There’s A New King In Town

Is someone else claiming to be in charge? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s a Christmas song describing the birth of Jesus that says that there’s a new kid in town. A look at Matthew’s gospel would of course indicate that at one point Jesus was a new kid in town, but a look at the end of the gospel would indicate that Jesus is not the new kid but rather the new king.

When we get to the Great Commission, we are told that all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to Jesus. Therefore, we are to go out and do all that He has commanded. This is usually seen as something to give us assurance. As we go out telling the good news of forgiveness, we can be assured of the presence of Jesus. Now I don’t deny it includes that, but it is so much more.

The old rule of hermeneutics is that whenever you see a “therefore”, you’re to look and see what it’s there for. The text says it’s based on Jesus having all authority. All authority does not mean just to forgive sins. It means just what it says. Jesus has all authority. In an age where the disciples would have been well acquainted with Caesar and the Roman Empire, they were to know that because of the resurrection, Caesar was no longer in charge.

Instead, it is Christ who is the King and Christ is the one who rules from Heaven. His scope then reaches even further than that of Caesar and unlike Caesar, Christ is an eternal king. His throne can never be taken by another. All the Caesars would come and go. Christ would live on.

In fact, what is it that Christ tells the apostles to do? He tells them to do what He has commanded them. This is not a call to evangelism! This is a king giving marching orders! This is a charge going out that the world is to know that Jesus is in charge now and you are to be the bearers of that message! You are to go out into the Roman Empire and tell them Jesus is Lord!

Such a message would have been practical suicide, and if church tradition is to be believed, it certainly was. The Roman Empire would not have been happy hearing that they were no longer in charge. Jews would not be happy knowing nothing was said about returning them to the glory days of David and Solomon. We today consider it good news in our context. In their day, the news would have been news the people would NOT have been happy to hear.

And yet, that news still thrived somehow.

The Great Commission is still for us today and let us get something clear. Jesus is still king and He has given His orders. There is no other path that we are allowed to take. The king’s opinion is not up for debate. Many of us can hear the question about those who never heard. The best way to handle this is to make sure that they hear. We are told what we are to do. We are not told what happens if we fail in our mission. Christ has not given us a plan B. If He is our king, we are to follow His orders. If we are not, are we really seeing Him as king?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

What Must Be Shown

What is required to give the good news to someone? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I’ve been given a column in the local newspaper here in Knoxville, that will be a monthly feature. It’s not much of a shock that when it is published, all the trolls come out to play. A friend on Facebook had recommended I not check the comments but personally, the comments are a good deal of fun!

It amazes me when I see what we’re up against. I have the claim that if I had done some real research, I’d know that Jesus never even existed. Most people just make assertions and don’t have any arguments to them. Interestingly, none of them seem to want to go after the resurrection itself.

Instead, it’s a desperate hope to hit it from another angle. If we can show miracles never take place, then we can disprove the resurrection! True, but that is a tall order and attempts to do so today only succeed at begging the question. Not to mention that since Keener has written his work on this, there’s a whole lot more evidence to deal with.

Also is the idea that if we can demonstrate one story is false, then all the stories are! If we can show a problem with the virgin birth, then we have no reason to accept the resurrection! If we bring up Matthew 27 as hard to believe, then we have no reason to believe Matthew 28!

Yet to directly go after the resurrection? Not happening.

What is happening is in fact our fault largely.

When we are out there teaching Christian doctrine, we are out there trying to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. That is what one believes in order to be saved. One is to trust that God has given His support to Jesus of Nazareth and has demonstrated this by His resurrection.

Let us state some things the gospel is not.

It is not “You must believe in a 6-10,000 year old Earth in order to be saved.”

It is not “You must believe in a pre-trib rapture to be saved.”

It is not “You must believe the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. was the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse to be saved.”

It is not “You must believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture to be saved.”

It is not saying “You must believe in speaking in tongues to be saved.”

It is not saying “You must believe in predestination or free-will to be saved.”

Now that is not to say these other issues are unimportant, but they are not essential. We can and should discuss them, but we make a mistake if we present them as if they’re part of the gospel. They are aspects that matter if the gospel is true, but they are not the message.

If there is no resurrection, these opinions don’t matter for salvation or they’re outright false. It is only if the resurrection matters that either these can be true or that they matter. If we make them part of the message, then we are adding to the gospel.

This harms believers in that we convince them they have to believe one of these in addition to the resurrection. When the lesser belief is knocked down, then the resurrection also goes down with it. How many Christians have apostasized because they concluded the Earth was old or that there was an error in the Bible?

It also harms our testimony to unbelievers. After all, they too are of the opinion that every Christian has to believe this and if you can knock down this belief, you don’t have to take the resurrection seriously. Why should someone go after the resurrection when they can just keep tossing out Bible contradictions left and right and know that if any one of them hits, then their case is made?

By all means of course, have opinions on these other issues. Feel free to study them and make a case for them, but don’t confuse them with Christianity! The truth of Christianity does not depend on these claims! The truth of Christianity only depends on the claim that Jesus is risen! That is the claim that is absolutely essential that we must defend. Let us make sure we are majoring in the majors and minoring in the minors and not going the other way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

No Neutral Ground

Can you say you have no position on Christ? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Christ is someone in history that nearly everyone has something to say concerning. When Christ showed up, there were several other religions, and he said little about them, save the Judaism he grew up in and practiced, but since He showed up, religions that have heard of Him have said something about Him. Even shortly after His time, gnostic challenges of Christianity showed up all seeking to explain this figure and fit Him into their paradigm.

If you are a Buddhist, you can have a place for Jesus in your system as one who is enlightened. A Hindu can see Jesus as an avatar. The numerous cults of Christianity all seek to have a way to explain Him by changing Him in some way, such as lowering his oneness with the Father by JWs or by making Him one of many gods such as in Mormonism. Islam is ready to accept Jesus as a prophet, Messiah, and even that He will return again, but it denies entirely that He is the Son of God.

Even those without a religion still want to do something with Jesus. A growing number of fundy atheists seek to deny that He ever even existed. Those who do accept His existence are willing to usually accept Him as a good moral teacher. It is not uncommon to hear an atheist or agnostic say that they really like Jesus.

Jesus is just someone that has to be dealt with.

And Jesus Himself makes the challenge strong.

In Matthew and Luke, when Jesus casts a demon out of someone and is told that he does it by the power of Beelzebub, he responds and in the response says that “Whoever is not with me is against me.” In Mark 9 when told about another man casting out demons in His name Jesus says “Whoever is not against us, is for us.”

The message is that Jesus is someone you cannot be neutral about. There is no indication the early church was neutral either. This was a group willing to go to the lions and to be the lights for Nero’s evening parties rather than make a compromise on their faith. Their position on Christ was more precious than their own lives.

Today, the same challenge still comes to all of us. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the skeptical investigating the evidence of Jesus. Still, the reason one searches is so one can reach a conclusion. In the end, one must remember the words long ago of Thomas Sherlock. When considering the resurrection, one must either accept the miracle or prove the fraud.

Jesus comes to us today still with strong claims and asks if we are with Him or against Him. If we are with Him, it is ultimately a call to die still. A call to die to yourselves. To forgo public favor and being celebrated by the culture. It is a call to learn how to properly balance our desires. To realize that it is not all about us. To realize that all the pleasures of life are meant to be put underneath Him as the greatest pleasure. It is to realize that we must depend on Him entirely for all we do and are.

If you are against Him, then that comes with a high cost. It is to say that you will ultimately reject the way of Christ, including His claims of being the true revelation of God to the world and to be bringing about His Kingdom. It is a claim to oppose then the Kingdom of God. Of course, if Jesus is wrong, then it is a claim that has no threat, but one best make sure He is wrong.

In doing this, we must once again realize the staggering claims of Jesus and remember the question asked of Him so often in His ministry. “Who is He?”

Apparently, a lot hangs on that question.

Choose your side. Neutral is not an option.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How Would Jesus Vote?

Is Jesus A Republican or a Democrat? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I recently had a column printed in the local newspaper. It was one based on an idea I’ve blogged about earlier in saying the gospels should be read as political campaigns, an idea you can read about here. The person responded saying Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat.

That lest me convinced the column had not been read.

Yet having said that, I wonder about this term. “Jesus is neither a Republican or a Democrat.” What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that Jesus would not walk lock, stock, and barrel, with every position that a party holds on an issue? (Which would be difficult since both parties have internal disagreements among themselves.) If that is all I am to conclude, I have no problem.

Next question then. If we say He would not agree with everything, does that mean He would disagree with everything? For instance, Republicans by and large tend to oppose abortion. Democrats tend to support it. Yes. I know there are exceptions, but this is one example. Am I to conclude from this that if Jesus does not side with either party, that He has no view on abortion? Am I to conclude that He does not see it as good or evil?

This is a position that sounds dangerously relativistic. Let’s grant that one party is in support of abortion. One party is not. If Jesus holds a position, and I would hold that He does, then it would follow that His support would be behind the one who has His position on that issue at least. That support could be disqualified on other grounds, but if it was one issue, that one would have His support.

We could go down the line. What about the marriage debate? In that one, we would need to study to see what we think the right viewpoint is and realize whichever one is right, that is the one Christ would support. What about economic issues? These are multi-faceted and we would have to study. We’d want to take into consideration many points. Which plan is the most feasible? Which one produces the best results? Should we consider long-term effects as well as short-term ones? Are there moral considerations with regards to certain taxes? What is the biblical position on wealth? What is the best way to take care of the poor? This could mean more than just simple prooftexting. It could mean doing some studies in economic theories and looking at them and seeing which one helps a nation best.

The answer ultimately then is not to encourage people to vote Republican or Democrat, but to vote Christian, which is just fine. Everyone else gets to vote according to their worldview. Why shouldn’t a Christian? If we as a nation get people to become serious Christians, then in turn those people will respond politically as Christians. If we want to see a nation that runs in a Christian manner, it won’t be by government work alone. It will be by doing what we’ve already been told to do, the Great Commission. If we who are Christians in America think America is falling and want to save America, which is a noble desire I agree, then it is not done by looking at government to be our savior. It can’t be. Government is not useless, but it is not the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God can use the government, but for that to happen, the servants will have to do the work that they have been assigned to do by the Master.

I will not be answering if Jesus is a Republican or Democrat. Those who know me know the way I vote, but I will say Jesus supports what is true and right and righteousness upholds a nation. If we want to change the country, the best way is by fulfilling the Great Commission in all we do, including our politics and economics. Let us not let another cliche saying stop us from interacting in politics at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Malachy and Modern End Times Hysteria

Is there cause for alarm with a new Pope? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

At the start, let me state that I am a Protestant. Furthermore, I am an orthodox Preterist in my eschatology, so if you asked me if the new Pope was the Antichrist, I would say he is obviously not. Whether he is antichrist (With a little a) or not is a different matter, but no. I do not see him as a great end-times figure.

Yet now that he has been declared the new Pope, much is being made of him in light of the prophecy of Malachy. Malachy supposedly predicted the last Popes and this one is supposed to be it. Add in that this is the first Pope that is a Jesuit and now all the conspiracy theories are coming out.

I find it fascinating that most of these are all supposed to take place within our lifetime. Generation after generation considers themselves to be the chosen generation. Despite how many end times predictions have been shown to be false and thus an embarrassment to the Christian faith, the guessing still goes on.

It’s also part of our present fixation. We must live in the time. We must be the chosen ones. Okay. You’re partially right. You are the chosen ones. It does not mean you are the chosen ones to be the last generation. It means you are the chosen ones to inherit the Kingdom of God. How you were chosen I will leave for others who actually really care about the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

So while you are chosen to serve in the Kingdom and you should take that task seriously, it does not mean that you are in a time that is necessarily privileged. For the sake of argument, you could live in that time. It could be Christ will return in this generation. If He does, it will not happen because it was your generation. It will not happen because of you. It will be because of Him.

Could this be a symptom of our great fixation on ourselves? For instance, when we are growing up, many of us have a belief that somehow, we will never die. Could that be changed into the idea that God Himself will intervene with the rapture or the return of Christ so He can make sure that we never die? Of course, He could do that, but if done, it isn’t just because God wants to help you avoid some discomfort.

The great danger with the latest in modern end-times hysteria is that those who do this based on a prophecy are then saying that the prophecy is from God. If the prophecy does not come true, what is the conclusion? Whatever it is, and there are several possibilities, it does not bode well for God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of those groups that has had several end-times predictions. When they have failed, people have left the Watchtower organization. Okay. That’s good. Unfortunately, a lot of them do not become Christians but rather atheists and agnostics. When Christians make failed predictions, a lot of people will leave Christianity seeing as God is shown to not be reliable.

Also, fundy atheists online will have a heyday with such a thing. Already, I receive countless reminders that there’s a group called Westboro Baptist Church. (No! Really?!) Bart Ehrman makes much of false predictions in “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” Of course, I think the big problem is how he interpreters prophetic passages.

Now if you are a futurist, you have the freedom to believe this Pope is the Antichrist. By all means go ahead, just be careful about making a prediction based on it. Why? Because that is to claim what God is saying and if you say “God says” when God has not said, it is an action He takes very seriously. How seriously? Well in the Old Covenant, you could get put to death for it. That’s quite serious.

Remember, according to James 3:1, if you are a teacher, you will be held to greater accountability. As for bringing about the end times, I only know of one passage that can be read that way and that’s in 2 Peter 3.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives

12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

What I gather from this is that if you want to bring about the return of Christ, then live holy and godly lives. This is what you should be doing anyway. It’s my thinking that if we want Christ to return, then we need to do what He told us to do. That is to fulfill the Great Commission. We are not told to breed red cows or build temples or study medieval prophets. We are told to live holy and godly lives. We are told to do the Great Commission.

Why not do what we’re told instead of doing what we’re not told to do?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Gift of Creation

Why is there so much in our world? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters!

Recently at our small group, I told the people that it’s quite easy to worry about the future in our current economic state, at least if you’re an American like myself. Yet when we come to Matthew 6, we are told to seek first the Kingdom and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you. We are told in the Psalms that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. We are told in Romans 8 that He who gave us His Son will most graciously give us all things. We are told in Luke 12 that it is the Father’s good pleasure to give the flock the Kingdom.

So why is there creation?

I have no desire to give a total answer to this. That would require something book-length. Something I notice in the passages is that we will be taken care of and that God does not need anything. Of course, God does everything for His glory, but it is not because He needs glory. It is not God who is benefited when we glorify Him. We do not give Him something He lacks. It is we who are benefited.

It can be hard to believe we will be, but at times like that, we need to learn to not listen to our emotions and to our fears but to the voice of Scripture. Please don’t think I’m someone who’s mastered this as well. There can be nights where I wake up and have a hard time going back to sleep due to worrying about a financial situation.

When we’re tempted to think about this, then consider, God gave us His Son. He is giving us the Kingdom. We think it is too much to ask that God will give us our daily bread then? We think it is beyond His ability to supply us? Of course, we are to be good stewards of what He gives us, something many of us can work on, but we should recognize they are His good gifts.

Could it be then that part of the purpose of creation is for God to show His grace and riches towards us? Is it because God wants to bless us? Why not? Does He not give us His Kingdom and His Son so He can show us the abundance of His glory? Doesn’t Ephesians 2 teach us that it will take all eternity for God to show the abundance of His grace towards us?

Do we think God is stingy? With what could He be stingy? You can take the richest person in the world today and even they can’t give everyone everything they want without going broke themselves. No matter how much wealth such a person has, they still have a limited amount of it.

God is not like that. He has unlimited wealth and He is the only one who if more was wanted, could create more immediately. This is the same one who fed the 5,000, not counting women and children, and yet it is to be seen as difficult to think that He will supply day to day needs?

In fact, if anything, Scripture shows us God likes to bless us. He likes to bless the same way a husband can love to adore his wife with gifts or parents love to go crazy with their credit cards for Christmas.

Could it be we just don’t trust God? While we can realize He would not be benefited by us, we should also realize it would not really do Him much to deny us. Do we think God is petty and spiteful?

Now the question we have to ask is are we doing what Matthew 6 says? Are we seeking the Kingdom and His righteousness? We cannot think God will bless us if we are living in rejection of Him. Of course, we do not obligate Him to bless us by our goodness. We realize that is grace, but we are in a much better place to receive when we live in obedience to Him.

Note also if creation is the gift to provide us, this is something for those in the environmental movement, and in fact those outside, to consider. The creation is a gift to us, and we are to take care of it properly like any other gift. We can use it, but we are not to abuse it. It is our gift, but ultimately from the hand of God. It is our Father’s world.

Let’s try to rest easy fellow Christians and seek the Kingdom and trust God to care for us then.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Partially Right

Is there some truth to be learned from those who are wrong? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My wife struggles with depression. We have a good friend who has recommended literature to us that she has made sure to tell us is not part of the Word of Faith movement. If you don’t know what I mean by that, I mean the people who are “name it, claim it” types. I still want to review any material before I share it with Allie, but I’d like to use this kind of example to illustrate a point.

The Word of Faith movement is wrong. I do not doubt that. Yet there is a way in which there is something true to what they say. It is not in the extra-mental world. You cannot say that you want to be a billionaire and lo and behold, you will wind up being a billionaire. That being said, your attitude can certainly affect whether or not you will become a billionaire. If you regularly tell yourself you have no chance of being successful in business, then you will not be likely to reach your goal.

What you declare will not change the outside world, but it will affect you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have lately been seeing tremendous value in what is called “Cognitive-behavioral therapy” and I would add in that I think it’s Scriptural, such as in “As a man thinketh in his heart, so shall he be.” Your thoughts do affect you.

Now I could write a whole post on the effects of this kind of approach, but I choose to not do that. Instead, I’d like to point out that because someone is wrong on the main issues, it does not mean that there is nothing that can be learned from them at all. For instance, we’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on our door. I do not doubt the JWs have helped many people. I find I can agree with much of their material on the reliability of Scripture. They are wrong on the main issues of course, but I will take what I can.

How about reading liberal scholars of the Bible? By all means do so. Yes. They are wrong on central issues, but they are not without their insights into the text. I have had discussions with groups where I am able to bring up points that have been made by liberal scholars and had them be helpful to the discussion.

What about reading atheists? Again, by all means. Just because someone is wrong on the big issues again does not mean there is nothing to be gained. If anything, you can gain insight into the criticisms of why you believe what you believe and by learning to address those criticisms, you can strengthen your own position. It is incredibly helpful to go into a debate and be sure of what the other side is going to say before they say it.

The Jesuits once said that the philosophers were gifts to the church. Saint Augustine said “All truth is God’s truth.” I encourage readers to be looking for truth wherever they can. Remember, to discount something immediately based on the source is a genetic fallacy. It is wrong for non-Christians to do it to us. Don’t do it to them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Messianic Preterists and Futurists

Is it heretical to think some prophecy has been fulfilled? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I wrote recently about my position as an orthodox Preterist. What’s amazing to me often times is how many people assume I’m teaching some heretical doctrine right at the start. I hold to every doctrine that is essential for salvation. I am right up there with the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, future bodily resurrection, past bodily resurrection of Christ, etc. I also hold a high view of Scripture.

Yet this misnomer gets tossed around regularly and what’s really stunning is that most people who say it to me freely confess they have not studied my position at all. Even worse, most of them think that they don’t need to. Meanwhile, when I spoke about this at my old church in Charlotte, I got several books on dispensationalism to make sure I was representing them properly. I was further convinced by reading them, but I gave them a chance.

Little tip here. If you’re sure your position is correct, why should you fear the other side? On the other hand, if you come and treat my view in a way I see as ludicrous, why should I be convinced?

I’d like to give an analogy of the way I see prophecy. Suppose you live in 50 A.D. and you are a Christian in Jerusalem. You are talking to a person who is a Jew and does not believe in Jesus as Messiah. When reasoning with a Jew, the Old Testament prophecies will be an essential part of your evangelism. Here are some objections you could hear.

“How could Jesus be the Messiah if we have not been restored to the Davidic Kingdom?”

“Wouldn’t the Messiah make sure that Rome is eliminated?”

“We still have demonic activity here with our exorcists having to work. Wouldn’t Jesus eliminate that?”

“Isn’t there supposed to be universal peace?”

Couldn’t you point to some of your own prophecies? You could. You could say some have been fulfilled in Christ. Here’s some responses you could hear back. (I do realize chapters and verses weren’t added until later so please excuse that anachronism)

“Oh? You say John the Baptist fulfills Isaiah 40:3? Maybe Mark should have told you the next part:

Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Obviously, the valleys were not raised up and every mountain and hill made low! We still have them! You’re just spiritualizing the text!”

“Isaiah 53? The same one that says:

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

Don’t allegorize the text!”

“Zechariah 9? Yes. It says he’ll come riding on a donkey. What else does it say?

I will take away the chariots from Ephraim
and the warhorses from Jerusalem,
and the battle bow will be broken.
He will proclaim peace to the nations.
His rule will extend from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.

I don’t see that rule going on right now! Don’t allegorize it!”

What has happened? You believe some prophecies have had a past fulfillment. With regards to the coming of Messiah, you believe some prophecies are past. You do believe some are future still, such as what is to happen at the return of Christ or as the Kingdom spreads, but obviously, some prophecies are you are not taking literally. You don’t believe the coming of John the Baptist means the topography of Israel was literally changed.

In those days, you would be a Messianic Preterist talking to someone who believes the Messiah is future, a Messianic Futurist.

Note also, with regards to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, you would also still be a futurist as 70 A.D. had not happened yet.

Why do I say this? Because just like you in 50 A.D., I look at Jesus and say some prophecies he made have already been fulfilled. I could be wrong, sure, but what is inherently heretical about that? For instance, if I think he prophesied the destruction of the temple and I see that the temple was destroyed and to beat that, within one generation, am I not justified in that?

You could say that it could be my stance on the nation of Israel. If I don’t believe in a future fulfillment or a third temple, I am not in line with orthodoxy. How could that be? Our doctrinal statements are about Christ and not about Israel. Note also orthodoxy is what you believe about Christ, not antichrist.

If you lived in the first century in 50 A.D. you would say some prophecies have been fulfilled even if not literally. I am doing the exact same thing today. The Jew back then would have said you were not being a true Jew even though you certainly were being one. The problem is he’s assuming Scripture must be fulfilled the way he thinks.

It would be a shame to make the same mistake.

Again, I could be wrong. If my eschatology is wrong, I’m open to it. My simple stance is people who disagree with me should be open as well. Even if another view is wrong, it can help you understand and appreciate yours more when you see what the other side says. Give it a try.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: Please keep in mind that eschatology will be part of the discussion this week on the Deeper Waters Podcast. It’s on Saturday from 3-5 EST.

http://www.cyiworldwide.com/deeper-waters.html

Dr. J and Tyler Clementi

Has too much been read into a comment? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I found out that Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, known as Dr. J, of the Ruth Institute, was on the receiving end of some remarks from leftist homosexual activists concerning her supposedly misusing the suicide of a young man named Tyler Clementi. Dr. J is someone I consider a friend so I wanted to look into this since I have never known her to be anything but loving and respecting. I remember meeting her in NC one time and being introduced as her friend when we hadn’t spoken that much. I happily accept the title. I’m very proud of Dr. J’s commitment to marriage.

Still, I wanted to be as fair as I could. I talked to her and she said she would let me listen to the podcast without comment first so I wouldn’t be swayed by her. Fair enough. I listened twice. Then I questioned her about it. At first, I wasn’t sure what to make of her response from what I heard, but later on, I looked back at it again and realized “Why yes. That makes perfect sense.” As it turns out, I had misinterpreted just as well. For that, I do offer my great apologies, but I want the reader to know that Dr. J was fine with me listening and coming to my own conclusions. That is her great character there.

So what is going on? At a talk, Dr. J spoke about how some people in the homosexual community get exploited. Okay. Let’s start there before we go on. Are we going to say this never happens? Is it the case that no one in the homosexual community could never take advantage of another homosexual in a sexual sense? There really doesn’t seem to be much controversial about that. You could be someone who thinks homosexuality is perfectly okay, and still agree with it. I think heterosexuality is what is right, but I am freely able to admit this happens. I would also admit this can even sadly happen in marriage when a spouse is treated as just an object of sexual pleasure and nothing else.

Let’s hope we’re agreed then. Sexual exploitation happens and it’s wrong.

In talking about this, Dr. J told Catholic students, who share her worldview, that she thinks chaste friendships should be what is sought. The idea I gather is that men need to form friendships with homosexual men and women need to form them with homosexual women. They need to be treated like men and women regardless of their sexual attraction. If I’m wrong on her stance, I’m open to correction.

Dr. J also said that in our culture, we sexualize everything. Will anyone disagree with this? You can’t go anywhere without finding sex being an active part. Now to an extent, this is understandable. I think that being too open about sex is a problem, but so is being prudish. I found the Ragu commercial during the Olympics absolutely hysterical and I think there is a fun and open way for Christians to maturely talk about sex, and no, I don’t mind the joke about it from time to time. It’s a funny topic after all!

Yet for us, any relationship is automatically sexualized and this can give us confusion in our society. Dr. J said that as a woman, she should have only one sexual relationship. As a married man, I am the same way. The only relationship I should have that has a sexual component to it is the one I have with my wife. In our society, too often sex is made a part of most every relationship.

Now in light of talking about sexual exploitation and the homosexual community, she told about Tyler Clementi. The story from GLAAD on Clementi is that he was a student at Rutger’s who committed suicide after his roommate recorded him kissing another man.

When this was brought up by Dr. J, she asked the students if they knew about this. Admittedly, on the recording, this part seems ambiguous. You can’t tell what the students say. Dr. J says she won’t go into it. My first impression was that that meant the students already knew about it. I have been told that that is not correct. What happened was no one had any clue and it would have been seen as a tangent and a long one to explain at a Q&A so don’t go into it while other people are waiting for questions.

Dr. J had said that people can be caught by activists in the homosexual group who might want to use them to further push their own agenda. Would anyone really deny that this is plausible at least? Don’t people in politics use other people on a regular basis to further their own agenda without taking into account the person?

Let’s state some things further that I don’t think would need to be stated, but I’m sure Dr. J would agree with.

First, that this happened to Tyler Clementi is a tragedy. Suicide is always a sad thing. I don’t know anyone in this debate who is looking at the suicide of Tyler Clementi as a good thing. It is something that we all wish to avoid.

Second, the action of the roommate was also wrong. In our culture of sexting and such, too often these kinds of incidents spread around the internet like wildfire. Yes. It is wrong for several young women to be sharing sexual pictures of themselves, but what we do with it is worse.

Third, bullying of anyone is wrong. This is also the case by the way for the homosexual activists on Dr. J’s facebook page. For all the time they spend talking about love and tolerance, they sure don’t show it. In fact, their comments are further confirmation of what Dr. J has said consistently. We can expect this kind of treatment when we speak against the party line. That they give Dr. J this treatment now is reason enough to suspect that if they gain power, they’ll do even worse.

In fact, GLAAD in a page complaining about Dr. J lists statements she’s made they don’t like. That’s their choice! They have a right to not like her statements and positions! What they don’t have on the page unfortunately is reasons why Dr. J’s opinions are wrong! Saying “I don’t like X!” does not count as an argument against X. It could be for the sake of argument that Dr. J is wrong. It is not enough to show she is wrong by having outrage.

So getting back to what was going on, in the worst case scenario, it was a statement that a young man could have been taken advantage of by someone in the homosexual community and the tragic ending of that was suicide. Who would deny that this is a plausible situation? Who would deny that this is also a possible situation?

The sad reality also is that exploitation will still sadly go on. There will be people who will use the death of Tyler Clementi to push their own agenda. The sad reality is that GLAAD could very well be doing the same thing. Does that mean that they are doing that? No. It means they need to be aware of that possibility.

As it stands right now, it’s my contention that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. In fact, Dr. J has offered to meet with the Clementis. Personally, that sounds like an excellent idea. Let them meet and discuss the situation and see if they think Dr. J did something wrong. I do not doubt if Dr. J was given a convincing reason to show that something she did was improper, she would be the first to offer an apology. We would not need to ask her to. She is that kind of person.

Hopefully, we can move past the accusations that have been going on and try to sit down and listen to what is being said. We may not like it, but our dislike is not an argument in itself. No matter what position one takes in this debate, one needs to try to have a rational basis for what they think.

Let’s hope the apostles of tolerance and open-mindedness and diversity are willing to consider this approach. Somehow, I doubt it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

GLAAD’s page complaining about Dr. J as well as links to their position on Tyler Clementi can be found here: http://www.glaad.org/cap/jennifer-roback-morse

Why I Call Myself A Preterist

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say I’m a Partial Preterist? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, after writing a review of Ehrman’s “Jesus — Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium”, I got a number of requests on Facebook. To be precise, four friends asked me about my view and were asking me “So are you a Full Preterist?” or “Why don’t you call yourself a Partial Preterist?”

I had planned to write about why I hold the eschatological view that I hold today, but I wish instead to write first about why I call myself what I call myself.

I suspect most of my readers are likely futurists. I have nothing against futurists. I’m married to one. I just think futurism is wrong. It is still well within Christian orthodoxy. Futurism basically thinks that much of prophecy is yet to be fulfilled seeing great significance in Israel coming back as a nation and looking for a third temple, a reign of antichrist, a great tribulation, etc.

Preterism on the other hand refers to past fulfillment. We believe the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ and is being fulfilled right now. Just last night I was discussing this with someone who started telling me “Assuming Revelation is linear” to which I said “I don’t assume that.” I happen to see Revelation as cyclical, the same story is told over and over and in grander tones each time.

I was asked “Do you believe in a great tribulation?” I responded that I did and when asked when I thought it might be, pointed back to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now of course, we who are Preterists can interpret passages differently. My view of Revelation might not be held by all. Yet what we have in common is we see much has happened, particularly in 70 A.D. The Olivet Discourse with the saying of “This generation” was an accurate prophecy.

Note at this point I am just explaining the view. I am not defending it. What we all look forward to still is the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked and to the bodily return of Jesus. That does not make us partial futurists. That makes us Christians. The creeds tell us that we look forward to the return of Christ and the resurrection.

There are people out there that call themselves Full Preterist, True Preterists, or just Preterists. I prefer to call them “Neo-Hymenaeans.” These people think there is no future resurrection, we’re in our new bodies now, and there is no future return of Jesus physically. My friend DeeDee Warren at the Preteristsite.com has the best material in dealing with this group that is a full heresy.

That’s not just my opinion. Look at the quote she has from Neo-Hymenaean David Green on her site. (Note that for Green, Preterists like myself are considered futurists since we believe some things are future.) Green’s quote is as follows:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

I happen to agree with him. This view is heretical.

So why not call myself a Partial Preterist?

Because if Preterism is used to describe a heresy, why would I want to call myself a partial heretic? You might as well consider being a partial modalist or a partial Arian. I am not partially a heretic in any way. I am entirely orthodox.

Thus, I prefer to call myself simply an orthodox Preterist. I hold a view that is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy believing all the essentials of the faith. I refuse to let the name of the view that I hold in eschatology be tarnished by people I consider heretics. The name “Preterist” means something to me and I will not let someone else control the words.

I hope that is enough to explain to people why I call myself what I do. Now why do I hold the view I do? That is another question and one that we will discuss another time, maybe even tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters