Prophets On Eternal Progression

What do Mormon Prophets say? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

By prophets, I don’t mean biblical prophets. I mean Mormon prophets. These are the people that speak authoritatively for the church and give the new revelation that is coming down.  Many people might not know that Mormons have a doctrine called eternal progression. In the words of one of their presidents, Lorenzo Snow

“As man is, God once was.
As God is, man may become.”

This isn’t like the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, which even Protestants can accept. This is saying something that would be blasphemous to the position of theosis. This is one of the great exaltations of man and one of the great lowerings of God. It means that God literally was once just an ordinary man and He progressed to Godhood and now we are His creation and one day we will progress to His level. Not only that, He is still progressing.

The source of these quotes is a book by a Mormon named Daniel Ludlow. The book is called Latter-Day Prophets Speak, which is a great source of Mormon claims. Let’s take a look at a small sample of some of these claims.

If I improve upon what the Lord has given me , and continue to improve , I shall become like those who have gone before me ; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield ; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me . What do we want more ? I shall be just like every other man – have all that I can , in my capacity , comprehend and manage . – Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses 6 : 276 , August 28 , 1852
We understand that we are to be made kings and priests unto God ; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family , and if I have many sons , I shall become the father of ready fathers , for they will have sons , and their sons will have sons , and so on , from generation to generation , and , in this way , I may become the father of many fathers , or the king of ready kings . This will constitute every man a prince , king , lord , or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.In this way we can become King of kings , the Lord of lords , or , Father of fathers , or Prince of princes , and this is the only course , for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you . – Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses 8 : 265 – 266 , July 14 , 1855 76
MEN , AS GODS , SHALL ORGANIZE NEW WORLDSI expect , if … faithful , … that we shah see the time … that we shall know how to prepare to organize an earth like this – know how to prepare that earth , how to redeem it , how to sanctify it , and how to glorify it , with those who live upon it who hearken to our counsels.The Father and the Son have attained to this point already ; I am on the way , and so are you , and every faithful servant Of God … After men have got their exaltations and their crowns – have become Gods , even the sons of God – are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords , they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit ; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world . Power is then given to them to organize the elements , and then commence the organization of tabernacles . How can they do it ? Have they to go to that earth ? Yes , an Adam will have to go there , and he cannot do without Eve ; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation , and they will go into the garden , and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world , until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them , according to the established laws , to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.This is the key for you . The faithful will become Gods , even the sons of God . – Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses 6 : 274 – 275 , August 28 , 1852
We shall go on from one step to another , reaching forth into the eternities until we become like the Gods , and shall be able to frame for ourselves , by the behest and command of the Almighty . All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods , even the sons of God , will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others . – Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses 17 : 143 , July 19 , 1874
If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further , the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind . God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge , power , and dominion , and will do so , worlds without end . It is just so with us . – Wilford Woodruff , Journal of Discourses 6 : 120 , December 6 , 1857
I will fully grant that Mormons are good and kind people when they come to your door. They are delightful. Many of you would love to have Mormons for neighbors. However, there is still the reality that our righteousness is as filthy rags.
Honestly, it could be that many missionaries that come to your door might not know this. I’m not sure. Don’t presume that they do. However, this is the same lie that comes in the Garden of Eden that led to the fall of man. It’s philosophically incoherent and impossible, but anti-biblical and theologically corrupt.
I knew about this doctrine already and I knew the defenses for it, but when I read these quotes, I realized I was reading something truly evil. Again, none of this is said to disparage the Mormons as people. I love them greatly and I want to see them come to the true gospel where God is infinitely greater than you are and you will never be as He is. Still, this God far greater than you reaches down in love to you and seeks to make you holy and pure. He wants to make you a reflection of Him in some sense still.
I definitely thus far recommend this book to people who want to reach Mormons. Since they came to see me even while living on a seminary campus and visiting the seminary, I have been even more regularly reading material on Mormonism. It is a fascinating belief system in so many ways and it’s a shame to see so many Mormons falling for a false Jesus.
Let’s give them the real one.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

How Do Miserable Christians Worship?

Is the average worship service the balm of Gilead?

I’m reading through Carl Trueman’s Minority Report which is a series of essays he has written. If you have not read Trueman, you need to read Trueman. He is one of the most brilliant writers of our age I have read. Anyway, today’s essay was about authenticity and he talked about it being based on one he wrote called “What Do Miserable Christians Sing?” and it has been his most appreciated piece ever judging by the replies he has got.

After all, if you go to your modern worship service, the majority of worship songs are happy songs. They’re meant to invite you into the joy of the Lord. I’m not saying that’s always wrong, but let’s remember some people are coming to church and they’re not happy. They’re actually miserable.

For me, being a divorced Christian in the modern church setting is hard. It’s hard to be in the community of believers when your personal community was torn to shreds. It’s hard when you hear people who are supposed to be in your age group or even younger talking about everything going on with their children and their spouses and you think about what you have lost.

Then you go into a worship service and the songs are all about how thankful you are and the joy you have in Jesus. It’s really hard to sing those songs and be authentic. You would really like to experience that, but you can’t. Not right now at least.

Are there songs for miserable Christians?

Yes. They’re called the Psalms.

By all means, not all of them are, but a number of them are lament Psalms and they were just as much part of worship as praise ones. They are no less part of Scripture than worship Psalms. God wanted them to be in the Bible just like He wanted joyous Psalms to be in there.

God wants us to have hymns of misery.

The Bible assumes sometimes we will be miserable. This isn’t just in the Old Testament. It’s in the New. Jesus is the man of sorrows, familiar with suffering. Paul says about death that we mourn, but not like those who have no hope. He also says to mourn with those who mourn.

By the way, sometimes, that is extremely helpful.

We can fault Job’s friends for what they did, and we should, but they did one thing right definitely. What was that? For the first part of their visit with him, they sat with him. They were silent. They were just there.

Sometimes, you may think you need to cheer up someone who is miserable, but sometimes, what they really want is not so much to be cheered up. They just want to be heard. They want to be understood. They don’t want a solution. They just want a friend.

I still remember one of the best sayings I got in my divorce. I was told, “Today sucks. Tomorrow will also suck, but it will suck a little bit less.” Of course, that moves in fluctuations. Sometimes, it hurts more than it did yesterday, but the general principle is sound.

Sometimes you will come to church miserable, and that is fine. Sometimes you will leave that way, and that is fine. If anything, we need to give a place for people to express misery at church. Those who are miserable can push the community away while at the same time wanting the community.

God gave Scripture to express negative emotions just as much as happy ones, and there’s a place for both in worship. Let us remember that God’s goal is not to give us temporary happiness. His ultimate goal is our holiness, and we will pass through some unhappiness in that.

Sing a song of misery if you need to.

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

No. I Don’t Care About Pagan Origins.

Does where it came from really matter? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“But Halloween is from paganism and is rooted in Samhain.”

So this the kind of conversation I had yesterday. First off, I said that point is highly debatable. The reality is that there have been more scholarly works written about Buffy The Vampire Slayer than about Halloween. Unfortunately, much of what you see on the internet is just nonsense. I really recommend the book Unmasking Halloween which is the best book I have read on this topic thus far.

So the first point I made was to dispute the Samhain connection. Well, that wasn’t going well as they didn’t want to hear any of it, so I tried another technique which I still stand by, but as expected, didn’t go well. I said that for the sake of argument, I am going to grant everything said about Halloween.

Then here’s what I say even if we grant that it fully came from the pagans and they did evil practices on this day.

So what?

I mean that. Who cares?

Let’s use one example I have heard used before. Wedding rings. There have been some claims I have heard that these are pagan in origin. Now let’s suppose I was married again and you were able to convince me that the rings that we exchange at our wedding are entirely rooted in paganism.

What would I do in response?

Absolutely nothing.

Why? Because when I put a wedding ring on a woman’s finger, I am not doing it to honor a pagan deity. I am doing it to honor my God and my wife. I am doing it as a symbol of my love for her and as a sign to the rest of the world that we are husband and wife.

I happen to believe in a God who redeems not just people, but redeems all of reality. This God could take something that was a symbol rooted in pagan tradition and change it so it becomes a symbol of His holiness and covenant and a representation of Christian teachings. God is in the business of transforming everything.

So what about Halloween? No one is worshiping the devil when they put on a costume and go door-to-door or take their children door-to-door and ask for candy. If anything, this would be seen as a victory. We took a day allegedly intended for evil, and we turned it into a day where kids travel the streets and get candy.

Not only this, but not everything in paganism was wicked and evil. We get our intellectual ways of thinking from the Greeks. We get our legal system from the Romans. We got Algebra from the Muslims. It would be a great loss to lose everything that came to us from the pagans.

Christians. Don’t be scared when someone says something is pagan in origin. First, you can investigate and see if it’s true. Odds are, it really isn’t. Second, even if it isn’t, so what? Do you do it to honor a pagan deity? No. You do it to honor Jesus. The one who honors a day does so to the Lord as Paul says.

Happy Halloween!

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

Just Give A Good Sermon Please

Is God behind your sermon? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

During this past week, I caused a controversy on my Facebook page over this idea I am writing about. My friend Brian Chilton over at Bellator Christi disagreed with me on this. My stance is the idea of Christians hearing from God is not normative. He disagrees. We’re planning on having a written debate on this. While we do disagree, we disagree as fellow Christians and want to build up one another’s ministries still.

As a seminary student, I hear several sermons. As a Christian, I have heard them all my life. I am also often on the lookout for evangelical catchphrases as it were. These are things we say that can make us sound spiritual, but I think do more harm than good.

One such statement I hear from many pastors is in some way attributing their sermons to God. They will say that God laid this on their heart or that God revealed this to them in the Bible or any number of things. The idea strikes me as saying “This isn’t just me saying this. This is God. You’d better pay attention.”

I don’t think many would be so brazen, but if that’s not what the words mean, then what do they mean?

Now suppose one of you says “Well, there was one time someone gave me a specific word of knowledge that I am certain came from God as no one else could have known X about my life.”

I am not saying that cannot happen. God will do what He wants. I am saying it is not normative. I have a number of concerns with this kind of talking.

For one thing, I think we wind up treating God too casually. I have no reason to think God will fill in for pastors when they don’t do the work of preparing a good sermon. It often treats God as if He were on speed-dial or something.

Second, consider Pastor A is at a church that is heavily Calvinistic. He’s preaching today on the sovereignty of God and God gave Him a message about how He universally selected the elect to be saved and we need to get rid of this idea that our free-will is what saves us. It is all God from beginning to end.

Pastor B is at another church that is heavily Arminian. He’s preaching on the role of God in evangelism and saying God gave Him a message on how we need to appeal to the free-will of people we are evangelizing to. We need to let them know they have a choice.

At least one of these two people is wrong.

Third, if we have young Christians in the audience, they can think something is wrong with them if they’re not hearing from God when everyone around them seems to be doing so. What is wrong with me? Why am I not having this experience? Does God not really love me? Maybe I’m not really a Christian.

Fourth, we tend to become very egotistical with this kind of approach. It’s all about what God has for me. How about what we have for God? It can lead to so many people trying to interpret every event in their life as if it is a coded message from God. I remember my ex-wife would used to get so caught up in wondering what a dream she had meant.

I would tell her, “Honey. If you spent as much time trying to interpret Scripture, which you know is from God, as you do these dreams, which you don’t know are from God, you would be far better off.” I stand by that today. People often read personal events or sometimes global events trying to find a hidden message from God.

Remember the talk about the blood moons years ago? What happened? Nothing. There was also the fear over Rosh Hashanah that one year. What happened? Nothing.

If only Christians got as excited about reading their Bibles as they did this stuff.

This brings us to the fifth concern. For my readers who are Protestants, we often say we are Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the final authority. We don’t go with a Pope who claims to speak for God ex Cathedra.

Except many of us claim to do just that. We claim we have something that God has told us. The end result often is we neglect the study of the Scriptures to pay more attention to what God has for us today.

A sixth concern is people can make foolish and major decisions because they think God is telling them something. How many of us have heard stories about a couple getting married not knowing what they were doing because God told one of them they were to be married? It happens. Meanwhile, I still remember back in the days of chat rooms seeing a girl once who talked about all her life how she wanted to be a missionary. When asked why she didn’t go, she said “I wasn’t called.”

This was a woman then who had a heart for the lost and wanted to serve people and yet didn’t go out and try because she didn’t receive some “call.” Never mind that when Paul tells Timothy the criteria for deacons in the church, being called is not one of them. When he goes on his second missionary journey, there’s no indication that Silas was called to join Paul. There’s not even a word from God to go on the journey! Paul just suggests they do so!

So pastors out there, when you claim God has shown you something or told you something, I immediately get skeptical. (And 1 Kings 13 gives me good grounds for that!) You see, if your message is good and if it is true, does that change somehow if you say “God gave it to me?”

On the other hand, if your message has problems in it and you attribute it to God, then you have attributed error to God. You have said that God has revealed, shown, spoken, etc., when He has done none of those things. That is dangerous territory.

The solution is really simple. Just work on your sermon and give it. Be hesitant to claim to speak for God. If you are right, it doesn’t change the truth content. If you are wrong, then you can be making false attribution to God and/or leading people into error with divine authority.

It’s not worth the risk.

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

 

The Perfect World Does Not Exist

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

“We believe God created this world to be perfect for us to live in.”

My evangelism partner said something similar to this as we went door-to-door. I told him I wouldn’t say that. I gave a brief answer why, but why not spell things out more in detail here?

What I am going to say also has really nothing to do with the age of the Earth. I think someone who holds to a young-Earth if they so choose could hold this. I am not interested in a deep debate about the science behind the matters. I am going by simple observational clues. Those who want to debate deeper science can do that, but I realize I am definitely not knowledgable enough in the area to do that.

I was asked after saying that that if this world wasn’t perfect, what was it? That was a simple question to answer. I said what the Bible says. Good. This world was made good.

Could this world even be perfect? What would that entail? After all, the world is going to be changing constantly. Will it be moving from perfect to imperfect? Certainly not. Imperfect to perfect? Then it wasn’t made perfect. Degrees of perfection? In a certain sense, that is understandable, but that still means we don’t have perfect as most of us understand it.

So let’s move on to other points. For one thing, many animals were created with attributes that make no sense in a perfect world. For instance, the digestive system of creatures that eat meat and their teeth are very different from those that eat grass products.

Also, consider other creatures. My favorite example is the porcupine. Did it ever not have quills? Could the chameleon always change its color to hide? Did poisonous creatures suddenly get the ability to pass on poison to targets? What about mayflies? They live an extremely short time. What would happen if they never died?

But what about Romans 5:12? Through sin, death came into the world!

I don’t see any reason to think that this means all physical death. I take it to mean spiritual death, the death due to sin. Consider two points in addition.

First off, why is there a tree of life in the garden if there is no need for man to sustain life? My theory is that man is created potentially immortal, but that would have been by continuing sustenance from the tree of life. God alone is said to be inherently immortal.

Second, God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they will die. Imagine if He said, “You will florble if you eat the fruit.” My writing here has the word florble underlined red. It doesn’t recognize it. There’s a reason for that. I made it up.

For the threat to have any meaning, the word would have to be understood by Adam and Eve. They had to know what awaited them if they disobeyed. Somehow, they did.

Also, if you do believe God knows the future, then you would have to have it be that this world went from perfect to imperfect, and if it could do that, well, it wasn’t perfect to begin with. However, you also have to know when God made the world, He knew mankind would fall. He knew this world would have evil throughout it soon.

Okay. Well what about Heaven? Will that be perfect? No. It will not.

It will be good and it will have no evil, but imagine this. Could we not add one more person and it would be a better experience? One more angel? Anything like that?

In Heaven, there will be no suffering and no evil, but there will always be ways things could be better because we are all less than perfect by nature. God alone is perfect. Everything else is good and lacking nothing that is fitting for them, but they are not perfect.

The perfect world doesn’t exist.

The perfect God does.

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

God And Laws Of Science

How does God relate to laws of science? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“But if God created laws of science and God created out of nothing, then God created a law that says that nothing can be created.”

So he said thinking he had given me a stumper to creation ex nihilo. Not a bit. No. This wasn’t an atheist saying this, but this is someone who apparently holds to a more demiurge type of idea of God. The matter is there eternally and God just shapes it. This is also a Mormon position.

So let’s start with a position that could be a shocker.

Maybe laws of science don’t exist.

Now hang on. I’m not telling you to throw out science entirely. With my view, science won’t change one iota. This is a meta-look at how we view the system. It’s how we view objects and what they are and how they behave. I’m also not saying this is a hill I’m willing to die on and a theory written in stone. I’m saying this is a possible idea I throw around from time to time mentally.

Maybe objects behave in relation to other objects not because of following some law, but because of what they are. A flying baseball based on what it is shatters glass based on what it is. In this case, we study natures and final causes a lot more. These are things science should be doing anyway and I contend a move away from final causality has deeply hurt science.

Yet that is not something written in stone and this is not a post about that. For the time being then, let us grant that the world is as we often perceive it. Let us grant that there are laws of science.

The problem with this kind of objection is that it assumes that the laws of science are realities that bind everything and everything is subject to them, which would include God. Science itself cannot tell you if God exists. It cannot tell you if God does not exist. You can get data that both sides can use. One could use science to argue about nature being bloody and horrendous and thus, God does not exist. One could say science seems to point to an origin of the universe and/or intelligent design and thus God does exist. I’m not saying anything about the credibility of any of those arguments, but if you use them, you still have to back that up with philosophical data.

C.S. Lewis once said about miracles that miracles have God putting something into the system and then the system takes over. With the virgin birth, which I do affirm, God fertilizes and ovum in the body of Mary and then the natural process of gestation takes over. When the 5,000+ are fed, extra food seems to come up miraculously, and then natural digestion processes take over. The water is turned to wine, but it is still digested like ordinary wine. We can safely assume that in the latter two cases, the people eventually had to go to the bathroom.

So what does the idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed say then? It means that all things being equal, if the universe behaves as it does without outside interference, matter won’t be created or destroyed. It says nothing about if something outside of matter could create or destroy it. Otherwise, you have a God who is bound by the material universe.

This might be a great and powerful being, but he sure isn’t God.

The real God is the one who is behind him and greater than he is and not bound by anything.

Keep in mind that while I think matter being eternal would not itself be a defeater for theism, I do think it is still a false position. I have a number of philosophical concerns, but those are for another day. Right now, my main point is just that this idea of God being bound by laws of science brings far more problems than it solves.

Maybe, just maybe, the classical position is right.

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

Love Among Men

Are men capable of sharing love? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let me tell you the story of this boy. He was a boy who really loved poetry and music. He could play a musical instrument well and he wrote a lot of songs. He also had a deep connection with a man. They were practically heart and soul together. When the other man died, the boy felt a deep sorrow and sang a song of depression over what had happened.

I suspect some of you know what’s going on already.

Some of you are thinking this boy sounds really girly and needs to get a woman in his life.

Well, this boy had plenty of women in his life. We know about them. We know about them because this boy is King David.

Am I suggesting that David and Jonathan had a same-sex love for one another? Absolutely not! However, am I saying that they had a love for one another? Yes. It was a deep friendship love. Jonathan by all standards should have been the next to take the throne, not a light deal, and he put it aside because he knew David really deserved it.

I’m reading through a book by John Boswell on Christianity and social tolerance with regards to same-sex relationships. One problem that keeps occurring to me is that often, relationships are shown between men in literature that I don’t doubt are deep, and then it seems to imply that it must have also been an erotic relationship. This is a problem.

We live in a culture where we think sex means love, and it doesn’t. Ideally, it should. It should be that whenever a couple has sex together, it is because they have a great love for one another, particularly in a covenant relationship where they are husband and wife. Sadly, we don’t live in the ideal world.

We live in a world where sex can be cheap. Are we to think that every actress who has found herself on the “casting couch” was there because of the love for the man she was with? I still remember a woman telling me years ago in her pre-Christian days that she had sex with men she hated. Many a girl will give sex to a boy thinking it will keep him in her life only to be dumped shortly after.

All of this leads us to a problem with relationships among men. If men have a deep relationship with one another, it seems we assume there must be something erotic going on there. I hate to say it, but even I assume this when I watch a TV show and two guys are seen having an extremely close relationship.

This is not good.

We should be able to say that men should be able to have deep love for other men and not have to fear it being something erotic. Men should be able to express love and concern for one another and help them with their struggles and burdens. That a man can do that for another man doesn’t show he has same-sex attraction. It could just show he has a heart.

I like to watch history videos from the Metatron on Youtube. In this one, he talks about ancient Greece and their view on same-sex relationships. He says that some think that Achilles and Patroclus had an erotic relationship because when Patroclus dies, Achilles was upset.

I can tell you I have several friends who are guys that if I received word they died, I would be very upset. My first real experience with death was with a Sunday School teacher who called me and every other guy in class during the week to see how we were doing. I remember being in school today and having people come around to take up donations because he had died suddenly. I was so upset I had to go home early. I couldn’t function. I was in denial for awhile half-expecting him to jump up during the ceremony and say it was all a joke. It had to be. Right?

I had another friend who I never met in person, but he was a younger kid who really looked up to me in apologetics and I saw him as a pupil of sorts. I was his mentor. He had a brain tumor and died as a teenager. To this day, I’m still friends with his parents. There were times in my marriage my ex-wife would notice a sadness in me and ask what was wrong and I would say that I was remembering him suddenly. I’m sad writing this out right now.

Men don’t really want to be effeminate and I don’t think we should, but we should also accept that we can have a deep love for another man and yet, that is not erotic. Part of the problem in our society is we don’t know what love is and if love is said to be sex and you love another man, well, figure it out.

This could be the case for young men growing up who think there must be something wrong because they equate love feelings with erotic feelings. You can have the former without the latter. I love my sister very much and she is a beautiful woman, but those feelings sure aren’t erotic.

Love is one of the most meaningless words in our society today because people really don’t stop to think about what it means. Part of that is one of language in that I can say I love pizza, Final Fantasy, my friends, my parents, and God, and the degree and way is different for each of those.

I wish I had a clear solution here to this problem. I don’t. I just know that this is a problem and I am convinced it will keep creating confusion, especially for young people growing up who are told to base their identity so much on how they feel about themselves and the world around them.

Especially the boys trying to become men.

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

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus: Paul The Deceiver?

Was Paul a phony? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Just recently, I wrote a post on Paul based on information from a Muslim meme. It’s not really a shock when I see the same thing coming up from atheists. Once again, it’s like people don’t understand concepts that they would freely accept in any other place, but when it’s in the Bible, you make it as bad as you can.

Ever heard those commercials for Babbel where people talk about going to another country and learning the language before they go? You also have to learn the customs. For instance, if I go into someone’s house here, I usually don’t change my attire at all. When you walk into a Japanese home, you could be expected to take your shoes off.

Now imagine if Paul was somehow transported to Japan. Being a Jew, there is no reason he would remove his shoes really except for a good foot-washing, and in our day and age, that is not necessary.  Today, if he went to Japan, if he wanted to share the gospel, he would remove his shoes when he entered a house. Why? Because there’s nothing immoral about it and it’s a simple way to respect the culture of the person.

According to someone like Campbell, that is deceitful. After all, look at 1 Cor. 9:20-23? Paul says that when he’s with Gentiles, he lives like a Gentile. When he’s with a Jew, he lives like a Jew. That’s deceitful. Paul fakes like he honors the law when he’s with a Jew.

No. Paul is just respectful of the people he’s with. You don’t invite a Jew to a seafood restaurant with you and order lobster. If you’re going to talk to a person from India, it’s best to avoid hamburgers. If I had Mormons coming over to visit me, as much as I love tea, I would abstain from it then.

I have friends who are a husband and wife and both are on the spectrum. When we call each other sometimes to talk about problems, what do we do? We jump straight to why we’re calling. No small talk. Why? We all hate it. That’s a respect thing as well. While normal greetings might be respectful to many other people, I will personally take it as more respectful if you DON’T do that with me.

Also, if Paul was doing this to deceive people, why on Earth would he publicly say it so that word could get to others like that? What Paul is doing is simply learning how to work with the customs of the people that he is reaching. This is not being deceitful. This is simply being respectful of the culture of another. Of course, if there was something immoral, Paul would not do it. William Carey was fine with changing his life for many Indian customs when he went there as a missionary, but he did everything he could, and succeeded also, to stop widow-burning as that was an immoral practice.

Atheists and others regularly tout this out as some sort of example of what a wicked character Paul was. It is nothing of the sort and it’s something understandable with a few moments of thought. A little tip for them. Generally, if there’s a charitable way to read someone, you try to read them that way first.

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

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus: The Influence of Paul

How did Paul influence Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That there was a wide divide between what Paul taught and what Christianity taught kind of died out with the work of E.P. Sanders and Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Nevertheless, never underestimate the ability of internet atheists who don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus to fully embrace resurrecting bad ideas about Jesus. Such is the case with John Campbell.

For instance, he says Paul’s theology included ideas of original sin and man needing to turn to Jesus through faith in His resurrection for salvation. He says there is no good evidence outside of Paul’s letters that anyone believed such things before Paul wrote. He adds that many critical New Testament scholars believe Paul invented them.

First, we wait to hear what these writings were that would have existed before Paul wrote his letters. There are some scholars who can date the Gospels before that, but I have no reason to think Campbell would accept that.

Second, he says that some apologists point to 1 Cor. 15:3 as predating Paul, which is the passage of Christ died, buried, and rose again according to the Scriptures. He says there is no good reason to believe it did not originate from Paul. No good reason at all, except, you know, the language of passed on and received which refers to oral tradition, the cadence being that of a creed, and the usage of non-Pauline words in there.

Third, he does not tell us which critical scholars it is that think that Paul invented these ideas. I think we know why.

Besides that, if Paul invented these ideas and changed Christianity, why is that not reflected in the Gospels which is dated later? The Gospels do not address issues that are being talked about in Paul’s letters many times. In many surprising cases, they don’t really have a lot of theology. Consider the resurrection accounts. Throughout Mattew, you find Him pointing to prophetic fulfillment over and over. Get to the resurrection and there’s nothing, not even a single verse of Scripture cited. The resurrection is not explained in terms of atonement or anything like that.

With Paul’s conversion, Campbell makes a big deal about Paul saying the gospel was revealed in Him instead of to Him.

To begin with, while it is fewer, there are some translations that do say “to me” instead of “in me.”  Second, even if it is that, what of it? This simply means there was a subjective component which is true. I am objectively in front of my laptop writing this, but I am subjectively experiencing it.

He also says we only have Paul’s word on His revelation which is convenient if you’re wanting to fabricate a revelation. No reason given why Paul would want to do that, at least at this point. It’s not like from a worldly perspective he was gaining a lot. From a theological perspective, if he was wrong, he was cutting himself off from YHWH by identifying with a blasphemer.

So just starting off, this isn’t looking too convincing on Campbell’s part.

We’ll continue another time.

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

Why Resist Contrary Thought?

Why do so many people not read what disagrees with them? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

About a week or so ago, I was in a Facebook debate on a post where a fundamentalist atheist started off with a meme about how the Bible starts with a talking snake and ends with a beast with seven heads. Why should anyone take it seriously? After all, God forbid an atheist actually, you know, study the text. I asked about the last book he had read on the topic and he asked me what the last book I read was.

I actually spent some time putting out a list since right now, I’m going through about a dozen books honestly and I read some of most every day in addition to my Bible and in addition to school books. Another friend of mine jumped in and gave some he had read. The atheist started to insist that my friend had not read any of those books. He was just making it up. He refused to ever accept that any reading had been done. When I went on about my list, the atheist said no one was talking to me, despite my friend pointing out that the sub-thread originally started with me answering the question he asked to me directly.

What book do we know he read on the topic? None.

Later, I even presented Andrew Loke’s book on the resurrection of Jesus. This is a powerful book and even better, on Kindle, it is free. He specifically meant it to be that way so everyone could read it. How many atheists do I meet who are willing to read this? None.

By the way, my list did include books I disagree with. I’m always going through at least one.

Today, I had someone debating me on miracles to which I presented Keener’s books as well as The Self Does Not Die written from a secular perspective and The Last Superstition. Somehow earlier in the thread the guy had been talking about “magic mushrooms” and said he would read those books if I would take a dose of such mushrooms. Yep. Anything to avoid contrary thought.

To top it off, I’m also in a debate page for Christians vs. Mormons and people defending the Mormon prophet saying to never take counsel from those who do not believe. Many Mormons were defending that they should not listen to liars. I remember one asking me if I would be willing to learn about Jesus from Judas. I replied, “Why not? I can hear what he has to say and investigate for myself and make my own decision.”

You know how we have been told that Christians live in their little bubbles to stay safe?

That seems more to describe non-Christians nowadays.

One such modern example is that if a conservative speaker shows up on campus, leftists on campus will go berserk to do anything to make sure that person doesn’t speak. For me, being at a conservative seminary, if I knew we were having a leftist speaker come to address us, I would be salivating at that. I love to hear the side that I disagree with and then to get the chance to interact with them.

I conclude the same way. Either these people don’t really believe what they say, or they have too much pride. If you are a person who claims to care about truth, then you should be open to seeing if you are correct, especially if you’re going out doing arguments on the matter. If you have a goal in life of reaching Muslims, but you have no interest in reading Muslim material, then find another goal.

Also, even though you might not agree with what you read, you can still learn something from it. I have learned from reading non-Christian material. Sometimes I refine my position. Sometimes some scholars who aren’t Christians present interesting ways of reading the text. I generally definitely learn about what other people believe. In the end, any or all of those are a win.

If you want to evangelize today and reach people, know what they think. Read contrary thought.

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