibly, but that doesn’t mean forgiveness. One could say being cut off from the blessed presence of God could be a mercy to those who do not repent of their sins. Is that what we would normally think of with mercy? Probably not. Is Hays embracing universalism here? Who knows?

Yet this is not even the biggest problem in this chapter.

Let’s see what he says about matters like Romans 14 and the strong and the weak. In these chapters, Hays says that the strong are the ones who realize their freedom and think the weak are tight and legalistic. Meanwhile, the weak think that they are the ones that are following God’s commandments.

(It will not escape careful readers of the present book that the first-century conflict between “the strong” and “the weak” has its haunting parallels in the conflicts that divide the church in our time, not least in conflicts over sexual practices.)

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (pp. 199-200). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Ah yes. Way to put yourself on the side of the strong. Would Hays be so quick to do this if the side of the strong was saying, oh, that it’s okay to have sex with children? Now someone who is “weak” like myself would say that this violates the commandments of God. We cannot allow this.

What if we went back 150 years and found ourselves in Mormon Utah? Would the strong be those who allowed for polygamy and the weak are those who said “Scripture is clear that it is one man and one woman. I could just as easily draw parallels in these cases as Hays does here.

Maybe he doesn’t really mean that. Try to show some grace.

Well, sadly, he does.

The “strong” ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to “despise” the “weak,” narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the “weak” ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to “pass judgment” on the sinful laxity of the “strong” who condone same-sex unions.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 203). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So remember Christian, you are in his mind a narrow-minded rule-follower. To go back, what if I put in here people having sex with children or people practicing polygamy. What if I put in here people having sex outside of marriage? What if I put in here people watching pornography?

Or is it just the group that Richard Hays likes that gets a free pass?

And yet, if that is not enough.

Paul makes it clear that he himself is on the side of the “strong,” who believe no food is unclean (Rom 14:14, 15:1)

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 203). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Now Hays is insisting that Paul would be on his side today. Well, considering this is the same Paul who wrote Romans 1, no. Paul would not back down on the moral commands of the Law for a moment.

Richard Hays has done passed on. For all we know, he might have met Paul by now.

I’m sure if so, it could be an interesting conversation.

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

Book Plunge: Irreligion Chapter 11

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

In this chapter, we will see the exact same in-depth research Paulos has given to every other section in this book.

Which is none.

Let’s just dive into it.

As noted, the occasion for these observations is Gibson’s gory movie and an underreported fact about its basis: there is little, if any, external historical evidence for the details presented in the somewhat inconsistent biblical versions of the Crucifixion. Unless we take literally and on faith the New Testament accounts of Jesus written many decades afterward (between 70 and 100 c.e.), we simply don’t know what happened almost two millennia ago, at least in any but the vaguest way. This, of course, is part of the reason that Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, which purports to fill in the details of the story and its aftermath, was No. 1 on Amazon for so long, selling millions of copies to date.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 92). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Of course, there are no scholars here cited.

So let’s see what some say.

“The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward. It need not be discussed further here.” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” Page 17.)

Christians who wanted to proclaim Jesus as messiah would not have invented the notion that he was crucified because his crucifixion created such a scandal. Indeed, the apostle Paul calls it the chief “stumbling block” for Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Where did the tradition come from? It must have actually happened. (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. pages 221-222)

 

Jesus was executed by crucifixion, which was a common method of torture and execution used by the Romans. (Dale Martin, New Testament History and Literature. Page 181)

 

That Jesus was executed because he or someone else was claiming that he was the king of the Jews seems to be historically accurate. (ibid. 186)

 

Jesus’ execution is as historically certain as any ancient event can ever be but what about all those very specific details that fill out the story? (John Dominic Crossan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-d…_b_847504.html)

Also, none of these are Christians.

But hey, reading is hard for people like Paulos. He might have to step outside of his bubble and encounter contrary thought.

Next, he goes on to talk about obvious biological absurdities like the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and the resurrection. He says we will set those aside, but apparently thinks saying they’re biologically absurd is sufficient.

Paulos. I hate to tell you this, but ancient people knew how babies were made and they knew dead people stay dead. You go on though and pat yourself on the head and say you know so much more than they did.

Assume for the moment that compelling historical documents have just come to light establishing the movie’s and the Bible’s contentions that a group of Jews was instrumental in bringing about the death of Jesus; that Pilate, the Roman governor, was benign and ineffectual; and so on. Even if all this were the case, does it not seem hateful, not to mention un-Christian, to blame contemporary Jews?

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 92). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Yes.

I’m sorry. Does Paulos think I think were are to hold all Jews accountable for what some Jews did 2,000 years ago?

He then decides to take on Lewis’s trilemma.

Aside from its alliteration, Lewis’s question is not compelling in the least. Did Jesus really say he was the Son of God? We don’t know. Could he have meant it metaphorically rather than literally? We don’t know. Could he be an amalgam of various real and mythic figures? We don’t even know this. (Such untestable speculations about Jesus and other figures remind me of the classics scholar who published a seminal breakthrough. The Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by Homer, he asserted. They were actually written by another blind Greek poet of the same name.) In any case, there are many ways out of this trilemma that commit one neither to abandoning admiration for (at least a good chunk of ) Jesus’ teaching nor to accepting his divinity.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 94). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Never mind that this is all said and done after Lewis has established his case already for the historical Jesus. Paulos is too busy with an agenda to care about facts. He also says “We don’t know” but I am unsure who this “we” is since Paulos never cites biblical scholars and has apparently never read them.

So again, a chapter where Paulos ignores all the scholarship and expects us to take him seriously.

Don’t.

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

 

Book Plunge: Jesus Contradicted

What do I think of Mike Licona’s latest book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Mike Licona sent me a publisher’s copy of this book. I want to say at the start that I value my relationship with him as my former father-in-law, but I also have a great relationship with Tim McGrew. Some people have asked me to give my thoughts on minimal vs maximal facts. My thoughts are I am not interested. I just want to see the kingdom spread. I can use the minimal facts, but I can also make a case for the Gospels as well. I also think everyone defending the resurrection should be able to defend the Gospels.

I say this at the front because I know there are feuds that take place on Facebook. I want no part of them. Whenever I have been asked publicly or privately what my stance is, I have said the same thing every time and that is not changing.

Also, some of you might be wondering why if I got an early copy, why am I just reviewing it now? Because I’m a seminary student and I have several other books I’m reading. As it stands, I’m just now going through volume 1 of Habermas’s resurrection series.

So looking at Licona’s book, if you have already read Why Are There Differences In The Gospels? not much here will strike you as new. That being said, there are some areas that are more covered here than there are in that one. What comes to mind immediately is a deeper look at inerrancy and a look at the subject of inspiration.

The book is certainly quite readable and that for many people will be a huge plus. Knowing Licona, it was easy to hear his voice throughout as I was reading it and it read more like a conversation to me than anything else. I understand this book was to be a popular level format of the former and with that, he did succeed.

A popular refrain throughout shows up in places like page 18. Sometimes when people are presented with differences in the Gospels, they can think the foundations of their faith are being shaken when really, it is their view of Scripture that is being shaken, and that could be a false one. As I write this, I think of a friend of mine who almost lost his faith. His doubts began when he found out that 1 John 5:7 was not authentic.

From here, Licona looks at views on what order the Gospels were written in, how biographies were written in the time of Jesus, and then to his subject of compositional devices. When it comes to my personal view on them, I think they can account for some differences. On the other hand, I think there are some times where harmonization by other means does make sense. I would not want to say compositional devices are the silver bullet that answers every problem. I also would not say they play no role whatsoever.

Then we get to the topic of inspiration and here, I find the insistence on this puzzling. In the long run, how does it help us? Let’s suppose all of Scripture is believed to be true. Okay. Good. Now we add in it’s inspired.

Alright.

And what have we gained exactly?

I understand that Paul does tell us all Scripture is inspired by God, but could that just be a way of saying it is all true? If we show it is all true, what have we gained? We have spilled much ink on a topic that won’t change how we read the text anyway?

The section on inerrancy was an interesting one. Here, I parted ways a bit more seeing as I much more prefer my own idea of contextualizing inerrancy. I didn’t really understand what Licona was meaning by flexible inerrancy. I also understand he has a lot of this depend on middle-knowledge. As a Thomist, I am somewhat skeptical of middle-knowledge claims to an extent. I also right now do not have the time to look at that topic much more, but if I am skeptical of middle-knowledge, does that mean I have to avoid flexible inerrancy? With contextualizing inerrancy, I don’t have that problem.

I also wish that while Licona does look at the ways ancient biographies were written, I would have liked to have seen a lot said about the social world of the Gospels and the New Testament, particularly how they rely on honor and shame. There were times I was surprised to see the way Licona seemed unaware of this. Consider when he refers to Psalm 137:9 and asks if the Psalmist was mirroring God’s heart when he wrote

Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

If you understand honor and shame, you realize that this was also the way the Israelites were speaking in their captivity. They were being mocked in the land they were in and so they were in essence saying “May what you did to us be done to you!” This is also the way ancient societies could often deal with anger. Trash talk was a way of letting out hostilities before they escalated to something greater. No view of middle-knowledge is needed for this. Also, if a scholar like Licona would look at honor and shame in the Gospels, maybe more people in the apologetics world on the lay level would notice.

So while I do disagree with a number of things said in that chapter, overall, the book is an enjoyable read. If you hesitated to understand his former book, get this one instead. It will be a much better read for you.

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

Final Thoughts on the Paulogia article

So what is there left to say? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The problem many times with so many critiques of the resurrection is that they just say the same things. They treat the whole situation as if they just do some simple thinking, and boom, there’s the answer and no one noticed it for 2,000 years.

Worldviews are rarely like that.

I am in a debate group with Jehovah’s Witnesses and I find it so amazing when they post a verse like it stands alone and think they have disproven the Trinity. Yes. This is a verse that no one in Christian history ever noticed. Lo and behold, the Witnesses came along and showed us the truth that everyone before them overlooked.

Or let’s be fair and use a secular example as well.

Suppose a Christian is arguing with an atheist about evolution and says “Well if people came from apes, then why are there still apes?”

Yes. Absolutely no scientist ever thought about that question at all. With that question, the National Academy of Sciences can now abandon evolution and several dissertations will have to be shredded immediately.

I’m not saying that evolution is false and I’m not saying it’s true. If you read my blog, you know that I do not know and I do not care. I have some questions about it, but I am willing to accept just for the sake of argument. However, if you want to be a Christian and argue against it, God bless you, but know that it will require that you actually seriously study the science and build a strong scientific case.

One statement I often make with atheists is that too many of them live in constant fear of contrary thought. Yes, sadly so do so many Christians. I am always reading at least one book that I disagree with. When I argue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I encourage them to read some of the commentaries out there on the verses they share. They never do.

I am not saying that atheists should not try to mount a case against the resurrection. If anyone thinks it is false, they should. I am saying that too many atheists I encounter seem to give just-so stories that they think are plausible, but really upon close examination do not hold up. Sometimes they explain one facet of the data and sometimes do that quite well, but they ignore the greater parts.

This is also a problem in our time. Look at our presidential debates. “The economy is in shambles. How do you plan to fix it? You have two minutes. Go.”

This question is hugely multi-faceted. It doesn’t matter which candidate you prefer, no one should be able to give a full answer in two minutes, but we have become that soundbite culture. Arguing against the resurrection will likely take a book-length work to give full credibility to it. I’m not saying blog posts can’t be made, but I would suggest if Paulogia wants to do this again, to try to make a blog post on each point entirely.

This is also why when I go through a book to respond to it, I do it over multiple parts. Arguments are serious and they require deep dives. It’s hard, but someone has to do it.

We’ll see what next week brings!

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

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 4

How did the resurrection claims end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we come to Paulogia’s final points. After addressing these, for the final day of the week, I plan on writing about why I do not find these convincing overall. For now, let’s see what Paulogia has to say.

The first is that Greek-speaking Gentiles who never saw Jesus began writing down the stories centuries later. Of course, there is no real interaction with scholarship that places the Gospels early, not that the case Habermas and others build depends on them. You don’t see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses dealt with.

Paulogia does say the case against traditional authorship is ironclad and has a link to that. I understand he can’t argue for everything in a post. At this, I do just want to raise up some questions.

If these were Greek speakers writing about events long before them, why did they not put anything on the lips of Jesus that addressed their concerns. Why is there nothing on the nature of the Lord’s Supper and baptism? Why is there nothing on meat offered to idols? Why is there nothing on what Gentiles have to do to be saved or on circumcision? Why does the term Son of Man show up constantly when it doesn’t in the rest of the New Testament?

If we want to say that the Gospels were written as prophecy fulfilled after the fact, then why is this not done on the topic of the resurrection where one would think you would find the most Old Testament references? You don’t even find a doctrine of the atonement here. Why not?

Also, if we are talking about authorship, why would the church pick the names that they did? Matthew was a tax collector. Surely you could find a better representative among the apostles! Mark had a reputation of being a Momma’s Boy who ran away in the first missionary journey causing a split between the church’s two first great missionaries. Luke was a Gentile who is only briefly mentioned in the epistles. The only one that makes sense is John, and that is the one the church debated! Was it John the elder or John the apostle?

The 11th point is that some Christians were punished for behavior by the Roman government. The problem is we are not told what this was. How about the fact that Christians were also seen as intolerant because they refused to acknowledge other gods? How about Christians had a Messiah who was crucified which was shameful? How about Christianity was an automatic challenge to Caesar by calling Jesus the only Lord?

Paulogia says the church grew because they gave to the poor and were accepting of others. The fact that they refused to worship other gods actually had them be seen as unaccepting of others. As for the poor, that would explain the poor coming to them, but not anyone in elite circles. You could give to the poor if you wanted without having to follow a crucified Messiah.

And then finally, Christianity eventually gained tolerance and then became the official religion. Okay, but how did it get to that point? Paulogia says other points like an empty tomb are later embellishments. One thinks he doth claim victory too quickly. Also, Paulogia never explains why we have this story as I said at the start.

He finally says the ball is in Habermas’s court.

This is likely the closest Paulogia is going to get a return serve as I have no reason to think Habermas will take Paulogia seriously.

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