How Not To Argue Marriage

Is there a way to not argue for marriage? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I recently got shown a letter in the local newspaper by a minister writing about how unconditional love demands the recognition of same-sex marriages. I was quite appalled at what I saw and immediately drafted out a response that after some shortening, the newspaper is going to put up.

In checking the web site to see what people are putting up, I notice the rampant quoting of Scripture. Now I love Scripture and think we should all know and treasure it, but I do not think the way we are going to win the marriage debate is by quoting Scripture.

Here in the South, it might have more credibility, but I’d like for you if you’re a Christian to imagine what it would mean for you if someone said that their Scripture, the Koran, tells you how it is you’re supposed to live. It could even be something you agree with as Islam does not approve of homosexuality, and yet you would not take it seriously. It is doubtful you’d go out saying “The Koran says the same thing!”

The problem is the person you’re usually dialoguing with will not accept the Bible as authoritative. Now if they do, that would change things, but even still there can be a problem.

What will usually happen is that someone will quote Leviticus 18 and tell how homosexuality is considered an abomination. The skeptic will reply “And so is eating shellfish. Should we do away with that?” Now I do not believe this is a good argument, but it is a common one. What will happen? You will immediately shift away from the topic of homosexuality to a debate on biblical inerrancy and interpretation.

In fact, you could, and I believe you can, win that argument and the person will then just say “Well that was also another time and culture.” This is a route where you could win the battle and lose the war. Of course, there is an answer to that, but would it not be best to avoid the debate altogether?

The moral commands of the Bible were not new. One does not need Scripture to know right from wrong. If you were to go to Leviticus 18 and 20, two passages that condemn homosexuality, you would find this. In both passages we are told that the nations Israel is dispossessing are being driven out because of these actions. In other words “They are getting punished for what they know is wrong.” If this knowledge could not be known, there would be no basis for punishment.

If this is the case, then instead of looking at just what Scripture says, which is informative, let’s look at why it says it. What is the reasoning that we can all possess that should show us that homosexual behavior is wrong and is part of general revelation?

There are many ways of doing this. Some people come from a medical perspective and show the dangers of the behavior. Some come from a statistical behavior and using social sciences study the behavior to show the problems. Some, like myself, come with a philosophical bent and seek to study sexuality that way and the family and show how it’s wrong.

These are all effective ways and prevent another great danger. When we reason with just the Bible, we are more prone to look like brain-dead fools. I am certainly not saying we are, but I am saying that that is how we will be perceived. We can actually take up the weapons of the enemy and meet them on their own turf and win. The one who loves the Bible should also love knowledge outside the Bible.

This will lead to better debates, debates we can all take more seriously, and let’s hope that they are.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Don’t Forget About Mary

The Mother of God? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Many of us who are Protestants can get nervous at this point in talking about Mary. It’s understandable. We don’t agree with the way other faith traditions have treated Mary and given her a place that we think is way too high. This would be a mistake. Let’s consider for instance the social gospel. This is the idea that Jesus came to tell us to love one another and give to the poor so we should be caring for the poor.

I’m as strong a capitalist as they come and realize that many people here see liberalism and remind us that Jesus came to teach the Kingdom of God, that His rule was coming, and to die for our sins. All of this is no doubt true. The great danger is that in acting against the social gospel, we can miss one point. Jesus did want us to care for the poor and to love our fellow man. Conservative capitalists should seek to do this.

Let’s take this back to Mary. At the start, I used the term Mother of God and this already gets people wondering. “God doesn’t have a mother! God has always been!” Yes. The title can be confusing, but while such objections can be raised, let’s make sure that we don’t forget something easily overlooked.

The church when saying this knew that already.

Yes. They knew darn well that God was eternal. They knew He does not have a mother, and yet they referred to Mary as the Mother of God. Why?

Part of the problem is treating God as if it was a personal name. There is the idea that when we say God, we must always refer to one person who is God and not say anything about His nature. When the Five Ways of Aquinas end with “And this, everyone knows to be God” it would have already been clear that when you say God, you are making some statements about the nature of God.

Consider what happens when someone tells you Jesus is God. We uphold that of course, but what do we mean? Greg Stafford, formerly with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, used to have a syllogism that went this way.

Jesus is God.
God is a Trinity.
Jesus is a Trinity.

The form of that syllogism is absolutely valid. Therefore, we need to find a problematic premise, but the top two premises are both statements we affirm and yet we don’t affirm the conclusion. What kind of situation are we in?

Let’s look at the first one to see. When we say “Jesus is God” do we mean “Jesus is the being who is the Trinity”? No. That’d be modalism. What we mean to say is that Jesus is a person who carries within Himself the full nature of God. That nature happens to be shared by three persons.

So let’s take this back to Mary. We are not saying that Mary gave birth to the being of God. That is nonsense. We are saying that Mary gave birth to a person who happens to have the full nature of God. That is difficult to understand, but not ipso facto nonsense.

Mary has a great position then in church history getting to give birth to Jesus. While I do not affirm her sinlessness or assumption or perpetual virginity, I and I would hope my fellow readers who are Protestants will affirm that this lady was given an incredibly special privilege we dare not take lightly.

It means that at the right time, God found just the right woman in Israel who he chose to be the mother of His Son. For thirty years, she would raise Him and care for Him and show Him how He ought to live. If some scholars are right and Joseph was dead when Jesus began His ministry, this would have been an even more challenging task.

In fact, usually in the gospels when she shows up, she’s not really acknowledged. Obviously, she plays a part in the birth narratives, but even then there’s a mystery. Luke writes about how she pondered events in her heart no doubt wondering what exactly would happen with this child. He also gives the words of Simeon that a sword would pierce her soul as well, and surely a number of mothers can say there’s no sword like losing your child.

When we see Jesus at the age of twelve in Luke, Jesus rebukes his parents to say “Didn’t you know I would be in my Father’s house?” It’s as if Mary should have known better. Why was it so hard to find Him? Surely such an event made an impression on her.

When in His ministry, Jesus’s family comes for Him, we find at one point that they think He is insane. There is no indication Mary is not part of this. Had she told Him about his miraculous birth and did she think that this was going to His head? We don’t have enough information to know for sure.

Later when His family seeks Him, Jesus tells them that His family are those who hear the Word of God and obey it. In a society that placed great emphasis on honoring family obligations, Jesus did just the opposite in putting His family in a distant position, something He told us we must do in Luke 14 to be His disciple. When a woman cries out that blessed is the womb that gave birth to Jesus and the breasts on which He nourished, he replies that blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.

Of the gospels, John alone has the future of the situation. While in the beginning, Jesus does rebuke His mother at one point telling her His time is not yet come, nevertheless He does as she says. In the end, we find that He has the beloved disciple be the one to take care of her.

If any time was perplexing to Mary, it would have been that weekend. The disciples had followed Him for but three years. She had been there all His life and Had been told He was the Messiah by Gabriel himself. Didn’t God know how the story was to turn out? How could crucifixion be what He had in mind all along? Had God deceived her? Had Mary just failed as the mother of the Messiah? Had she brought doom to all of Israel so that they would never be free from Rome?

It would be fascinating to know what went on in that time. It has been said that when a parent loses a child, they lose their future. Mary lost not only hers, or so she thought, but she had lost the future of Israel, not just for herself but maybe for everyone else. Was there any chance God would send another Messiah? We can’t be sure what she thought, but we can be sure her thoughts were not pleasant.

The last time we see Mary in the New Testament (I know some might say Revelation 12, but I do not see that as Mary) is in Acts. Mary is there with the rest of the disciples. There she has come to understand and no doubt with the coming of the Holy Spirit would understand more.

Perhaps what we need to do to understand best what it meant for Jesus to carry the hope of Israel on Him would be to consider what it was like for His mother. While there are ways we think that we should not see Mary, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. God chose a special woman for a special task, and may we all be ready for whatever special tasks He has for us, even if we just see ourselves as peasants.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Packer Heat

What does J.I. Packer say about Mike Licona? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In point 22 of his long response to Mike Licona, Norman Geisler says the following:

Speaking of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [which] defines it most exhaustively,” Licona claims, “But even those who helped compose it aren’t in complete agreement about its meaning. I continue to be a biblical inerrantist and subscribe to both the Lausanne Covenant and the Chicago Statement.” However, this claim by Licona is flatly false. There are only three living framers of the ICBI statements (J. I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and myself), and we all agree that Licona’s views are not compatible with the ICBI statements (see # 3). What Licona does to the ICBI statements is typical of what many of his peers do with the New Testament, namely, they read their meaning into it (eisegesis) rather than reading the framer’s view out of it (exegesis). Indeed, Licona is so bold as to affirm that those of us who are living ICBI framers do not properly understand the statements we framed! No wonder they misinterpret the New Testament. If Washington, Madison, and Jefferson were here today, by this same logic they would no doubt say to them that they did not properly understand The Declaration of Independence!

We are quite pleased that Geisler has enlisted the support of J.I. Packer, who gives a fine recommendation by the way of Henri Blocher’s “In The Beginning”, a fine work that is very sympathetic to theistic evolution. For the Framework hypothesis of creation, it really wouldn’t matter if evolution is true or not. Genesis is meant to tell the who and why. It is not meant to tell the when and how.

If Packer understands the ICBI statement so well, then what are we to make of the post that was put on Mike Licona’s Facebook page?

Dr. Licona, I noticed that Dr. Geisler has written a reply to your recent interview by TheBestSchools. Geisler’s response is at http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/Licona/BestSchoolsInterview2012.htm

I noticed in his point 22 that he disagrees with your statement that the framers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) don’t always agree on how to interpret ICBI. Dr. Geisler says there were only 3 framers of ICBI, R. C. Sproul, J. I. Packer, and himself. He then says “we all agree that Licona’s views are not compatible with the ICBI statements.” I just wanted you to know that I emailed J. I. Packer last fall and asked him what he thought of your view of Matthew’s raised saints. I received this reply from him on 24 February forwarded from David Horn, the Academic Secretary at Regent College:

Hello Johan,

Thank you for your email. I have just today received the following handwritten reply from Dr. Packer.

Dear Johan Erasmus,

I apologise for lateness in responding to your email.

What Dr. Licona offers is an interpretive hypothesis as to Matthew’s meaning. What biblical inerrancy means is that Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true and trustworthy. I don’t think Licona’s guess about Matthew’s meaning is plausible, but it is not an inerrancy question.

Sincerely in Christ,

J.I. Packer

With this email, Packer is saying that Licona’s stance is one entirely of hermeneutics. He doesn’t agree with Licona’s reasoning, and that is fine, but it is not an issue of Inerrancy. If this is the case, then it would seem that Packer obviously does not understand Inerrancy according to Geisler.

At this point, one of two things could be done.

Either Geisler could finally drop this whole thing and realize he’s fighting a battle that is not harming Mike at all but is rather harming himself every step of the way. He could seek to make restitution for the damage that has been done and move on and familiarize himself more with NT studies.

Or, Packer could be thrown under the bus somehow.

As for Sproul, from what I have seen, he has not spoken on this at all and being a Preterist, is not quite likely to be as literal as Geisler and could have even more sympathies. If this is the case, then two out of three framers have no problem whatsoever with Licona’s view. Again, it does not mean they agree, but they do not see it as an Inerrancy issue.

We all hope for the former, but as of this point, the ball is not in our court and we will wait to see what happens.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Habermas a Heretic?

Can we trust Gary Habermas any more? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

While checking up on affairs today, I noticed that Norm Geisler has responded to an interview that Mike Licona did.

Yes. That’s right. Responding to an interview.

My ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has already critiqued several aspects of this long article that Geisler has written. Links will be available to both at the end. For now, I wish to take the time to comment on some of the matters that Holding did not.

First off, nowhere in this is a response to the writings that have been put forward against Geisler’s handling of this and nowhere in this is there any recognition that Geisler has decided to deal with the responses that have been put forward. One wonders if Geisler has any problem with Richard Dawkins speaking on topics where the challenges he raises have already been addressed.

Also in here is the idea that Mike’s son-in-law, being me, and J.P. Holding produced a video. Geisler has an odd idea of producing. All that was done was that I did some voice in the film for the ghost of Inerrancy Future. If that is producing, then there are several producers including some members of TheologyWeb who did the voices of Geisler and Licona and my own wife who did the voice of Inerrancy Past.

In case anyone does not know, I don’t have a clue how to do that. As it stands right now, the layout of this blog is not really anything stupendous and the reason for that is that I do not possess the computer knowledge to know how to do that. My reading is in theology, philosophy, history, etc. It is not in computer knowledge. I would not know the first thing about putting together a video and putting it on YouTube. Let alone would I know anything about animation.

Furthermore, Geisler also speaks about the ongoing debate. I used to check regularly on the internet for new mentions of this, but the reality is that no one really writes about this anymore. In the blogosphere, there are far more important issues being discussed. Frankly, Mike has moved on to get a job at Houston Baptist University and has started his ministry going full throttle.

Geisler can complain about being referred to as a tar baby all he wants, but perhaps could it be that there is a grain of truth to the criticism? Could it be Licona is being quite wise in not getting himself tangled into this debate when he could be doing far more important things such as, oh, I don’t know, presenting and defending the Christian gospel in a secular world. Keep in mind, the central proclamation of the gospel after all is “He is risen!” It is not “It is Inerrant!” While Mike and I both hold to Inerrancy, it is not the gospel.

The most unique aspect of all of this now is that Habermas is now definitely included in the Rogues’ Gallery. Anyone can see this in point 9 of the article written.

“Licona also mentions the strong influence Gary Habermas was on him and that they became close friends. Indeed, he refers here and elsewhere to the advice given to him by a close friend not to engage in dialog with me on this matter. However, Habermas’s view on inerrancy straddles both sides of the fence. It is for this that he was let go from the Faculty of Veritas Evangelical Seminary, namely, “It was “…because of your own view of inerrancy that was contrary to the Veritas Seminary doctrinal statement on inerrancy. That is, your view accepts: the belief that inerrancy is consistent with the view that rejects Gospel narratives as completely historical (angels at the tomb, falling down of those seizing Jesus, and resurrection of saints)….” (VES Letter from the president, 11/21/11).”

So now, it’s Habermas. What’s it going to be then? Is Geisler going to take the leading scholars on the resurrection who have done invaluable work for the kingdom and let them be shunned by the Christian community because of this? Is there going to be an open letter to Liberty saying they need to get rid of Habermas for his views on Inerrancy?

Is this really worth it? One gets the impression that this is more about Geisler than it is about Inerrancy.

What needs to be done? First, this whole thing needs to be dropped as several have said on Geisler’s own Facebook page. There needs to be reconciliation. Note that Mike has been the one offering a face-to-face meeting and has even said that if an apology came forward, all would be forgiven. Mike has simply asked for witnesses to be present. There is nothing unreasonable about this request.

Second, evangelicals needs to speak out on this and not just on the blogosphere. Evangelicals in scholarship and apologetics should speak. We can all sit back some and say “He’s going after Licona now and a little bit he’s going after Habermas. He won’t go after me.” How would that be known? Furthermore, even if he wouldn’t, he’s going after someone else in the body in a way that shouldn’t be done and over something that is not worth it.

A silly debate like this is being an embarrassment on the body of Christ. How long will it go on? Will we, the evangelical church who have stood so strong for orthodox beliefs also take a stand for orthodox behavior and how we will handle debates in our midst in a way that avoids bullying?

Let us hope so, for if we cower before those within the church, we will most certainly cower to those without.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler’s article can be found here.

J.P. Holding’s response can be found here.

Mr. Fix-It Jesus

Can Jesus fix you up? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

How many of you growing up or maybe even still today hear that when you have a burden, you should just take it to the Lord and leave it there.

Any idea how someone is supposed to do that?

I never figured it out. It was like you were supposed to be worrying about something and then when you took it to God, it would have been completely gone from your mind. It would be nice if that happened to more of us, but the reality is is that we know it does not.

Of course, we also know that we all have problems. All of us have issues and a lot of us have a subscription. Am I then saying that if we have Jesus in our lives that that should play no part whatsoever in dealing with our problems? Aren’t we regularly encouraged to come to Jesus with our prayers?

Well, yes. Of course we are. I am also not saying that prayer is a waste of time or that knowing Jesus will not help you with your problems. I believe that we Christians should be people of prayer and I believe that knowing Jesus can help you with your problems.

So where is the happy medium?

To begin with, notice that we usually think we come to Jesus and He helps us with our problems and we get on with our lives. Back when I lived in Charlotte, I knew some boys who were twins. They were even groomsmen in my wedding. We were and are good friends and I’d spend Sunday nights with them.

Their Dad happened to be a doctor. I had a good relationship with him, but he was also my wife’s doctor. One night I was having really bad stomach pains and my wife, who can’t drive, called him up due to the fact that I was screaming. When he got there, he decided I should go to the Emergency Room to which he took us since my wife can’t drive (As it turns out, I had to have my gallbladder removed). This doctor was a constant friend to us as we prepared to move here.

What kind of friendship would it have been however if my only talk to him was “Will you help me with my problems?”

Now we do go to doctors for that on an instrumental basis. Sometimes friendships do form. Sometimes they don’t. At that point, the doctor does what he does as a service to keep his job and so he can bring home the bacon for his own family.

Jesus is not like that in the Bible. The reason doctors exist is to serve us when we are sick. The reason Jesus exists is not to be our servant. We rather exist to be His servants. The way we live often shows that we have that system in reverse.

When we treat Jesus like this, we are in fact saying “I am coming to you and asking you to fix me up so I can get back to living my own life of ignoring you.” This is the same thing many people do when they are in financial stress and suddenly find that they need to turn to God.

The reality is Jesus is under no obligation to fix anyone. There are several good reasons he might not want to. When we treat Jesus as if His purpose for being is to just fix us, we are diminishing His sacrifice and resurrection and all that He has done. We are making the Lord of the universe our personal repairman.

What can we do? One step in this is to realize that if we want Jesus, we need to want Him for more than just what He does. Jesus is Lord and when we come to Him, we are to respect Him.

Many of our problems also need the aid of those who He has gifted. God has gifted many people in the body to be wonderful counselors and we should seek to partake of their services. I myself have seen a counselor a number of times and it’s quite helpful. To this day, when there is a problem, I can often call a good friend and get their input. There is nothing anti-Christian about going to other people. In fact, it is anti-Christian to not do so as we are to bear one another’s burdens. None of us is to be a Lone Ranger.

What does this mean for us? It means we can accept it if Jesus does not take away our problems. If He does not, we can be sure based on Romans 8 that He is going to use them for our good to conform us to His likeness. We know ultimately He will take away all such problems in the eschaton, but we are not there yet. When the last day comes, we will be free, but until then, our ultimate problem is sin and our way of dealing with it is to receive forgiveness and seek to be more like Him.

The reality is that we have instead shaped Jesus to be our servant. He is not. We are His. Jesus can heal us, but it is not so we can live for ourselves but rather so we can live for Him.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Boring Bible

Why is the Bible so hard to understand? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

All Christians know about the Bible. The Bible is that book that you open it up and when you do God speaks to you in wondrous and powerful ways. We have sermons about how when the Bible is opened by a Christian that they will just learn something new about it every time and what a joy it is to read it.

For a lot of Christians, this doesn’t ring true entirely.

Let’s consider some other relevant information. First off, in our age, there is a sad tragedy in that we have heard the Bible all our lives so much that we have become familiar with it. Because of this, whatever our first impression of a Bible story can be, usually those are the ones that we have for the rest of our lives and when those get disproven, we don’t know how to separate them from the whole of Christianity. Could it be possible for instance that Christianity could be true and there not literally be a pre-trib rapture? I in fact know of Christians who are convinced that if the Bible is not inerrant, then Jesus did not rise from the dead.

This familiarity can make it so that we find it hard to read the Bible for the first time. Consider it like when you watch a movie with a surprise twist at the end, such as “Unbreakable.” Now you can still enjoy that surprise ending the second time, but it sure doesn’t have the same punch to it.

The other problem with this is our theology. We have affirmed many false beliefs about God. Consider this. Regularly it is said that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Thus, whenever we read the Bible, there is no need to study. God will tell us what we need to know and lead us into the truth.

First, this was said to the apostles and was about their teaching of what their Lord said and did in his earthly life. I don’t think any of us were around for that.

Second, if we really believed this, then do we even need a Bible? Are we to think that the Holy Spirit would have to have a book to communicate the message? Paul should have just written back to every congregation with the message of “Don’t you have the Holy Spirit? Just ask God. He’ll tell you.”

Third, we are not purely passive creatures. We have all manner of things that affect our outlook every day. Today, for instance, it’s been raining in Knoxville recently and my allergies are going berserk. That could affect some of my reasoning capacities. What if you’re tired? What if you’re really happy about something? What if you’ve just had a romantic day with the spouse or what if you’ve just had an argument? All of those will come into effect.

The great danger is that we can usually say that what we feel is equivalent to what God thinks about us. Where did we get this idea that God speaks through our feelings? Is there any Scriptural mandate for this?

The study of the Bible must consist of the study of other books. If someone does not think this, then don’t go to church. Why? After all, who needs to hear what the pastor has to say? You have enough on your own with just your Bible. If you want to know what the Bible says, it will benefit you to know what the most studied people have to say.

Some of you might be against having academics help you with the Bible. I hope not because first off, you won’t enjoy this blog, but most importantly, the Bible that you read has been translated for you by academics, unless you know Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and if you know those, chances are you have not only been helped by academics, but you are one yourself.

In fact, it could be when we read others and get their insights that those thoughts spark those of our own and we learn more about the Bible. If one stays on the same level with the Bible all their lives, it will lose interest. However, the more one loves something, the more they will want to know it and the level one’s on will keep growing deeper and deeper.

If you treat the Bible superficially, you will have a superficial understanding, kind of the way the new atheists do. Considering them on the Bible is like saying because you’ve had a high school course on evolution that you’re able to speak with authority on it. Not at all. You need more.

If we want to get a lot out of our Bibles, we will have to put more into the study of it. We will only get out of it what we put into it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

On Atheist Quote Mining

Is that really an accurate quote? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I woke up this morning to find on my Facebook a request from a friend of mine concerning a debate she was in on the Unbelievable page asking if I would know the correct source for a quote an atheist had given. I’m going to use one as an example.

“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.”
— St. Augustine (354 – 430), one of the “great” church fathers, Confessions

Okay. Confessions is a big book. It has several chapters to it. It’s not feasible to just pick it up and start reading, so the best thing to do is to do a search for the quote, although one can go to google books and look for some quotes there. What I do in this case is to take the first sentence, go to google, put it in quotes, and search.

Interestingly, the search comes up with several atheist web sites that have that same quote along with several others. Even Richard Dawkins has it in his book “The God Delusion” on page 159 and his source is Freeman. This tells me that Richard Dawkins has not even bothered to check the original quote.

So is the quote accurate?

Not really, for not too long in our search we find this:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-lies-illiteracy-or-just-bad-scholarship/33.html

Keep in mind that was not found on the 23rd page of a search. That was on the very first page. How many atheists then have even bothered to check the original quote? Considering how Dawkins can complain about creationists taking him out of context, it seems he doesn’t mind checking to see if he’s doing the same thing to Christians.

So I thought I’d take the last part that had “great” in quotations as if to make fun of Augustine. Let’s put this through the google search. How did the search results start off?

With the exact same links that the other one started off with.

This little exercise provides us with two pieces of information. The first is that we get a better understanding of what Augustine said. The second is that we understand better that too many atheists don’t bother to do any checking and simply just puke out what their cohorts have told them. Sad that a technique meant to show how blind Christians are reveals that instead of atheists.

This is a simple exercise anyone can do when given a quote. Now you won’t find every quote, but you can find some and if you can’t find the quote, ask for a clear reference, and for that you will need book and page number. If they don’t have one, I wouldn’t take it seriously then as they haven’t bothered to look it up themselves.

There’s no need to be fooled by this and you don’t need to be a person who mindlessly repeats as it seems too many atheists online are.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Perissos Conference

Would you like to make another conference possible? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My good friend Lynn Erhorn of Perissos Resources, a Christian ministry, is in the works of preparing a conference. While there will be apologetics involved, which piques my interest, this will not be just apologetics. There will be venues of all types based on TheologyWeb.com.

Some of you know that I am a member on staff at TheologyWeb. This is my favorite place to debate and Deeper Waters has its own section there. At TWeb, as we often call it, there’s something for everyone. You want to discuss TV shows, movies, and video games? You can. Want to discuss your pets or cooking? You can. Want to discuss psychology and philosophy? You can. Do men just want to get together and talk man stuff and women get together and talk women stuff? There are places for that. There are naturally places for just silliness.

We want to have a conference with the same format. There will be numerous guests and speakers. That also includes Yours Truly, though I have no idea yet for sure what I’ll be speaking on. We are also hoping to be able to get Tim Tebow to come and speak on the relationship of God to sports.

I have been to two TWeb conventions and both of them have been thoroughly entertaining and informative and also a precursor of the Kingdom I’d say. At the end of the first one, I remember being the worship leader and leading as many of us sang a hymn together from all over the world and many different denominations united in Christ and how I thought that this is what eternity is meant to be like.

I hope this conference sounds as exciting to you as it does to me.

Now here’s the problem.

This conference could possibly never be.

Why? We need interest generated and for that, we need just 250 people to fill out the survey that we have. It will only take a few minutes of your time and you could be benefiting yourself as well as numerous others who want to see this as a possibility.

Some of you might be skeptical. I know Lynn Erhorn, the one in charge of Perissos. She is a trusted friend in all areas. As I prepared for marriage, she has been one I can talk to and at some points when I’ve wanted to get some advice, she has always been a good advisor. We were greatly pleased to have her be one of the guests at our wedding. (And she was greatly pleased I understand to discover Cheerwine after the wedding. All of that of course I got secondhand.)

Friends. I don’t normally write a post like this that would be a pure advertisement, but this time I am making an exception. Would you please take a few minutes of your time and fill out this survey and give some feedback on what you’d like to see at the conference?

The links are included below.

In Christ,
Nick Peters.

www.theologyweb.com.

http://www.perissosonline.org/2012/05/01/large-theology-conference-coming-soon/

http://www.perissosonline.org/forms/conference-survey/

The Uninteresting God

Why do so many of us want to sleep in on Sunday morning? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

N.T. Wright talked once about greeting undergrads at his college and how many of them would say they wouldn’t be seeing him much since they don’t believe in God. He’d ask which one they don’t believe in. They’d describe someone who lives in the sky and watches all that we do and sends good people to Heaven and bad people to Hell. Wright would tell them he doesn’t believe in that god either. He goes on to say he doesn’t think he’d bother getting out of bed to worship a god like that either.

Maybe those of us who sometimes drag ourselves out of bed think that we are in fact worshiping that god.

“But Nick! Doesn’t the Bible speak of our Father in Heaven and doesn’t it say that God is in Heaven and we are on Earth so let our words be few?”

“Yes. Yes it does.”

“Then that means God is in Heaven.”

This assumes that Heaven is some place in the sky and that when Jesus was doing the ascension, it was a kind of Star Trek idea where he was teleporting back to the home base or something of that sort. Do we really think Jesus could be flying through space like Superman and eventually reach a spot where there you will find where God lives? Once you reach that spot, just keep going down the street of gold until you reach the throne in the center and you’ll see God just sitting right there on the throne.

It sounds ludicrous, but it is what so many of us probably implicitly believe.

Then are the sayings about God being in Heaven nonsense? Not at all! They most certainly have meaning, but not the meaning of 21st century Americans.

Let us suppose as C.S. Lewis once said that instead of ascending, Jesus disappeared by burrowing underground. The disciples would have the picture of themselves being the authority in fact. Man has dominion over the Earth. God lives in the Earth. Man therefore has dominion over God. Jesus instead goes into the sky. Something you notice about the sky is that it’s transcendent. It’s limitless. No matter where you go, you see it, and you can never see the end of it. Today in the space age, we know even more that it’s greater than we’ve ever imagined.

That is the picture of God. God is limitless. God is transcendent. God overpowers us where ever we go. He cannot be localized to one place.

That does not mean that there are places where He does not make His presence more apparent. For the Jews, that would have been in the Temple. For the Christians, it is also in the Temple, but it is not the Temple of wood and stone, but rather the Temple of flesh and blood. First, it was the earthly body of Christ. Now, it is also the church body of Christ as we are God’s Temple and Christ is the cornerstone of that Temple.

What this means is we need to jettison from our minds the belief that God is just somewhere out there and He is living away at a distance and every now and then he’ll step in and do something great and then He’s back to doing whatever it is that He’s been doing, which usually consists of making sure people get good parking spaces who pray.

If God is not localized out there, then where is He? Where is He? Look around you. THAT IS WHERE HE IS! That’s right. God is omnipresent. Heaven and Earth cannot contain Him and in fact, every single ounce of space around you has within it the full presence of God. God is not an absentee landlord at all as in Deism. God is in fact always there and we are told that He not only created all things but He sustains all things.

This is one problem I can have traditionally with the Kalam argument that most people know about. It explains that God starts things off, but why think He is still there? Many people seem to think God’s only work with the material world is creation and once He creates, well the universe can get along just fine without Him.

This is absolute nonsense and don’t believe it for a second. This universe, you, and I, and everything else that is, even the angels themselves, depend on God’s sustaining of their existence for Him to be. He could be apart from everything else that exists. Everything else that exists could not be apart from Him.

A sign of our problem is that so often we can think of how God makes too many demands supposedly on our lives. Yes. God makes demands. Guess what. If you go to work, your boss makes demands of you. If you are a student, your teacher makes demands. If you are a child, your parents make demands. People who are in authority do have the power to set requirements for us. God is not obligated to give us anything. We are rightly obligated to give Him everything.

It’s like treating God as an affront to our own existence. We saw off the branch of the tree we are sitting on. We have to have Him for our existence. He could do away with all of us and exist just fine. Some who believe in a tithe could complain that God wants 10% of their money. In fact, God has all right to ask for 100% of your money and doesn’t. We can think it a burden to give God about three hours on a Sunday, which is three out of 168 hours in a week. Strange we don’t see our time wasted that much if we go see a three hour movie or play a video game for three hours or anything else that takes time like that.

Why has this happened? We have accepted a pop theology view of God as if He really was confined to one place and was at a distance and is not a constant reality here on Earth. We know the saying “Out of sight, Out of Mind.” God is indeed that for us. We can’t see His form to be sure, but we see things existing and say “I don’t see Him active around here.” Yes. Of course you don’t, and I suppose you think those trees in front of you can provide their own existence. I wonder where from.

If evangelicalism is going to have an effect in America, it will need to be rooted in a God that is really worthy of worship instead of the weak God too many of drag out of bed to go worship on Sunday. Yes, this could be a failure in our churches, but could that failure in the church be because we have a failed theology to start?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Presenting Jesus as Real

Is Jesus truly as real as the air we breathe? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

To begin with, this post is not about making an apologetics case. That does not mean that this post is useless with apologetics. On the contrary, I think it is of utmost importance for how we do apologetics today and also how we do evangelism. It is a concern that the methods we have that are so successful may not be as successful as we think.

I was thinking this today outside of a church responsible for a large local revival. If I met the pastor, I might ask how many conversions took place. I am sure I would get a sizable number. How many disciples then? Ah. That might be a more difficult question. How many times was Jesus really presented as a historical reality who walked among us? That could be a bit ambiguous.

Of course Jesus is presented that way! We open up our Bibles and there he is!

Indeed, there he is, but do we not pause to consider that the early church did not have a gospel save the Old Testament and the Old Testament does not include in it the life and death of Jesus. One can point to prophecies, but there is no explicit message as there is in the New Testament.

To say we open up our Bibles is excellent if you’re talking to people who already know the Bible is from God. It is not for those who do not. When asked by many why they should believe the Bible, it is quite likely that the answer that one will get is “faith.”

By what reason should one not believe the Book of Mormon? By what reason should one not believe the Koran? If these are not by faith, the great danger is that there will simply be an appeal to emotion. The sad problem is that the Mormon will quite easily also point to an emotion and say by what basis do you accept your emotion as being from God and not His?

This can also happen with miracle claims as well and we must admit that. It can often be assumed that the Christian rejects all virgin births and all resurrections, except for in the case of Jesus. There is absent any notion that Jesus’s are the ones that actually do have a historical case for them.

Let us be upfront about miracles then. There is no reason to reject miracles from other religions prima facie. Let us be open-minded with them as we want others to be with ours. We do not want to accept all claims blindly, but it is just as bad to reject all claims blindly.

So what are we to do?

In Season 3 of Smallville, Clark Kent finds out that his father Jor-El might actually have visited Earth at one time and even passed through Smallville. Clark tells his father Jonathan that up until now Jor-El had been a distant and powerful friend, but what if he really had come down here? Maybe he was more like Clark than Clark realized.

To be sure, Jesus did become fully human, but let us not think that God is like us. He is not. We are to be like Him instead. I am not like the image that I see in the mirror. The image that I see in the mirror is like me. That being said, what of the distant and powerful friend?

That is often how Jesus can be presented. Jesus is at a distance and He’s powerful, but what is it that He is doing in life? Too often, it is presented as if Jesus is there to fix a lot of your problems. Financial struggles? Jesus can help you. Struggle with alcoholism? Try Jesus. Problematic children at home? Jesus can help you be a good parent. Marriage problems? Jesus can help you be a good spouse.

I am not disagreeing with any of these in reality. I do think that if you truly follow Jesus, it should affect your lifestyle in various ways. My concern is that this reduces Jesus to simply the latest self-help cure. Do we have any evidence that this is what Jesus was like for the first century Christians?

Doubtful. To be a Christian then was to sign your own death warrant. How many would sign a death warrant just because the children were a problem when the cult just down the street could help me with that as well and as a special bonus, you get to participate in these great orgies rather than having to live the strict moral code the Christians followed. Oh yes. Let’s not forget that also the emperor didn’t care if you joined that group so your life could be safe.

So what does it mean if we present Jesus that way and instead get the answer back that “Medication does that for me” or “I happen to be seeing a really good therapist and he’s helped me immensely” or “Have you not read the latest self-help book?”

Now once again, I am not against any of the above mentioned, but I am against presenting Jesus as if He’s just the better product amongst competition. It’s not as if we want to make an infomercial saying “Try Jesus. We guarantee full satisfaction or your money back!”

When it comes to presenting Him, are we presenting Him as real? We can often ask people how they know the reality of Jesus and we are presented with an emotional response. The Mormons will also give the exact same answer for how they know that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

This puts us in a danger. What if your sole basis for knowing that Jesus is real is a feeling? You are a sitting duck then for the Mormon. When you have that contrary feeling from the Mormons, will you suddenly switch to Joseph Smith? Will he be a better product?

What also when you hear atheistic and liberal professors go against your most cherished beliefs that you hold on that basis? Will you go on believing but with a cognitive dissonance that thinks you have to jettison reality in order to be a Christian, or will you just abandon the faith? In either case, you will be useless for the Kingdom if not even a detriment.

The other danger is that basing it on a feeling will instead produce a chasing not after Jesus, not after holiness, but rather after a feeling. When you feel X, then the world is right, but there could be all manner of reasons for not feeling X at a point in time. Perhaps you have a cold or you had a bad night’s sleep or you ate the wrong thing or had an argument with your spouse.

This is how addictions are made and with an addiction, one does not seek the object of the addiction but rather one seeks the feeling that comes from the object. The person does not want drugs for drugs but drugs for a high. The person does not want sex out of love for the other, but rather out of seeking a strong experience and really good sensations.

Using the last example, how many people would like their marriage to be based on a feeling? Most would say that if they did that, they would have to get a new spouse every two to three years. What woman would like to know that her husband likes having her around for sexual joy, but other than that, oh well?

Now am I totally opposed to feelings in all of this? Absolutely not! Some of you out there are very emotionally oriented and praise God for it. I have no problem. Some of you like myself are more rationally oriented. Let us make sure that neither looks down on the other. We need both types. I am against a blind emotionalism. I am also against a cold intellectualism.

What I am saying is that the emotional person needs to have an emotion that is rooted in truth. A rational person needs to have an argument that produces a difference in the world. That gets us to the point then of presenting Jesus as real.

If we claim that Jesus is as real to us as the air that we breathe, we need to live that out. Jesus cannot be just the end of a syllogism or a study of historical research. He also cannot be the quick fix in our lives alone. Jesus can be the one who helps us with our problems and also the result of a historical study, but He is surely much more than that.

Jesus made the claim that He is the king of all creation. All of eternity depends on Him. If He is risen, then life has meaning. If He is not, then let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Jesus did not come down here to do miracles alone as if He was showing off His divinity. Each miracle He did had a greater purpose than just helping the person in need.

Jesus also did not come solely to forgive us of our sins. He came for that, but He did not come for just that. He came to bring life to a world that was dying. That would include the forgiveness of sins, but it would also include the transformation of lives and then that of society.

Yet for us, the transformation seems to be what we can get through self-help, therapy, or medication and the goods that He gives us are really happy feelings whenever we think about Him. Would the such have been said for another king at the time, such as Caesar? “Try Caesar as king! You’ll like him and you’ll be a better parent too!”

It is when we realize that Jesus is King, Lord, and Judge, that we come to realize how it is that we must live. History is not about us and our feelings and pitiful little desires. It is all about Him. He is really the central focus of the universe. All roads do truly end at Jesus. Some end with Him as friend. Others end with Him as foe. All end with Him as Judge giving the ultimate verdict.

Perhaps when we realize that, we will be partaking in a Kingdom agenda and with that will come again what came in the first century and onward, the transformation of society. Perhaps when we put Jesus on the throne again and take ourselves off we will come to see the good He can do. Perhaps when we realize that the way of Christ is better than our way will we start living our lives accordingly. We will realize Jesus is not distant. He is ever-present and at any time can take us out of the picture if He so desires. He does not need us for anything. We need Him for everything.

It is my sincere hope that when we do all of this, we will then get to the apologetic of backing our evangelism with the case for Jesus as the Risen King and why we believe such. When we do such, could it be that then we will have our revolution that we need to stop a world in moral decline?

In Christ,
Nick Peters