Category: Uncategorised

Book Plunge: Forged

What are my ultimate thoughts on Ehrman’s book Forged? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I gave some preliminary thoughts on Forged that can be found here. Today, I will be concluding those thoughts.

Ultimately, I was expecting that I’d get a hard-hitting argument. Readers expecting that will be sorely disappointed. This does not stop skeptics from thinking they’ve found a holy grail (er, maybe not holy for a skeptic) to use against Christians. The reality is that Ehrman’s claims are nothing new and they have been known by scholarship for years. Anyone who picks up a good commentary on a book of the Bible can see reasons pro and con and much more detailed.

Of course, for our skeptic friends, so what? The huge majority, such as 99.9% will never bother to pick up such a commentary. After all, these are often by conservative evangelical Christians and we know that they’re always wrong with their looking at the data.

This is simply a genetic fallacy. Could it be that the evangelicals can be right? Why should a skeptic’s argument be seen as objective and the Christian’s as biased? Either bother of them are to be seen as biased or both of them are to be seen as objective.

A major problem again with Ehrman’s work is he really does not argue his case often. For instance, when writing about the Gospel of Peter, he will tell about how it ends with two giants angels coming out of the tomb with a giant Jesus between them and a voice from Heaven saying “Have you preached to them that sleep?” and a talking cross comes out of the tomb and says “Yea.”

You don’t believe that happened? Okay. Neither do I. The question is “Why do we not?” For Ehrman’s position, just stating what the account says is enough. This is obviously something beyond the scope of every day experience and therefore not accurate. My stance is that I don’t believe it because this is the only source that I know of with that claim, it’s late, and it contradicts more reliable sources hopelessly.

Throughout this book, Ehrman does not give an epistemology. How am I to know the epistle to the Galatians of Paul is authentic? You won’t know from reading Ehrman’s book. You will be told scholars agree on this. That’s great, but why exactly do they agree?

There are times Ehrman will give the consensus of scholars supposedly, such as in the idea that certain epistles are inauthentic. In these cases, he is not giving the consensus. He is giving a position that is popular and held by many, but certainly not to the degree of certainty with which people say Paul wrote Galatians.

Other times, Ehrman does not give all the evidence. Why is it said that Luke wrote Acts? There is not mentioned the patristic evidence. Ehrman instead goes to Colossians and looks at the Gentiles there and decides on Luke and then gives reasons why he thinks Luke did not write the account. He does not give reasons why some scholars believe he did nor why some would even date it to before 70 A.D. From Ehrman, you would get the opinion the church mindlessly believed Luke wrote Acts for seemingly the shoddiest of reasons and this started to be seen as false within the past two centuries.

Once again, we get into a great danger then. Several skeptics will learn what scholars think. They’ll be clueless as to why it is that the scholars think this. Instead, they’ll tell Christians, like myself “Well go read your own scholars! They will tell you.” There will be the idea of a cover-up. “You ignorant Christians in the pew don’t know this about the Bible, but the scholars all know this! Obviously, if your minister knows, he’s just not telling you!”

That doesn’t mean that this is a bad thing. On the contrary, as a whole, I think Ehrman writing these and other books is a good thing. I have the exact same opinion I do with books like The Da Vinci Code or with the new atheists. These are bringing the discussion to the public and when all the evidence is shown, I have no doubt which side it will fall on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Some Thoughts on “Forged”

Is Ehrman’s case against biblical authorship sound? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Upon moving here, I went to the library and wanting to invest a good deal in NT studies as well, started ordering several books. Some of which were by Bart Ehrman, and the one I will be starting to deal with today is “Forged.”

Ehrman’s subtitle of the book is about why the biblical authors are not who we think they are. There are some ways this is misleading. To begin with, very little of the book is actually dealing with the Bible. You can read about the Acts of Paul or the Gospel of Peter, but these are not biblical authors.

On the other hand, the majority of it is about the New Testament. Ehrman does speak about forgery in the OT, such as in the case of chapters 40-55 of Isaiah, the book of Daniel, and Ecclesiastes. These are not really argued for, as much as they are footnoted. So far, I have not seen any arguments either against the authorship of the gospels themselves. It has mainly focused on Peter and Paul.

Not that this would damage the case for the resurrection in any way. The books that we need, namely 1 Corinthians and Galatians, to make the case for the resurrection are entirely safe and Ehrman himself would argue that this is Pauline. At this point the question is raised, how does he know?

Ehrman will regularly write about how non-authentic Pauline material is recognized supposedly, but he has not said how the real deal is spotted. Now I do not doubt, for instance, that Paul wrote Galatians, and Ehrman himself says he knows of no one who questions that. What the average layman however, who Ehrman says he wrote this book for (Page 10), wants to know is how we can know that.

When he comes with this question, so far I have found nothing that will give him a good answer. Many of us in apologetics know that when dealing with cults, one technique we teach is to let people know the real so well that they can recognize a fake right away. Ehrman needs some steps to show that we know that we have the real.

Ehrman also writes about verisimilitudes that take place in the NT. These are little messages thrown in that can make the letter look authentic. For instance, in 2 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy to get his books that he left behind and have them brought to him. These can also include personal greetings. These are done to make a letter look authentic.

The problem with saying this is that there is no doubt that a forgery could have such statements in it, but the reality is also that authentic letters can have those as well. One could point to Romans about Paul’s traveling plans in chapter 15 and one could even argue if they wanted to that perhaps the long list in chapter 16 is to make the whole letter look more authentic.

One main explanation for a lot of differences is the use of secretaries. Ehrman makes the case about 2 Thessalonians, which he thinks is a forgery, and how ironic it is since it warns against a forged letter, and how it has a statement in it about Paul writing with his own hand which does not show up in any other letter.

Well geez. I have a scenario in mind that makes this very plausible. Paul is using a secretary, perhaps writing from prison as he has often been said to do. Paul knows about a forger using his own name to try to impersonate Paul so Paul writes them a message through the secretary and at the end says “Let me sign the end in my own distinct handwriting so they will know it was from me.”

This seems perfectly plausible to me and yet Ehrman seems to say that since the letter ends this way and no other one does, that this would go against its authenticity. In fact, when he gets to secretaries, Ehrman indicates we don’t really have examples of long letters like epistles, which would mean we can’t argue conclusively either way, but surprise surprise, Ehrman chooses to argue as if it’s conclusive that secretaries would not be used this way.

I hope to have this one finished by tomorrow so hopefully I can conclude everything, but for now, color me still unpersuaded.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Seeking Preachers

What do we need to see in the pulpit? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Since we’ve moved to a new town, my wife and I have been church shopping as it were. We sometimes go to my parents’ church at night, but they are a different denomination and we’d like to find a church that’s more our own and more fitting to our personal tastes. I will say that when we’ve gone in the evenings, the sermons I have heard are excellent.

So far, we haven’t had as much luck as we’d like and the more I see preachers, the more problems I have with them. I see so many preachers that are far more advanced in years than I am and yet, they don’t seem to have any great biblical knowledge whatsoever. For too many, having a lot of passion excuses one from having good study of the text or exegesis. Exegesis refers to bringing out the ideas that are in the text. For another definition, hermeneutics refers to the art of interpretation.

Let’s get some requirements for ministers then. First off, everyone in the pulpit ministry if at all possible should seek to avail themselves of higher education. That would mean going to Bible College and/or Seminary. For some in small churches, that might not be feasible. If you cannot do that, you should at least be making use of your local library and seeking to learn as much as you can about the Bible and Christianity.

A good minister should also seek to learn knowledge in other areas. He needs to be conversant when talking to different people. He cannot be a specialist in everything, but he should at least know someone in an area if he needs a specialist.

For instance, my area is apologetics. I realize that not every minister can focus on apologetics. That’s fine. When the need comes up however, he should know at least one person, though ideally more would be better, who can be the apologetics expert in the congregation.

Another example would be counseling. Many ministers will often specialize in counseling. As with apologetics, every minister should have some skill in both areas. The minister can refer to people who are better at counseling than he, maybe not even someone in the congregation, but considering his position will imply to many people that he has such knowledge, he should learn some basics at least.

When it comes to preaching, if there is something all preachers must learn to do, it is to actually preach the text. I have seen too many preachers that start out with an idea, and want to use the text of Scripture as a tangent to launch their own message. This is not good hermeneutics or good preaching.

Now there are times a minister will have an idea on a biblical theme and seek the best text. For instance, let us suppose a minister wants to do a sermon on forgiveness. He can then look through and decide what text that he thinks will be the best one to use on forgiveness.

However, when the preacher does not preach the text, he does two great harms to the congregation. First off, he does not use the text in its proper sense and gives the people an idea from the text that the text never intended them to have. Second, in giving a false idea of what the text means, he does not give the audience the true meaning of the text that God desires for the people and robs them of that.

If this requires that the minister learn the biblical languages, then he should seek to do that. The minister should be willing to look at various commentaries at least. Too many ministers have said that they will just let the Holy Spirit tell them what the text means, which, surprise surprise, is usually exactly what they thought the text meant prior! A minister should not use the Holy Spirit as an excuse for his lack of ability or will to study the text.

A minister should also have passion for what he does, but that does not mean that he has only passion. A minister with just passion will be prone to falling when his emotions leave him and will do damage not just to himself but to a congregation that depends on him. A minister that is solely intellectual without caring will not be able to care for his congregation.

Another point I wish to share is that too many preachers seem to have some weak ego where they want their congregation to amen them regularly. While it can be fine to want to see that happen, do not ask for that. It reeks of a need for validation in your ideas. If you make a good point in a sermon, expect someone to acknowledge that.

Our churches need to be stronger and our ministers need to be prepared for that. Too many churches are sitting ducks for the rampant skepticism in our age, or else if they are not, they have so withdrawn into themselves that they are no threat to the world around them. Either way, they are not serving the purpose God intended for the church.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Objectivization of Women

Are women better off in our society? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last night while watching TV, my wife and I came across a sitcom we hadn’t seen before but within a few minutes, I saw the usual problem I see in many sitcoms today. The whole idea was one character had been introduced to some women and was trying to do everything he could to get them to sleep with him.

At this point, I told my wife that it was really sorrowful how our society has lowered to seeing women as nothing but sex objects. A few moments passed before I added a second point that I think it’s even sadder that the women themselves in these sitcoms seem to often have the same attitude and want nothing more than to immediately get naked for the guy and every woman is instantly available.

Let’s start out with some clear points on how sex is from a Christian perspective. Sex is something that is made to be enjoyable. A husband and wife are to thoroughly enjoy the passionate love of one another. Both are intended to get pleasure from the act. While it is normally seen that men have the highest libidos, women too can have libidos. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting sex for physical pleasure any more than there is a man wanting to have sex to get some emotional closeness.

But in all of this, men and women are not just meant to be used for their bodies. A man is not to approach a woman solely for sexual pleasure and it is a shame that this can happen in marriages even where a man wants to have his wife around so he can get in his kicks and then when he’s done with her, he is immediately absent, as if he just got out a movie, book, or video game, and after he was done playing, put it away again.

A woman meanwhile is to honor her husband sexually as well and the great danger for women is that sex can be used to get something someone wants. In both cases, neither party is focusing on the joy of the other. There is nothing wrong with finding one’s own joy, but the true lover wants when done to know that he or she has done their part to please the spouse.

As I was thinking about this, I thought about shows I used to watch. Consider for instance, the Mary Tyler Moore show. This was a show about a woman rising up in the world seeking to take her piece of the pie. Nudity did not show up on the show. There was no doubt about how many men around Mary wanted her, but they would not have been as overt as they are today. The woman was still respected and you had to win her heart and treat her honorably. Mary was a woman who was going somewhere and a man would have to rise to the occasion in order to be worthy of her.

Meanwhile, on most sitcoms today, the woman meets the man and immediately she wants to take him back home and sleep with him. There is hardly any thought of STD’s, unplanned pregnancy, family commitments, or values of any kind, other than the value to have a lot of fun.

With that is gone any idea that sex could mean something greater than just a pleasurable time. It could also be a builder of commitment between two people who have formed a covenant with each other. It could be an ever-increasing way of actually getting to know the other person. For all we know, maybe it just might be that when you stay married to one person for life, you get to know that person exceedingly well.

Keep in mind that all this is happening in a society that is supposed to have got past the oppression of women that supposedly took place in its Christian heyday. Now we are secular and we have thrown off the shackles of the past. We have embraced abortion and thus given women control over their own bodies. Truly, women are free today.

And yet, for all their freedom, they seem to be treated as objects just for the purpose of sex. Is this an upwards move? Is this any more about launching careers or being incredible mothers? Is the highest aspiration a woman can reach in this life that of giving a man a really good time in bed?

This also has an effect on the way men are. Men can grow to expect women to always want sex. Women can grow to expect that men want nothing but sex. For the Christian, sex is an important aspect of a woman, but her greatest good is not in the pleasure of men but in the pleasure of God. The opposite is true for a man. A man’s greatest good is not in pleasing the woman, but in pleasing God.

Yet this is supposed to be the age where we are free from the shackles of religion that treated women as objects. Go look at how several skeptics speak of how women are treated in the Bible. Well now you have supposedly broken free of that and what can I see regularly on TV? Women being treated as objects of sexual pleasure on TV and no other redeeming factors are mentioned. The important part of a woman on the show is what her body looks like and how good she is in bed.

As a Christian man and as a Christian husband, I do believe women are better than that. In fact, the danger for us with lust is that we will lower our wife by thinking the other woman might be “better” and in doing so, we won’t just lower our wives, but we’ll lower all women by treating that as the standard. On the other hand, if a man wants to truly love the female species, the best way he can do that is by honoring his wife and forsaking all others.

And as a married man, I have indeed made a serious commitment that I intend to honor till death do us part. Part of that commitment is that I am to have sex with no one else but my wife. I have made it a point to honor my wife sexually so much that she thinks I can be paranoid around other women because I do not want to risk giving off a wrong idea or adding an image to the rolodex that men have in their heads.

What would happen on a sitcom if a woman in response to the invitation to sleep with the leading male actor said “No. I won’t. You have to marry me first. I just believe that sex is to be reserved for marriage.” Chances are in our society, she would be immediately a prude and part of the lead’s task then would be to rid her of this concept.

Let us hope that our society will move past this stage where instead of reaching maturity, we are acting rather immature and realize the sacredness of sex and the sacredness of one another. If you ask the question “Is nothing sacred?” in a scheme without God, the answer has to be “No.” In the Christian system, the answer is all that is is sacred. The more something is like God, the more sacred it is, and thus humanity and our sexuality are incredibly sacred. Let us not treat them as cheap.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

It’s Easter. So what?

Does the resurrection make that big of a deal? Let’s talk about it today on Deeper Waters.

Every apologist and their mother today is writing about how we know the resurrection happened I am sure. That is an important topic. That is a topic I have written on. That is something I am not going to write about today. Instead, I would like to not ask the question of “Did Jesus rise?” but rather “Why did Jesus rise?”

I got the idea of doing this when a Facebook group I’m a part of had the question asked of “If Jesus’s death was a sacrifice, why did he stay dead for such a short time?”

The problem is that one assumes that unless a condition one enters is permanent, there is no sacrifice. Let us take an example such as surrogate motherhood. I am not interested in discussing the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the action, but using it as an example. If one woman offers her body to raise a baby for a woman who can’t for some reason, that woman will not stay permanently pregnant, but do we deny that she has made some sort of sacrifice? 

So at the start, I consider the objection to be flawed. We could ask how long did Jesus have to stay dead before it was a sacrifice? Would it have been a week? three weeks? A year? A decade? Exactly how long? What would be the criteria whereby one could even establish that such an event was at that point a true sacrifice?

Let us now suppose that we ask if there is any relevance to the fact that Christ came back and for that, we can ask why is it that nothing else came back. Why is it that when an animal was sacrificed, that it never came back. Why is it that when the ancients sacrificed their own infants, that those infants never came back. Why?

The answer is that all of those were subject to a system of death and decay. They were trapped in the circle and by their own power could not escape the circle. They were included in what is called the curse in Genesis 3 and part of the whole system described in Romans 8, particularly in verses 18-27.

Now we have Jesus here who is outside of the system due to being fully God as well as being fully man, but since He is fully man, He is able to enter the system as well and take it on. The hypothesis I am wanting to put forward is that Jesus came to undo the damage done to the creation due to sin. Let us call that force He took on “Uncreation.”

So in the God-Man, creation and uncreation together meet and face off. The question is, which is going to be stronger? Can the creator take on Himself that which was unleashed on His creation? Can He face the intruder and win? Keep in mind throughout the gospels, that Jesus speaks of going and fighting against the devil. This is not an accidental inclusion in the gospels. This was the reason for His mission. This was not just the redemption of our souls, but the redemption of the cosmos.

Jesus’s sacrifice was not about how long He remained dead, but more about what His death did. Why did He stay dead until Sunday? There’s a powerful statement there due to the creation narratives. Jesus dies on the sixth day of the week, the day that is about the creation of man. Jesus stays dead on the seventh day, the day that God rested. Jesus arose on Sunday, the start of the new week, to show that Jesus is the start of the new creation.

Because Jesus took on uncreation, He is able to restore the creation. Think of the analogy that is used in “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.” It is the counter of Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time by Deeper Magic from the Dawn of Time. Jesus being a man could enter and be put subject to the rules of the creation as a man. Jesus being divine however and fully God could take on all of that and defeat it. Jesus was not inherently bound by the system. Jesus could reach in from outside the circle and set us all free and Jesus did just that.

Thus, it is not just that Jesus gives us eternal life. Is it that He brings a Kingdom we can Have life in. It’s not just that He forgives our sin, but that He renders sin powerless. It’s not just that we can be freed from death itself one day, but that death itself will be bound. It’s not that He has made the way for us to go to Heaven, but that He has made the way for Heaven to come to us.

The resurrection is the ultimate reversal. It is the ultimate healing to all of the cosmos and the message of the gospel is to join in this redemption as Jesus brings it about through his rule. 

Yes. He is risen and thank God He is! We have hope not just of life, but hope of everything else as well because He is risen.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Deeper Waters: Where We’ve Been. Where We’re Going.

Where have you been? Where are you going? Today we will discuss this on Deeper Waters.

Some of you might have been worried seeing as this blog hasn’t been updated in awhile. Did something happen to me? Well in a sense, yes. There is obviously a reason why I haven’t been posting. Today, I want to discuss where we’ve been, what changes have happened recently, and what this means for the future.

This blog was started a few years ago after reading Hugh Hewitt’s book “Blog.” It was never my intention to have this be just a blog. I hope to sometime soon have a full web site up and be active in other areas of ministry. For now, writing is a passion and something I plan to do regularly.

When I started, I lived in Knoxville, but I soon moved to Charlotte in order to pursue a degree at Southern Evangelical Seminary. After the controversy over Geisler’s actions towards Mike Licona last year, I decided that it was also time for me to move on and I’m now looking at the University of Pretoria to attain my Master’s.

While in Charlotte, I did through Gary Habermas meet Licona’s daughter and our relationship very quickly blossomed into a romantic one with my roommate at the time knowing that before too long, they’d have to book a wedding chapel, and indeed they did. We were married within a year’s time.

Before the wedding, I had also been talking with J.P. Holding of Tektonics. J.P. and I have had a long friendship over the years, even with my staying at his home when a friend of mine who lived near his area was getting married. J.P. and I had worked together often on TheologyWeb.com where we still do debates together and where I’m a department head. As it stands, when we had the new update to the site, shortly after my wedding, there was a section called “Deeper Waters” alongside Tektonics.

Now, I am J.P.’s ministry partner. Our work together continues but there are still other areas of work. Notably also, I am with Ratio Christi now as their social media and communications expert. I am in charge of the Issues and Answers chapter, which is a purely internet ministry, although I do hope to have speaking engagements from time to time.

While I was in Charlotte, we were planning to move back to Knoxville. My grandmother had passed away in November of 2010 and we found out in Christmas of 2011 that her old house was willed to among other people, myself. My wife wanted a good country environment where she could have a garden and be close to my family for whenever the time comes that we decide to expand the family. (A decision that I can think of several who would say “Please have mercy on us and don’t bring someone else like yourself into the world.”)

Unfortunately, I happened to lose my job in February and we would have no way to pay the rent. We decided then that it was time to just pack up and head back here. All of my ministry positions are still secure seeing as they’re online ones. I’m also working with Ratio Christi at UT of Knoxville. Furthermore, I plan on going to a Reasonable Faith meeting tonight so we’ll see where that goes from here.

In addition, I hope to be working on some books. I don’t want to say too much about what they’re about however, but the ones in closest confidence to me know. Rest assured that our ministry is still going strong. Of course, we could still use your support in donations and those made through Ratio Christi are tax-deductible.

Also, several of you comment on the date of the blogs and such. That is for my Mrs. to deal with as I know nothing about this kind of thing. I would also like to put up a button sometime on the side that links to my Amazon wish lists. (Yes. There are two. The first one had too many books in it and I had to make a new one)

If anyone else has any ideas on what they’d like to see, feel free to let me know. I am open to many suggestions. I cannot do everything, but I can at least listen. Hopefully tomorrow, we’ll return to our regular schedule.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Information on donating through Ratio Christi can be found here

Reason Rally: Westboro Baptist

Wait. I thought they didn’t want Christians. Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Remember how our good friend P.Z. was complaining about Christians showing up at the Reason Rally. Apparently, he wasn’t specific enough. The invitation was sent by Jim Klawon who is the Deputy Vice-President of Administration of the National Atheist Party.

So it’s okay for Christians to attend, provided it’s the Christians that the Reason Rally wants to attend. This is certainly news. Now the next question to ask is why would the Reason Rally want to have a group like Westboro Baptist attend the Reason Rally?

Do you know about Westboro Baptist? That’s the group that shows up at funerals of dead soldiers from wars here in America and pickets them. They’re the ones that march around with the signs that say “God hates fags.” They’re a group led by Fred Phelps and his family.

This is quite an odd happening, but sadly understandable. One would think that those who are presenting themselves as champions of reason would in fact want to celebrate the Christians advocating reason coming to the Reason Rally. They would want to proudly announce to the world “Yes. Ratio Christi is trying to send some evangelicals here to dialogue with us since they’re so sure we’re wrong. Well we’re certainly going to be able to deal with them. We want them to send as many as they can because we want to demonstrate to everyone that we are indeed the champions of reason.”

It’s hard to see this and not think about how Dawkins was invited by a number of groups, Christian and non-Christian, to have a debate with William Lane Craig and refused. It is amazing that while he is too busy to do that, he certainly does have time to debate with O’Reilly.

The most ironic thing about this is that I believe that these two groups have much more in common than they realize. They are just opposite sides of the same coin. Both of them are fully fundamentalist in their approach and both of them are looking to be as outspoken as possible and get noticed by the media for what they do.

The reason I believe that the Westboro group has been invited is to set up a contrast, but that contrast does not work. The Rally might want to paint Westboro as representative of all Christians, but upon what basis? Is it because they call themselves Christians? Would it work if I said Stalin was an atheist and wanted to say then that all atheists were just like Stalin and his atheist followers?

The Rally will already be a major PR disaster and in fact, this is only going to make it worse. Once again, it is my hope that more and more atheists will attend the Rally. I also hope that more Christians will be there to demonstrate what true reason is all about. If atheists want to demonstrate that their side is reasonable, invite the strongest opponents and let that be publicly shown.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally: True Reason

Is there a response to be brought to the Reason Rally? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Lately, I’ve been presenting my own defenses against the unreason that will take place at the rally. Today, I do not have to do that. Instead, I am going to be writing about a small ebook that has been put together for the purposes of giving a response to those at the Reason Rally.

To be fair, I was not able to do an exhaustive reading of the work. As it stands, my family is in the process of preparing to move and as I’m busy packing boxes and running out and getting supplies to do that and making arrangements and still trying to make time for my wife and my own personal reading, it can be difficult to do this. I did briefly examine the document to see where it was going overall and what I thought.

I was pleased to see first off that a response has been put out and it is a response emphasizing reason. I do agree that the new atheists give the implication that if one is a disbeliever in God, then one is ipso facto automatically reasonable. The reality is I’ve met far too many who are atheists who are in fact quite unreasonable.

I was also pleased to see that several issues were addressed in the work. There were sections that could be found on faith and science as well as sections on the problem of evil, the question of slavery, and the conquest of the Canaanites. Many will be pleased to see that someone of the caliber of Craig in fact has added his work to this volume.

For that, I do commend the authors. I believe this is a fine step forward in the dialogue unlike what we usually see from the new atheist side. The writers have actually taken what the new atheists have said and they have been in dialogue with it, which is different from the way new atheists handle evangelical works.

I would have however liked to have seen more arguments that I think get to the heart of the issue. I do not think it’s always best to argue against the conclusions of the new atheists but rather their methodology. What is their approach to study and research?

Here at Deeper Waters, for instance, I have already received questions about the Bible implying that I interpret it arbitrarily or depend on the Holy Spirit. The Bible is treated like an all-or-nothing game. Either it’s all literal and absurd, or it’s all metaphorical and thus irrelevant.

What would help is to have a section on how to read not just the Bible, but any piece of literature. Why? The way one reads the Bible is really the exact same way. It can only be different by degree due to difference in time, place, culture, and language. This would be akin to learning how to read Plutarch, Aristotle, or Sophocles.

If we could get past the hermeneutical question, I believe that would also deal with many other objections. The first question to ask is if the text really has any meaning. If it does, then what does it take to get to that meaning? Is it hard some times? Yep. That’s why there’s differences of opinion. If one wants truth, one will work at it.

This also comes with the study of historiography. I was pleased to see a chapter on the reliability of the NT, but i do not recall seeing in there a central question. Many new atheists deny even the existence of a historical Jesus. Forget denying the miracles and the resurrection, which while false is more understandable. These believe that the whole story is a myth from start to finish.

Unfortunately, people who study historiography don’t take this seriously. Even Bart Ehrman is coming out with a book this month to argue that Jesus existed, probably because too many atheists have been asking him this question and some have even listed him as a source.

What needs to be done then is to show how history is to be properly done and this not in a way going all for or all against the events known as miracles. An atheist can still be an atheist while being open to miracles. He doesn’t have to have a dogmatic stance against them. Besides, we all know atheists don’t like dogma. Right?

As for the parts on evolution, I more and more think that the argument should not go on whether evolution is true or false, but rather evolution truly does make God superfluous. I was pleased to see that Tom Gilson in the work realizes that evolution and theism could both be true. Indeed, that is the glaring problem of Dawkins’s “The Blind Watchmaker.” I could grant all the evidence for evolution and that would still be a problem.

Thus, we do need to indeed go after the physics in studying what comes next, metaphysics. We need to establish our arguments on metaphysical reasoning. This is actually the version of the Kalam that I do consider the strongest. Many atheists think when I present Kalam that I’m presenting Craig’s formulation of it. Not at all. No offense to Craig. Craig I find to be a great mind and I’m glad he’s on our side, but I do not agree with all of his stances. I think the way it is for him is that you have to depend on the science largely to demonstrate that Kalam. Since I think science is inductive at best, I prefer to rely on the metaphysical which I consider to be deductive.

It is my concern that when we keep it where it is, we are letting the other side set the rules and then they will ask for scientific evidence. One cannot really do that. God is not in the subject matter of science since God by definition is not material. We need to start with the question of if science is the final arbiter of truth. To be fair, this is done in the book. While many atheists deny scientism with their hearts, with their lips they give full credit to it. It is hard to take their denial seriously when they keep asking for scientific evidence for everything.

These concerns do not go against the overall goodness. I also show these concerns to let atheists know something else. We have this great freedom in Christianity. We can think freely and disagree with one another. I can mention what is positive and what is negative without marrying my view to someone else. I don’t even agree with my own ministry partner on everything.

For those who are interested in the book, feel free to go to TrueReason.org and ask about it. A link is included at the bottom.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

http://truereason.org/

Reason Rally: Outrage!

Why is it that Unreasonables are so often emotional? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Lately I’ve been dialoguing on several fronts with atheists concerning the Reason Rally and one method of argumentation is to speak of something that angers the atheist in the Bible and then the argument is formed.

Premise: X occurs in the Bible.
Premise: I don’t like X.
Conclusion: God does not exist.

Some might think this is simplistic, but it seems that for many, if you just mention the incident of Elisha and the two bears, well that’s enough. The whole thing can be thrown out the window because of that and we can rest assured that Christianity is not true because the holy book contains something distasteful to us in it.

This gets us into what I wrote about last time. Most atheists do not bother to understand the Bible but only come with a superficial reading and act like that destroys all of it. Note I said most. There are some exceptions that are actually capable of dialoguing on the subject. For most, the story ends with something that is not liked and that is the end of it.

If you agree with them that it is distasteful, well you need to come out of your God belief because you would not condone it at all unless God did it. If you seek to explain the passage in question, well it’s obvious that you really believe that the whole thing is horrid and you’re just trying to justify that tension that you feel in your own mind.

Darned if you do. Darned if you don’t.

There is no concept that this book was written in a different time, place, and culture. There is no idea that if God exists, then we should not really expect Him to be just like us and if He is the Lord of all the universe, He does have that authority to take lives as He is the giver and sustainer of all life and He does not owe anyone their life, or anything else for that matter.

Now I am not going to write out a defense of every single event in the Bible. I have written about many elsewhere and will be glad to pull up anything I have written if need be. I mainly want to counter the basic thrust that I see throughout the whole argument. It is the idea that because something is distasteful or seen as morally evil, then obviously the Bible is not the Word of God.

It’s not really that obvious. It could be many times we do not understand something properly and when that happens, we need to improve our understanding. If we are right, further research will help to elucidate that. If we are wrong, further study will do the same.

Also, it could be for the sake of argument that the Bible is not the Word of God and there is no justification for some of these things. This is not my stance, but it’s a possible stance. So what? There are Christians who do have this view and do believe that there is still enough evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. The idea that the Bible must be Inerrant in all that it teaches in order to be true in anything is a fundamentalist idea. It is that for both fundy atheists and fundy Christians. Keep in mind I do hold to Inerrancy, but if Inerrancy is wrong, I’m not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Outrage is just outrage. Being angered about something does not make it wrong. Not liking something does not make it wrong. For that, you actually need to dialogue and seek to understand the situation. Christians in dialogue should realize that if an atheist just wants to rant about something and not dialogue, well that’s how it’s going to be, and while that aspect can’t be changed about them unless they want to, one can usually sit back and explain everything and trust the audience watching sees which side is presenting the more rational presentation.

Yet doesn’t it seem odd that those who claim to rely so much on reason consistently have an appeal to emotion with a conclusion that does not follow?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Reason Rally: Tips for Dialogue

Can some help be given for the debates at Reason Rally? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’d like today’s post to be about helping with the dialogue what will go on at Reason Rally. However, in the interest of fairness, I think the Christians that I know that are able to go are very well equipped and I want to make sure the other side has some information to even things out on how they can have better dialogues.

First, please keep in mind that many of us read books and we prefer books that don’t have the word “Illustrated” on the cover. This also means that you will need to know about the books that we read. It also means that you will need to have more than a google search. In this area, never ever refer to Wikipedia. We know you treat it seriously, but we don’t.

Second, keep in mind that saying dead people coming back to life is absurd doesn’t faze us. That’s something from your worldview, and if there is no God, then we agree that it is absurd. You need to remember that we do not share that worldview and it does no good to say our worldview is wrong because it has things in it that are absurd to your worldview.

Third, avoid using the word faith to refer to believing something without evidence. We know that you believe that this is the definition of faith even though you have no evidence that any biblical writer intended the word faith to mean that. When you use faith and treat is as if we believe things without evidence, it leads us to further be certain of our position that you’re clueless.

Fourth, keep in mind that the scientific method is great for science, but not for everything else, and that verificationism has been a dead movement for a number of decades now. We know you are behind on the times on this, but that is what happens when there is no study done in philosophical matters due to science becoming the way, the truth, and the life.

Fifth, we are well-read with various opinions on matters that are secondary. Do not assume that we all believe in a 6000 year-old Earth or that we all interpret every biblical passage literally or that we all live and die on the words of William Lane Craig. Yes. We know that you treat Pope Dawkins that way, but we do not treat Craig that way. You might be surprised to know that at times, some of us actually disagree with him. We don’t blindly accept someone because they’re a theist, which is different from what we see from the atheist side of blindly accepting someone because they’re an atheist.

Sixth, when it comes to Craig, for those of us who do believe in some of his arguments, just saying “Craig has been refuted” or “Craig is a proven liar” or something like that. That means no more to us than if we come to you and just say “Dawkins has been refuted” without an argument.

Seventh, don’t assume that just because you believe you have proven evolution in a dialogue that every argument for God’s existence becomes irrelevant. Believe it or not, some of us actually have no problem with evolutionary theory and some of us realize that God’s existence is not based on filling a function alone.

Eighth, never say that Jesus never existed. When you do that, we automatically know that you are not worth taking seriously. Believe it or not, many atheists can accept that Jesus existed as a historical person and go on to lead lives that they find entirely consistent with atheism. Ask your doctor if it will work for you.

Ninth, when referring to books, be sure that you have read some of ours. This might sound strange to you, but we actually like to read books by atheists. It would be appreciative if you would read books by Christians. Note we mean intellectual Christians. “Your Best Life Now” doesn’t count.

Tenth, don’t assume that Ray Comfort and Josh McDowell are the peak of Christian apologetics. Some of us actually prefer the older arguments. We want to know if you can deal with Augustinian or Thomistic thought. Sure, we read moderns. But they’re just standing on the shoulders of giants.

Eleventh, as soon as you mention fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, or anything similar, we already know to discount you. Believe it or not, using words like this are not synonymous with actually having an argument. You need to show that any such analogy would work and do so without assuming your worldview.

Twelfth, learn to critically examine your own authorities. Believe it or not, Dawkins can be wrong about some things and he actually is not an authority in philosophy, theology, or biblical studies. Personally, you should seek to move away from Dawkins if you want to have respect as an atheist. Sadly enough, your showing up at the Reason Rally is probably going to be an indication that you’re already too far gone in fundamentalist thinking.

This is a lot, but I do realize that you really need help in these dialogues and I seek to be fair. Following steps like this could lead to you coming to the dialogue with an informed opinion instead of just rants, and we would all appreciate that much more.

In Christ,
Nick Peters