Tag: forgiveness

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars: Chapter 7

Are we eternally secure? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The interesting fact about this question is everyone regardless thinks we should live the same way.

Christians have nearly always affirmed that it is necessary for an individual who has become a Christian to persist in faith over the remainder of that person’s life in order to attain final salvation. It is not enough to have had “faith,” however we might define pistis, but then to cease.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 3134-3136). Kindle Edition.

So you have someone who says they were a Christian and then lost their faith.

Calvinists: They were never really a Christian to begin with.

Arminians: They lost their salvation.

Both sides think you’re lost either way. Both sides also are going to be saying that if you’re a faithful Christian, you will live faithfully. That’s why I really think the question here comes down to trust and what is the basis of trust and both sides should say grace, and I suspect both sides majority would say grace.

Something interesting reading Bates is that this is where he does say the path takes a more individualistic turn, and that really makes sense. Bates does not contend that the whole community is likely to fall away. Instead, it will be some within that community who will fall.

Really, this is one chapter where there wasn’t much new that you won’t hear elsewhere in my opinion. I like Bates’s work, but when I personally gave him my final thoughts, I did say there is one big problem I had in this chapter. It is not a content problem, but a pastoral one.

If you tell people that you think they can lose salvation, and I am not disputing that, you will inevitably have readers who are concerned that they have done that. I have talked to several people who had been convinced that they had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I think about people who are in Celebrate Recovery and try to be Christians but are struggling with issues of addiction. What about a teenage boy who is struggling with masturbation and/or pornography?

Granted, realizing that they could be cut off could get them to shape up, but also they need to know where the grace of God is present in their lives. How is God with them in the midst of their struggle? Does the man who has fallen into the trap of watching pornography again need to fear he has also disappointed God?

Bates’s book is commendable on many levels, but this is one area of the book where a pastoral perspective was definitely needed. If anything, I think Bates should actually write a whole book on this topic. There should be a book on practically living allegiance, dealing with setbacks, wrestling with moral issues, and learning how to accept grace and forgiveness in your own life. After all, these questions of salvation should not just be academic endeavors, but lived ones as well.

Next time, we’ll look again at the order of salvation.

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

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars: Chapter 4 Part 4

Are works necessary for salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So Bates is arguing that salvation comes from allegiance to Christ. Is this a works-based salvation? Do I have to live my life in service to Jesus in order for me to be saved?

My favorite analogy to use with this is a wedding. Imagine that a man meets a girl he really wants to marry. He spends many months wooing her and after a long time of dating, they decide to marry. He makes his vows at the altar as does she. After the wedding then, he drives back alone to his parents’ house, stays with them, and never sees his bride again and says “Married life sure is good!”

We would question if such a man is really married. Yes, a minister might have said something at a ceremony, but look at how he’s living. He’s not interacting with his bride. He doesn’t see her. He doesn’t spend time with her. Definitely then no sex with her. In what sense can he be considered married?

So does this mean that a man has to take his wife into a home with him and be intimate with her in order to be married? No. It’s being said that if a man doesn’t do those things, one can question if he really is married because married people do married things. In a parallel sense, if a man claims to be a Christian, but does nothing in service of Jesus, is he really a Christian? No. Saying you are a Christian entails that you will treat Jesus as your king.

Bates says about works that:

Classic Protestantism assumes that Paul objects to all works with regard to justification. But Paul’s concern is not with works in general (any and every deed) but more precisely with works of the law.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1612-1614). Kindle Edition.

Is this idea found in Scripture? Yes. Bates says:

Doing is required. In fact, for Paul, good works consistently form part of the basis for final salvation (e.g., Rom. 2: 6; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Gal. 6: 7– 10; 2 Tim. 4: 14; cf. Matt. 16: 27; John 5: 28– 29). It is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2: 13)

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1622-1624). Kindle Edition.

This is also how one bridges the gap between Paul and James that allegedly exists. James can say “You think Jesus is king? Good. Even the demons believe that, and they tremble.” (Yes. I know the text says that there is one God, but I think this would also apply.) In other words, the demons would believe that and take it seriously enough that they know it’s a threat. If you say you believe that Jesus is king and do nothing, you don’t even take it as seriously as a demon takes it.

So now we get to Bates’s critique then of Catholicism on this point. In Catholicism, there is set up a system of penance many times. There are things one is told to do such as the rosary or anything like that. Bates says that:

Paul is speaking about what it would mean to rebuild the “works of the law” (2: 16). To do so would be to turn back to the dysfunctional old order. It would be to turn away from the liberated new creation that is constituted by the king’s reign via the Spirit’s presence. Any person who reinstalls that stoicheia-based old system proves to be a violator of its regulations. Since the old-covenant system has reached its goal and end, forgiveness can no longer flow through it. Here’s the upshot: Anyone who attempts to reinstate the old covenant or any other written-rule system of salvation, whether in whole or in part, will violate God’s law, incurring the same guilt as someone who has violated every regulation within it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1666-1673). Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind Bates is not saying that Catholics are not Christians, but the system set up is problematic. Of course, there are times it is proper to do something, but it is not to receive forgiveness, but because one has it. If I fault my brother and seek forgiveness, I need to go to him even after going to Jesus if it is at all possible to go to my brother. I need his forgiveness as well. I don’t go to him so Jesus will forgive me. I go to him because Jesus has forgiven me and that healing needs to be extended to my walk with my brother.

Next time, we’ll look at how Bates thinks we should read Galatians.

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)

How To Treat Enemies

How do we treat our enemies? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters.

If anything has been disturbing about the assassination attempt I wrote about last time, it’s been the response from many on the left about how disappointed they are that the shooter didn’t miss. There is a saying that when people show you who they are, believe them. What we have seen from multiple people is who they are and how they view their enemies.

What happens if you become their enemy?

As a Christian, I know Christ told me to love my enemies. Isn’t it interesting that He never denied we will have enemies? The Old Testament didn’t, even within the community of Israel. Exodus 23:4 told the people of Israel that if they come across the ox or donkey of their enemy wandering off, return it. This would be within Israelite territory most likely.

I hope many of you have known on this blog that I try to treat my enemies fairly. I have not held back in saying that I am a conservative Christian. Thus, I view people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as enemies. I have some extremely strong viewpoints about both of these people.

However, when I have seen something false being shared about them, I have answered it. I used to get email blasts from someone who would talk about the latest horrible thing Obama had done when he was in office. I would spend a few minutes researching it, find out it was false, and then send out an email response to everyone back documenting the claim.

Yes. Conservative Christians share fake news also.

Some of these people who were getting these emails were liberals. I know that some of them came to respect me even though they disagreed with me because I cared about getting facts right. I have often chided Christians, even on this blog, for sharing information that can easily be shown to be false by a five-minute web search. If you want people to believe you on a claim about what happened 2,000 years ago, they need to be able to believe you on what happened two days ago.

Some of these responses have been public posts. Consider when Reclaim America shared a claim about Hillary Clinton. Another one was about Muslim apologist Zakir Naik. Now if I oppose these people ideologically, why would I write posts defending them?

Because truth matters. I will not take down my opponent with a lie. If they are as bad as I think they are, the truth about them is sufficient.

Let’s talk about present realities. You might be surprised, but I pray for the Biden family every night. I pray our president will have long life and health while he’s in the office. At the same time, I think he has done great damage to this country and the world and I do pray for justice, but that will come at God’s hands, not mine. I also realize we both have to answer to the same God one day.

If anything, the person I think has the roughest time in all of this in that family is Ashley Biden. Think about this. How many of you ever kept a journal or a diary where you would write down your most private and intimate thoughts. It wasn’t meant for everyone to see. Her diary was meant to be that, but now it’s public. Anyone can see it.

Would you like yours being open for everyone to see?

Now let’s get even more personal.

I have an ex-wife. I’ve spoken about my divorce. Does it hurt? Yep. Every day. Is it tempting to speak ill of her and even to think ill of her? Yes. I can easily say no other person on Earth has hurt me as much as she has.

I still pray for her well-being every night.

I challenge you even to come to campus and see if you can find anyone who has heard me speak ill of my ex-wife. If anything, I try to avoid doing that. I don’t even think you could find someone on Facebook who has seen that happen. That’s a bold claim, but I’ll make it.

Christ told me to love my enemies. That is unconditional. There are no exceptions to that rule. He didn’t say “Love your enemies, except that person who hurt you more than anyone else ever has. It’s cool to hate them.”

This is something I wrote about years ago in a post asking if your murderer will be in Heaven. I love how someone in the comments said that Stephen and Paul are together right now. That is the kind of radical love and forgiveness Christ calls us to.

Sometimes I see people on my Facebook feed say awful things about their exes. Every time, my thinking is the same. “I don’t know much about that person, but I sure know a lot more about you.” There are a lot of people I suspect in this election season who are seeing the reactions and saying “I wasn’t sure where I stand on Trump, but seeing how you all are reacting, I think I’ll stand with him.”

One tip I offer you all for your enemies is to pray for them. I mean real prayers for their well-being. It’s easy to say you will pray a Psalm of judgment on them. I have said before we often ask justice on our enemies and mercy on us. We hardly ever if ever reverse that and ask for mercy on our enemies and justice on us.

The way I see it anyway, if I live with anger and hostility towards my ex-wife, she wins. She’s still controlling me. She’s still dominant in my life. The more I let my hostility go, the more I am free.

Will I continue to pray for the Bidens every night? Yes. While I think Trump will win, if by some chance whoever the Democrat nominee is wins, I will pray for them every night too. I won’t pray for their agenda to succeed, but I will pray for them as a person.

When Obama was in office people used to ask me if I could meet with anyone in the world who would it be, and I said it would be him. Why? I would sit down and tell him the gospel. I would say the same about Trump when he was in office. I would say the same about Biden now. Something all of us have in common is all of us need the gospel.

Pray for your enemies. If not, you are more likely to become that which you condemn.

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

 

Book Plunge: Why The Gospel?

What do I think of Matthew Bates’s newest book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Matthew Bates is a friend of mine and when he got in touch with me about his newest book, I was happy to help out. Something I really like about Bates is that I see him as a scholar for the people. He is writing books that many people see as directly relevant to their own lives. He takes the work that is done in the academy and breaks it down for the average person in the pew.

In this one, he’s talking about why people should come to the gospel. It’s a question many of us don’t think about and if we do, we give the usual answer. The forgiveness of sins. That is the good news. Right?

When I hear people doing evangelism, I hear this kind of thing often. What’s the goal of Christianity? To get to Heaven. I remember a pastor who used to say the same prayer at the conclusion of every sermon so much that I had it memorized.

“Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and without you, I cannot get to Heaven, so come into my heart and be Lord of my life from this day forward. Thank you for my salvation. Amen.”

Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the resurrection. If anything, this is just saying Jesus is my ticket to Heaven so God, do this for me.

Definitely, nothing about Jesus being a king.

As I read that again I thought, imagine asking someone out and using something similar. Approach them and tell them you want them to be with you for all the things they can do for you. Imagine going to a job interview and telling them they should hire you for all the things you want them to do for you. Wouldn’t really work would it?

Bates’s contention is that we have to have Jesus as a king. On location 164 (All future references with a number will assume location from now on) of the Kindle form, he says we should never think of Christ as a name. It is not. This is something Islam and Mormonism miss as well seeing as they regularly say Jesus is the Messiah, but they don’t grasp His being a king. When we say Jesus is the Christ, we mean Jesus is the king.

He says on 385 that faith is not just mental acceptance, but it has an outward focus as well. It is to be lived out in allegiance to the one. Thus, when we say Paul says we are saved by faith and James says faith without works is dead, who is right? Answer: Both of them. Faith is that which saves us and works are those which show where our allegiance lies.

This also means that the idea that internet atheists have of blind faith would make sense whatsoever to the biblical writers. Faith wasn’t just something in the head. It was lived. Commitments like that were serious. Christians knew they were signing up to something serious when they became Christians.

At 1264, he warns us that the gospel is not just all about the cross. This might sound scandalous to some, but it shouldn’t. Jesus tells us early on in Mark to repent and believe the good news. (gospel.) There was no cross yet. People were still expected to believe.

If we just say the cross is all that matters, then the resurrection can be an add-on. If all of it was to show the deity of Jesus, then why not have Him stay on Earth to show that? No. Jesus is taken to Heaven instead. Why?

If it’s to show He’s the king, you see why. He has to rule. He has to go to His throne. He has to sit at the right hand of God.

Of course, the cross and resurrection are important. The cross was the intention of man to shut down Jesus. it was the place of utter shame for Him, but it was also where He went to pay the price for sins as well, fighting the enemy of His people head-on. The resurrection is God’s vindication. It is God saying “Yes. This is the King.”

Bates urges us to put kingship before forgiveness. If we don’t, Jesus becomes mainly a means to an end for us, a means of forgiveness. That’s backward. If anything, we are the means to the end of the glory of God. God has inherent glory that cannot be changed, but He also has ascribed glory that can be seen as His reputation in the world and we can affect that. That doesn’t change the nature of God for those concerned, but it does change how the world perceives Him.

If we start with Jesus as king, we come to realize that we need forgiveness because we are all guilty of divine treason against this king. We have sought to be the king instead and we need to change our allegiance and say we are on the side of Jesus.

I also like his idea that we should go with goodness, truth, and beauty to show the work of the king, even to those who don’t think God exists. (A great look at this kind of approach I started recently is Rembrandt in the Wind) In my own works of video games and theology, I regularly point to this along with the impact of a story on people.

Aside from content also, this book was meant to be read by groups. The chapters are short enough that people can read them in a week’s time and meet together and discuss the questions together. Would that more people would do this. I would encourage anyone wanting to do evangelism to read this book. Frankly, I would encourage you to read anything by Bates. You won’t be disappointed.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 7

Who killed Goliath and other questions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well, we all know how it works by now. My doing this is a demonstration that some suffering is self-inflicted. Let’s see what we have from this work today to deal with.

Bible Question #15: Who slew Goliath?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is an easy one! Now turn to 2nd Samuel 21:19. Depending on the ‘modern version’ it will say something like:

“… Elhanan … killed Goliath …”

What do you mean Elhanan killed Goliath!? This is wrong you say. Most Sunday school children know that David slew Goliath! Well, you’re right. This is clearly in error.

Look at the same passage in your King James Bible. The Authorized King James Bible has the correct reading which is:

“… Elhanan … slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath …”

Spiritually, as Christians, we are the equivalent of David. Spiritually, Satan is the equivalent of Goliath. Just as David slew Goliath (with a rock), we Christians are “more than conquerors” as we have overcome (slew) Satan by the blood of the lamb (Jesus Christ, the rock!) and by the word of our testimony. Not only are ‘modern versions’ in error; but major doctrinal issues are involved here. Think about it.

To begin with, why do these modern translations sometimes differ? Because they are trying to be faithful to what the text says. Unfortunately, Johnson produces no material on the textual variations or the translating of Hebrew or anything of that sort.

My ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has this to say at Tektonics.

Many conservative commentators, like Archer, have supposed that in the first verse, “Lahmi the brother of” was somehow transformed into “the Bethlehemite”. Alhtough I priorly considered this a suitable textual explanation, I am now persuaded that it requires more explanation (on this, see our response to Human Faces of God, ch. 7). Even so, Callahan’s objections are not sufficient. He objects as follows (here, and now we add, in Secret Origins of the Bible [248]):

  1. First, he says, “Archer is using a method that he would scoff at if it were used by advocates” of the JEDP hypothesis. Indeed? Unless Callahan finds a place where Archer actually does this to an explanation of the same sort advanced by a JEDP theorist, he is merely making an ad hoc accusation.
  2. Second, he says he finds “no particular reason” to accept Archer’s idea “over a more simple and direct one of a later writer trying to resolve an inconsistency.”Well, I do: It has to do with giving ancient documents the benefit of the doubt; it has to do with textual criticism; it has to do with not assuming that ancient people were too foolish to see the obvious. Archer’s explanation is quite within the canons of textual criticism.
  3. Callahan wonders then why both Samuel and Chronicles use the “like a weaver’s beam” in their conclusions. The use of the phrase elsewhere is exactly the sort of thing that would induce an errant scribe to use it elsewhere in an effort to make the text coherent, or make it more memorable in an oral-based society. Callahan’s comment that a scribe would have to both move a portion of the word while leaving it there at the same time is mistaken — this is a perfect description of a known type of textual error called dittography.
  4. Finally, Callahan objects that the explanation contradicts Archer’s earlier assertion that “God kept the authors of the books, and by logical extension the editors of the canon, from error.” Archer may or may not argue this, but it doesn’t matter anyway. We do not believe that God preserved copyists from error. This is not asserted in any doctrinal statement on inerrancy (such as the Chicago Statement).

For the record, here is a summary of Archer’s explanation: 1) a copyist first mistook the sign of the direct object before “Lahmi,” which was ‘-t, for a b-t and got Bethelehemite; 2) the copyist also misread the word for “brother” (‘-h) as the sign of the direct object before “Goliath” and made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” as Chronicles does; 3) the word “weavers” was also misplaced after “Elhanan” to make the name “son of the woods of weavers,” which is quite an unlikely name.

Now you might not find that persuasive entirely, and that’s fine, but the point is that this should show it’s not a clear and simple question. However, looking at the end of what Johnson says, he is taking an interpretation of the original text, as Goliath being Satan and each of us being David, and then insisting that that interpretation is trying to be covered up by the modern versions. (Which, you know, all include the story of David and Goliath so how they’re covering this up is a mystery.) Yet there is given no reason why I should accept the interpretation or think it’s at all what the original writer had in mind.

Bible Question #16: Jesus said that our heavenly Father will forgive us of our sins. However, we are told that; likewise, there is something we must do. Do you remember what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let’s turn, in a ‘modern version’ to Mark 11:26. Are you not able to find it? Are the verses in Mark chapter 11 numbered 23, 24, 25 and then 27!? Is verse 26 missing? Well, there is nothing wrong with your eyesight! Verse 26 is not there (or it is in brackets, casting doubt on it). It’s ANOTHER omission.

Now turn to the same verse in your Authorized (King James) Version. The KJV says:

“BUT IF YE DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRESPASSES.”

Oh, man! This is important to know! Leaving out verse 26, leaves out an important piece of Christian doctrine. Verse 26 needs to be there! And, that’s why it is properly included in your King James Bible.

The question though is not what Johnson thinks needs to be there, but what is there. Mark often does give shorter versions of what is said and if verse 26 wasn’t in the original manuscripts (And by the way, verse numbers weren’t in the original manuscripts), then whether one thinks it needs to be there or not, faithfulness to the text says to not put it there. I could say “You need to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be forgiven needs to be in the text also!”, but if it was not in what Mark wrote, then it will not be included.

By the way, modern translations do include that in passages such as following the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6. Again, an odd way of covering up doctrine.

Bible Question #17: What did Jesus say about religious hypocrisy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First, let’s take a look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. What does it say in Matthew 23:14?

Actually, it says nothing! ( The verse is missing in many modern versions ).

For the word of God, turn to the same verse in your King James Bible. What does it say?

“WOE UNTO YOU SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! FOR YE DEVOUR WIDOWS’ HOUSES, AND FOR A PRETENCE MAKE LONG PRAYER: THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION.”

Jesus does not like hypocrisy. Notice how God knows our heart!

Again, this does not show up in the manuscripts that are being used, but here’s something to consider. I just took a few minutes to do a search of the word “hypocrite” in Matthew. It shows up multiple times never in a flattering light. Six of those times are in this very same chapter!

No one reading the chapter in a modern translation would walk away confused about what Jesus thinks about hypocrisy. KJV-Onlyists can condemn the modern versions all they want, but arguments like this are thoroughly dishonest and saw more about KJV-Onlyists than they do about their opponents.

We’ll continue next time.

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

 

Why Doesn’t God Just Forgive?

Couldn’t He just say it’s all good? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One objection that seems to be pretty common is asking why can’t God just forgive? It seems to work in Judaism and Islam. Right? Islam actually has never had to have a system of sacrifices in place. Jews today without a temple have other means of forgiveness open to them they say.

Christians have never needed animal sacrifices, but it seems we have gone a step further. Apparently, we need the Son of God to come and offer Himself as a sacrifice for us. Doesn’t that seem bloody and grotesque? Why would God have to have something like that?

Something to point out is that there are plenty of atonement theories. Sometimes when people ask me how it works, I try to focus also on the more important issues. Let’s say Jesus really did die on the cross and that He did rise from the dead and thus demonstrate His claims about who He was were true. We have that, but we’re not sure just how we are forgiven based on that.

Would that lead anyone to believe Christianity was false?

However, this is a question I have thought about and yes, I do have a response to it. To start off, everything is going to be going on the assumption that the basic Christian account is true. If you do not believe that, then accept it for the time being because this is a hypothetical scenario. It’s testing to see if Christianity is internally coherent and not if it lines up to the external world. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, this is just trivia. If He did, then this definitely matters.

If Christianity is true, then God is the greatest good in the universe. Nothing can top Him. Nothing can go beyond Him. God will also be consistent and treat Himself as the greatest good. If He does not, then He is denying His own nature.

So now we have people who sin. One problem could be we treat sin as such a nonchalant word. Imagine a doctor coming to you and telling you you’re sick. That’s not good, but you’re not going to be panicking. Now imagine the same doctor telling you you have cancer. Are you sick if you have cancer? Yes. The two are quite different. A fender bender is a car accident, but so is a total collision. The two are quite different.

So what is sin? It’s not a slip-up or an accident or a mistake. Locking yourself out of your house is a mistake. Breaking into your neighbor’s house is an evil. Sin is really an act of divine treason. It is an implicit statement that you oppose God and all He is and stands for and desire to sit on His throne. It is the same even for those of us who are forgiven Christians. Somewhere, we all still doubt God and think we can do better.

So if God just forgives us, then what does that say? It says that He values our good above His own good, which is also goodness itself. There is something greater than the good. The creation is more important than the creator. In a sense, God becomes an idolator.

Now can He just let us go and not provide any means of forgiveness to us? He can, and He would be just in doing so. God owes us all nothing. Whatever you think of Hell, be it real or be it annihilation, God does not have to save any of us from it. He is under no obligation to free anyone from sin and under no obligation to forgive.

But suppose He wants to anyway. God is just. Sin must be punished, but there is no way that we can pay that price, that price of death. After all, money and good works could never overcome what has been done and if they could, it would require an infinite amount, which we can never pay.

Who can pay an infinite amount? An infinite being could. That would mean Jesus. His sacrifice pays the need for justice and for mercy and still shows the love God has in being willing to go through this for our sakes. God is still the greatest good out there and humanity is shown goodness and love.

That’s my understanding of it at least. Hypothetically, even if this cannot be proven, I at least see it as coherent and thus the question is answered. Even if it wasn’t, that doesn’t show Christianity is false. It just shows we lacked understanding in something, which should shock no one.

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

Jesus and Moral Issues

Can you separate Jesus from morality? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As I said yesterday, I have been reading Machen lately and something he said in a work of his was about how we have pulled away from what he calls the “supernatural Jesus.” Now I have said before about my beef with the term “supernatural“. However, I do know what he’s saying. This is a Jesus who is seen as more or less just a great moral teacher, perhaps highly enlightened, but He certainly wasn’t divine in any way and definitely didn’t rise from the dead.

However, as we have moved away from this kind of Jesus, so with that has gone much of our moral standards in society. Many people even today do not want to speak ill of Jesus. Of course, some people do, but Jesus is still by and large a respected figure in our history. (Setting aside the crackpot position that says Jesus never even existed.) Few would want to ascribe malicious intent to Jesus.

A lot of people do like the morality of Jesus to some extent, which is quite odd when one thinks about it since really, His morality is often quite difficult. I would find it easy to go through life and not commit adultery with a woman. I find it extremely difficult to go through life without looking at another woman with lust. It would be easy to go through life without murdering a brother of mine. It is far harder to go through life without anger toward him.

Jesus did change this and so you had a society soon that was changing rapidly with a people who were practicing sexual chastity, love for their fellow man, and tremendous self-sacrifice. When a plague came through the Roman Empire, the physicians fled, but the Christians stayed and tended to the sick. The Christians didn’t have the science to know how a plague worked, but they were unintentionally giving themselves some immunity to the sickness by staying and facing it to help the sick.

We have been trying an experiment to take the teachings of Jesus and somehow exclude the man of Jesus from them. Yes. This teaching is quite quaint and we like it, but we don’t need that extra baggage with it. We don’t need all this nonsense of miracles and resurrections obviously. Let’s just go with the teachings and live by them.

This experiment has been a failure.

Inevitably, Jesus’s teachings are bound up with His person, authority, and character. It’s not just that Jesus taught great truths, but He also lived them and lived them perfectly. Jesus didn’t teach these as great suggestions either. He taught them as commands and He insisted that it was only by His power that one could live them out.

Naturally, we all have strengths and weaknesses. Some of us could be very generous by nature and yet struggle with a temper. A man could be extremely peaceful and wouldn’t hurt a fly, but he struggles with the sight of the beautiful women who he passes by regularly. In our society, we have often said that we like the idea of tolerance and non-judgmentalism, which are really not the message of Jesus, but we don’t really care for messages on sexual chastity. (Isn’t it funny how those two go together also?)

However, virtue is not a buffett where you take what you want and reject the rest. You have to take all of it. Try to separate one part of Jesus’s teachings from the whole and you have the overemphasis of one trait with the neglect of another. Part of this is because of the separation of Jesus from His lifestyle as if Jesus is just incidental to His teachings.

Perhaps we can’t dispense with the miraculous Jesus after all.

Now if you have a resurrected Jesus who speaks with authority and can forgive one’s own sins so one can live out love and forgiveness in others, the system works a lot better. Jesus did not come just to teach us all how to get along. Yes. He wants us to live well and have life, but He wants us to be forgiven and free as well.

Ultimately, you have to accept the bad news of Jesus, you are a sinner in need of salvation, before you can truly live out the teachings. If you do not realize how much you are forgiven, you will be incapable of loving the way He wants you to. This can be a struggle for many of us. I see myself as the guy who grew up avoiding pornography, drugs, alcohol, staying chaste until I was married, etc. It is easy to look and say “I’ve lived a good life and don’t really have major sins to deal with”, but I need to realize that in many cases, I struggle with pride and other inner sins that could be far worse in a sense and yet, I am forgiven.

Every sin after all is ultimately divine treason. It is denying one or more attributes of God and saying that you should be on the throne. I am one who has excessive worrying and anxiety and it’s tempting to want to be in control of my own life and panic about even seemingly minor decisions. If I am guilty of divine treason, which I am and which you are as well, isn’t it a wonder we are forgiven? What person says to someone else “I forgive you for wanting me dead and acting on it.”?

If we don’t go by the strength of Christ and the Holy Spirit, then we have to do that from within. Now this does not mean that non-Christians cannot be loving people. They can be. It means that this is a struggle for all of us because our natural tendency is to love ourselves more than others. Even the suicide loves themselves more despite their thinking of how awful they are. They seek their good above that of others though trying to tell themselves everyone else will be better off without them.

The early Christians were able to love greatly because they knew that they had been loved greatly. Take that away and it all falls apart. They knew they were loved greatly not because Jesus was some nice man who was really enlightened and said they were special. It was because Jesus was the divine man who had risen from the dead and had the authority to forgive them for all they had done.

Christianity cannot be reduced to just a set of ethics. It is an entire worldview. Removing the miraculous Jesus removes the batteries and the system doesn’t work.

If our culture is to recover, the only way to do that is to return to the original system which worked fine. That is the real miracle-working Jesus who rose from the dead and forgives sins. Any other Jesus won’t do.

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

Repeated Forgiveness

How many times do you forgive? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yes. I know about what Jesus says with seventy times seven and still more, but there is another aspect I’m getting at here. What I normally have in mind is someone wrongs me, they come to me and repent, I forgive, then they go off and do the same thing again and come to me again. It keeps going until they finally stop overall.

As a divorced man now, I’m thinking there might be more to it than that. For instance, there’s no way really my ex can come to me now unless she does it through others. For my own personal sanity, I had her blocked. I don’t delight in saying that. In reality, I hate it. I hate that things came to that level, but I needed to keep my own sanity.

However, I do believe in having an attitude of forgiveness. Now with forgiveness, I do believe you should let the other person come to you first. However, while that does not happen, many times, when I do think about her, I have to be ready to be in an attitude of forgiveness.

It’s not easy. Now I am in seminary now and as I write this blog, I am in the student center and generally, I’m in a good mood most of the time. I do like seminary and I like the field of education gripping me and getting to know students and professors both. However, I would be lying if I said there are not still times of sorrow.

I can see a happy couple on campus and think “I wish I had that.” I can have a flashback to something of my ex and I based on something I see or hear briefly. Sometimes, I can be climbing into bed at night and regretting that it is just me in that bed, despite the fact that I have woken up to see Shiro at my feet in the morning. Sometimes there is still a tendency to want to cry a little bit over the pain.

This is what I have in mind by forgiveness. I find myself having to be willing to forgive the same offense done repeatedly not at different times per se, but still ongoing. I am still deeply hurt by what has happened to me and I understand that such hurt never goes away entirely, even if one remarries. There is still a sense of rejection.

As one who is looking to date now, and I do plan on writing about that sometime, I still feel the sorrow when I send out numerous likes and don’t get a nibble back even. The one conversation that got started ended with me being ghosted. I keep having a longing and a hope. My therapist has referred to someone who is looking for me as much as I am looking for them.

But still, I have to forgive either way. Holding on to anger towards my ex despite what she did to me does not help me at all. I have seen what bitterness does to people and I don’ t want to be one of those people who is ready to spew venom at the very mention of my ex. If anything, I pray for her repentance and for her to know God better. Her suffering won’t improve me in any way and I should certainly not take joy at it.

It’s not always easy though. Sometimes, the temptation to go the other way and hold on to resentment is strong, but that is a cancer that doesn’t do anything to her and destroys me in the process. Why bother?

So right now, I am also learning forgiveness. I also figure if I can learn to forgive this, most anything else in my life will be much easier by comparison seeing as this is the most painful rejection and betrayal of all.

And if you’re struggling, join me in the journey. It might not be an ex, but it doesn’t matter. Holding on to hostility will do you no good.

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