The Case Against Miracles Chapter 2

What do I think of Matthew McCormick’s article? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The only work of Matthew McCormick I had ever previously reviewed here was his work “Atheism and the Case Against Christ.” The great delight of that was getting to catch him in a major gaffe. This one was about the fake god Jar’Edo Wens.

Now after reading this chapter, I am even more sure of the kind of researcher McCormick is. His whole chapter is about God would not perform miracles. Nowhere in this chapter did I see interaction with people like Alvin Plantinga or Craig Keener or anyone like that. Plantinga would have been an important one since McCormick’s whole article is really the problem from evil and saying “Well, if God wanted to do a miracle of healing, He would heal everyone wouldn’t He?”

It’s really amazing that McCormick’s whole argument is all about what an omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would do, because, you know, McCormick certainly has a lot of experience with beings like that to make proper judgments. I went through this whole chapter wondering “How do you know that?” It certainly doesn’t make any sense to me to say, “If I was this being, I would do that.” It’s like it’s never considered that maybe if you were omniscient you would know some things that you don’t know now.

McCormick says

Even if a full-blown violation of the laws of nature occurs, we have compelling reasons to reject the hypothesis that the all-powerful, omniscient creator of the universe was responsible for it. A being of infinite power and knowledge wouldn’t act by means of miracles.

Well, this is quite a claim. Let’s see how good he does at backing it. At least on one level, McCormick puts forward the appearance of being open. As he says later in his essay:

It would be a mistake, I believe, to rule such a claim out a priori or virtually so with Hume’s global standards. Surely the all-powerful creator of all of reality would have sufficient power at its disposal to generate evidence that would be compelling; and I’d rather be prepared to revise all of my beliefs and the convictions I attach to them proportionally to the evidence.

As we go through, McCormick says

The Christian God is, by all accounts, an omni-god. He is the all-powerful, all-knowing, singular, personal and infinitely good creator of the universe. Jesus is alleged to have been his son, who was divine, but he was also a man, by Christian doctrine. The extent to which he was a man and lacked the status of a fully omni-being is a point of some controversy, even between believers.

Not among believers. Maybe between believers and heretics, but believers have always included in our creedal statements that Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is yet another point that makes me doubt McCormick really understands the Christianity he criticizes.

He also says that walking on water would require less power than stopping fusion reactions in stars. Sure, but also pointless. After all, God has infinite power so it’s not like He has a storehouse He has to reach into and then recharge. I wonder why McCormick keeps bringing up things like this.

He also says some statements about what a being who is omnipotent could do. One is reverse time, but even this one is debated. Aquinas said that God could not change the past and yet Aquinas never once questioned that God is omnipotent.

McCormick argues that for some miracles, a being would not have to be omnipotent. This is true, but I don’t know of academic philosophers arguing that God is omnipotent on purely miraculous grounds alone. There is always some metaphysics involved.

This is part of the problem for McCormick. He never looks at arguments for theism. If theism is true, and this can be demonstrated by the Thomistic arguments I believe that are inductive, and then we have evidence of miracles taking place, such as from Keener, then it’s reasonable to conclude miracles are the work of the omnibeing that has been shown to exist. McCormick wants to go after miracles still more so he says later that

The problem is that at any given moment on the planet, now and when these miracles are alleged to have happened, there are millions or even billions of other people who are not being cured, healed, or benefitted by a miracle. A miracle that we attribute to an infinitely good God is problematic because of what it omits; it is alleged that it indicates that God is there, and under some circumstances, he will intervene in the course of nature to achieve some good end. But there are all of these other cases, many of which appear to be perfectly parallel, or even more desperately in need of divine intervention, yet none occurs. While Jesus turns water into wine at one party, thousands or millions of other parties go dry. Even worse, millions of people suffer horribly from disease, famine, cruelty, torture, genocide, and death. The occurrence of a finite miracle, in the midst of so many instances of unabated suffering, suggests that the being who is responsible doesn’t know about, doesn’t care about, or doesn’t have the power to address the others. If a doctor travels to a village with enough polio vaccine to inoculate 1,000 children, but only gives it to ten of them, and withholds it from the rest, and then watches the rest get sick, be crippled, or die, we would conclude that doctor was a monster, not a saint. That doctor had the power, the knowledge, the wherewithal to alleviate more suffering, but did not. That doctor must be lacking in some regard.

The problem is McCormick is making this argument so he has to back it. His argument is there is no good reason for God to not heal everyone else if He heals one. Okay. Maybe there isn’t, but He needs to convince me of it. It’s not just enough to assert it.

Let’s go with the doctor example he gives of the doctor with a polio vaccine. Let’s suppose he knew that one child he would give the vaccine to somehow would grow up and become a dictator in that country and murder most of the population. He chooses to withhold the vaccine. We could debate if that was right or wrong, but we can all understand why he did it.

He goes on to cite Christine Overall asking why Jesus is turning water into wine at a party when He could have been healing lepers. McCormick also says if God can heal everyone, why hasn’t He done so already? Why not yesterday?

The water into wine was done because Jesus was invited to the party and He wasn’t trying to make the party go longer, but rather to help the host of the party avoid shame. It was a good act to do to help out. As for why not heal, McCormick wants God to be a Johnny on the Spot fixing all of our problems. Is that really God’s goal? What if God has something far greater and nobler in mind than making sure we all have perfect lives here on Earth?

McCormick also cites William Rowe about situations in the inductive problem of evil. Note that I am sure Rowe would reject the argument McCormick puts forward as McCormick seems to be going with just the logical problem of evil. Now saying evil exists is no longer enough to refute theism as the majority of atheist philosophers on the subject concede. So what does Rowe say about certain instances of evil?

William Rowe has called these, “instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”

So again I have the same question. How does he know? How does he know that this evil could have been stopped without losing a greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse? How could this possibly be established? Note that the atheist has the burden of proof. They are making the claim that needs to be backed.

McCormick later says:

If God has the goal of instilling belief, inspiring faith, fortifying resolve, discouraging misbehavior, or enforcing commandments, it takes very little imagination to conceive of more direct, effective, and sustained means of achieving those ends.

Notice it’s “If God has the goal.” We wait to hear how McCormick has discovered the goals of the Almighty, but that is not coming. He goes on to cite Ted Drange saying:

if these were God’s goals, then it would have been a simple matter to directly implant belief into all people’s minds, or perform more spectacular miracles that would convince more people. What would be more personal than if Jesus had reappeared to everyone, not just a handful of easily discredited zealots? Millions of angels, disguised as humans, could have spread out and preach the word behind the scenes. Or God could have protected the Bible from defects in writing, copying, and translation.

If those were the goals. What if they’re not? After all, Biblically, it’s been when miracles have been at a high that faith has often been at a low. Jesus was doing miracles and got crucified. The Israelites in the wilderness got several miracles and still rebelled. Maybe God’s goal is not just getting people to know He exists. Maybe He wants people to really seek Him on their own and want Him on their own. Maybe He doesn’t want to compel, but simply to woo. Of course, McCormick’s essay would not be complete without a version of Ancient People Were Stupid:

Consider the problem this way. For all of the alleged miracles in history, facsimiles that are undetectable to anyone but an expert can be performed naturally by even mediocre magicians and illusionists. David Copperfield makes the Statue of Liberty disappear on television. Penn and Teller catch bullets in their teeth. A Las Vegas magician appears to walk on water in a swimming pool and float in the air over the Luxor hotel. Imagine the social and religious impact these ingenious illusionists could have had amongst the superstitious, poor, and uneducated masses of New Testament Palestine. Religious leaders such as Billy Graham, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell use cruder and more transparent trickery and deception to win the hearts of millions of people and acquire vast wealth from more educated, modern people.

To begin with, I don’t know anyone who would think that Billy Graham was out there trying to get vast wealth from people. However, does McCormick not realize ancient people knew some basic facts? They built ships because they knew people don’t walk on water. They made wine because they knew it didn’t just happen. They grew food because they knew food doesn’t multiply. They knew blind eyes don’t suddenly open and paralytics don’t get up and walk and dead people stay dead. This was not news to them. If we want to talk about things modern people fall for that is unbelievable, it’s that they still fall for this line of reasoning McCormick gives.

In conclusion, I am once again seeing why it is that McCormick could fall for something like Jar’Edo Wens. He really just thinks he’s asking astute questions, but he’s not. There is no interaction with any number of Christian experts on the problem of evil whatsoever. There are just blanket assertions. Anyone can raise questions. It’s a shame he doesn’t try to find answers.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 1/18/2019

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We live in a strange world. In this world, an actress can stand on a stage holding a golden statue and talk about how she was only able to get to where she is because she had an abortion. The response from the audience of Hollywood celebrities, who don’t know anything about the real world, is applause.

We also live in an age where we say we want to talk about equality so much. Distinctions that we have are being blurred. Gender is seen as a social construct. Being a man or being a woman doesn’t really mean anything. Marriage is no longer seen as between a man and a woman but just between two people who love each other.

We live in an age that says it praises science. Unless you can show something to be true scientifically, there is no reason to believe it. It is philosophy that must take the back seat if we give it any seat at all. All truth must be amenable to the scientific method.

Yet here we have a world where abortion is a constant problem. Safe, legal, and rare goes out the window when a woman is applauded for getting an abortion so she could have an acting career. Not all of us are equal if what is in the womb is not seen as fully human. Science has spoken on the nature of what is in the womb, but then we suddenly go to philosophy at that point.

Enter into all of this my guest this weekend. He is the man behind the Equal Rights Institute. He has been a strong pro-life apologist since he was eighteen years old and has traveled the world giving this message. Saturday, he travels to the Deeper Waters Podcast. His name is Josh Brahm.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Josh Brahm is the co-founder and president of Equal Rights Institute, a national pro-life organization dedicated to helping pro-life advocates think clearly, reason honestly, and argue persuasively. He has worked in the pro-life movement since he was 18. After 12 years of full-time pro-life work he launched Equal Rights Institute to maximize his impact for the movement.

A sought-after speaker, Josh has spoken for more than 23,000 people in five countries.

Josh’s primary passion is helping pro-life people to be more persuasive when they communicate with pro-choice people. That means ditching faulty rhetoric and tactics and embracing arguments that hold up under philosophical scrutiny.

Josh has been happily married to his wife, Hannah, for thirteen years. They have three sons, Noah, William and Eli. They live in Charlotte, North Carolina.

David Bereit, the National Director of 40 Days for Life, sums up Josh’s expertise this way: “Josh Brahm is one of the brightest, most articulate, and innovative people in the pro-life movement. His cutting-edge work is helping people think more clearly, communicate more effectively, and — most importantly — be better ambassadors for Christ. I wholeheartedly endorse Josh’s work, and I encourage you to join me in following Josh and getting involved in his work today!”

I hope you’ll be tuning in. We are rapidly updating our podcast page after the holiday and I hope to be caught up before too long. Thanks for listening in and please continue supporting the rights of the unborn.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Rumors of Wars

Do we live in the time Christ talked about with wars being talked about? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, the Babylon Bee shared a story with a man wishing all these natural disasters and rumors of wars were predicted in the Bible somewhere. It’s something to think about that every generation is convinced that their generation is the generation. We’ll get into wars today in our discussion. We’re looking at verse 6 of Matthew 24.

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.”

So hasn’t there always been wars going on? How is this a prediction? Skeptics look at this and say something like “Wow. Earthquakes and wars! You never hear about those going on anywhere!”

Well, you didn’t hear about wars going on much in the time Jesus was speaking. However, after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, things started becoming more chaotic. It was the shattering of the Pax Romana.

Notice also that Jesus tells us not to be alarmed by this. It happens. The end is still to come. This is interesting because so many people will say that wars are happening and therefore there is war. Jesus is saying there has to be more than just that.

Still, if you read the writings of Tacitus and Josephus and others, you will see the wars and battles being talked about. This is going on also in Jerusalem. Caligula tries to set up a statue and there’s a resistance. This is eventually what leads to the breaking point that brought about 70 A.D.

Now if we think this applies to our generation, then we have to deal with the rest of history because there have pretty much always been wars going on. This is nothing new. What makes it new for Jesus’s followers is they lived in a time that had had more peace and it was starting to be undone. We will see if the same applies to other judgments that take place as we go on.

So not much today. It’s a short verse after all. We’ll save the rest for next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Matthew 24:4-5

What deception should we be watching for? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Today we continue our look at the Olivet Discourse. The disciples have just asked for the sign of the coming of Jesus, which we discussed what that means, and the destruction of the temple. From here, Jesus will go into a judgment motif. There’s not going to be any rainbows and kittens in this chapter. Here comes the judge instead.

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.

There were plenty of Messianic claimants around the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Now for a lot of Muslims, the only way you can come forward and claim “I am the Messiah” is to go out and explicitly do just that. They say the same thing with the deity of Christ. Christ in the Gospels very rarely explicitly said He was the Messiah, but His actions were constantly speaking that that is how He saw Himself.

We could easily say anyone willing to raise up an army and try to liberate Israel was claiming to be the Messiah. This could be the figures mentioned by Luke in Acts 5 or the unknown Egyptian referenced in the book. It could also include Simon Magus mentioned in Acts 8 who was later seen as a heretic who claimed to be the divine power.

Today, we have a number of people who are claiming to be Jesus. This is not referring to people who are in insane asylums, although they certainly do qualify as people claiming to be Jesus. There are famous people who claim to be ministers and are claiming to be Jesus. Note that that can go on and it still doesn’t mean that this wasn’t fulfilled in the first century. All that’s required is many, and I have mentioned four and those are just the ones that we know about who are most prolific and make a statement by their actions.

This doesn’t mean that these people will claim to be Jesus, but Jesus still warns His followers to be on guard. We should be as well. In our day and age, it’s quite easy to be fooled not just by Messianic claimants, but, well, most anyone. Too many in our churches do not have discernment on any of these sorts of matters.

I am someone who is actively interested in politics, but let’s remember that no political figure today, as good as they might be, is the Messiah. A few years ago my father-in-law and I were out at a Subway together traveling and having some lunch. He asked me what I think it will take to turn our country around. I told him that we have to be sure that the Gospel doesn’t need America. It will last just fine if America goes down the drain. America does need the Gospel, however.

The way to save your country if you live in the West, and if you live anywhere for that matter, is to be Jesus in your country. Of course, I am not saying to be the Messiah, but you are to be a representative of the Messiah. Live in such a way that people will see the work of the Messiah through you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Case Against Miracles Chapter 1

What do I think of David Corner’s chapter? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

David Corner has the first chapter in John Loftus’s book on Miracles and the challenge of the apologist. Why is it that an apologist would have a hard time with miracles? Reading through, I didn’t really find anything that I found remotely convincing in Corner. It looked like more just pointing back to Hume over and over.

Also noteworthy is I remember no mention of Keener’s work in the chapter. If a miracle has taken place, then the challenge of Corner is taken care of. Corner could try to just say “Well, it’s some natural thing we don’t understand yet.” Feel free to think that, but most of us will be unconvinced.

Early on, Corner starts with defining a miracle. He cites both Augustine and Aquinas, but then goes to Hume. This to me sounds like going to Ken Ham when you want to learn about evolution. Even if you disagree with Augustine and Aquinas, why not go with them because then you know you’re going with someone who represents your opponents’ side? I think we know why. Still, let’s see what he says about Hume.

In his Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding,[ 30] David Hume offered two definitions of “miracle;” first, as a violation of natural law;[ 31] shortly afterward he offers a more complex definition when he says a miracle is “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”[ 32] This second definition offers two important criteria that an event must satisfy in order to qualify as a miracle: It must be a violation of natural law, but this by itself is not enough; a miracle must also be an expression of the divine will. This means that a miracle must express divine agency; if we have no reason to think that an event is something done by God, we will have no reason to call it a miracle.

I do think the idea of being connected to God at the end a good point to have. Suppose we have a case where someone is in a state such as a comatose state and has no response whatsoever and there are people gathered in prayer. Just as they are done praying, the person wakes up. Are they justified in believing in a miracle? Yes.

The problem also is Corner spends a lot of time addressing supernaturalism, but he never talks about what it is really. He says this about the idea of nature:

Those who would defend supernaturalism sometimes do this through a commitment to an ontology of entities that exist in some sense outside of nature, where by “nature” is meant the totality of things that can be known by means of observation and experiment, or more generally, through the methods proper to the natural sciences.

But what is meant by observation and experiment? I know 2 + 2 = 4 by observation. I don’t have to do experiments to find that out. At times throughout the day, I can look out my office window here and see cats. There are many different cats, but I get the idea of cat out of all of them and learn what a cat is despite differences in size, color, etc. The same could be said for dogs.

I can reason to other things like triangularity or goodness from there. I can also reason to God. I don’t do an experiment. I just follow rules of deductive reasoning to get to my conclusion. What I wonder though is by Corner’s definition if the nature of cats, triangularity, goodness, etc. would be part of nature or not. Evolution might explain how cats came about. It doesn’t explain how the universal nature of cats exists.

He also contends methodological naturalism tells us that observation and experiment can tell us all that we need to know. I disagree with this definition of it. What I see it as being is that when a scientist does his work in the lab, he assumes that there are no external agents interfering without cause.

The first hurdle Corner deals with is testimony. Can testimony evidence a miracle? The problem is Corner presents a number of ways testimony can go wrong, and it can. He never says how it can go right. What are the grounds by which a miracle could be said to have a reliable source? If he cannot give any, then is he not begging the question to say it can never overcome?

That would make sense since that is what Hume said. The best Corner can say is it will give us the suspension of judgment, but if you approach every testimony to a miracle with “Either false or suspend judgment” then you will never conclude a miracle has happened. Why? Because you know a miracle has never happened. This gets us into begging the question. More will be said on that later.

He also does cite Earman, but there’s not much engagement. Earman points out that Hume’s argument would work against marvels being believed and would thus be a science stopper if followed through. Earman says this as an agnostic. One point made is that Earman says we could have a large number of witnesses. Corner replies that we have no way of accessing their credibility as witnesses so we shouldn’t trust them.

But again, this just gets us to begging the question. The account cannot possibly be accepted as true. Corner gives us no grounds and even if true, it is insisted that it would have to have a natural cause. Corner has things stacked in his favor here. No matter what, it has to be a natural event because, well, reasons.

When asked about begging the question, Corner says we can’t assume the “supernatural” worldview is correct and says an apologist arguing for a miracle is. Yet at the same time, Corner thinks it’s just fine to assume the naturalistic worldview is correct. An apologist arguing for a miracle does not have to assume a supernatural worldview. He can present this as evidence for God and the person responding can decide if the evidence is reliable or not. You don’t have to accept God’s existence to think there could be good evidence for a miracle.

Corner later goes so far as to say that we usually say that either an event has a natural cause or a supernatural cause. He argues maybe it had no cause at all. He would have someone who would challenge that. Namely, David Hume, or is this the point where we drop Hume?

“But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that that anything might arise without a cause: I only maintain’d, that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source.” (David Hume to John Stewart, February 1754, in The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols, ed. J. Y. T Greig[Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1932], I:187)

And once again I am reminded how far skeptics like Corner will go to to defend their position. It strikes me as a position of believing anything else before believing a miracle. Nature can just go through spontaneous lapses sometimes in uniformity, but yet this would destroy science itself. Would Corner sacrifice science to avoid a miracle? Possibly.

Corner also asks how a God could do a miracle. He says:

All of the cases of causal interaction of which we are aware occur between physical entities that are fundamentally similar to one another in terms of possessing physical properties such as mass, electrical charge, location in space, etc. Thus, we know for example how one billiard ball may move another by virtue of the transfer of momentum. But God, as normally conceived by theistic religion, possesses none of these qualities, and cannot therefore interact with physical objects in any way that we can understand. God cannot, for example, transfer momentum to a physical object if God does not possess mass.

Yet this is again begging the question. What if I believe that I have an immaterial aspect to me and that that aspect of me interacts with my body? Then I have firsthand evidence in my case that immaterial forces can do that. Do I know how? No. Not at all. I don’t know how I fall asleep at night either, but I seem to do it every night.

Even if all that we had indicated physical changes are caused by physical objects, that does not demonstrate immaterial objects can’t do the same thing. Corner needs to demonstrate this and he hasn’t done so. Furthermore, if I have theistic arguments and I am convinced they work, then I have a priori evidence that this does happen.

He also says the problem of miracles is they lack predictive power, but why should this be a problem? If I am dealing with a free-will agent, why should I think they will always follow rules like that? My wife will appreciate something from me at one time and the next time not appreciate it. Some days I might enjoy a game and some days I might not. Free-will agents don’t act according to natural laws like that.

He also asks about miracles that do have natural causes, but this is not a problem. Suppose the Israelites cross the Jordan and we are told that regularly the waters stop so people can walk through. The miracle is not that they stopped, but when they stopped, in direct response to prayer.

In conclusion, I really don’t see anything convincing in Corner’s argument, at least for his position. If anything, it makes me more aware of the hurdles skeptics go to to avoid miracles. It’s easier to believe in things even Hume called absurd apparently than to be open to a miracle at all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Olivet Discourse Matthew 24:3

What were the disciples asking about? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One of the great mistakes we make in interpreting the Olivet Discourse is we interpert it from our place and time. We live in a time after the death, resurrection, and ascension. If we look at the Gospels, the disciples had a tendency to be clueless about this stuff. Jesus had told them He would die and rise again repeatedly and they still never got it.

So now let’s look at the verse and realize the timeframe they are in.

“As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Okay. Let’s tackle the last part first. If you read this in the KJV, you will be told it asks about the end of the world. That is actually a poor translation. There is a word for world that would fit better, but this isn’t it. Besides, suppose the world is ending. Why would you flee to the mountains as Jesus advises later? Do the mountains get a free pass from total destruction somehow?

No. What is ending is the age. God is moving to a new system. It will no longer be a system of the Law. It will be the age of the Messiah and hence, the disciples ask Jesus about “your” coming. They know who will be the Messiah and if the temple is gone and Jesus is the Messiah, then Jesus must be ruling.

Now notice also that they ask about the sign of His coming. Isn’t it fascinating so many people think this passage is about the return of Christ? But here’s why it isn’t. Think to what was said earlier. The disciples didn’t even understand Jesus dying and rising again. They had no concept of Him ascending and going away to return later. For them, this was one straight linear path. Go to Jerusalem, become king, age of Messiah begins. The idea of any of the other stuff happening was foreign to them.

But what is Jesus coming to? One obvious answer. His throne. Jesus is going to begin His rule. Notice the disciples connected the destruction of the temple to all of this. Now they want to know how they will know that this will happen. So as we go into the teaching portion of the discourse, we have these questions.

When are you taking your throne?

When does the age of your rule begin?

What signs will tell us that this is happening?

These are all good questions. Jesus, as usual, will answer them. We are going to be looking in-depth because many times today, like the people of the past, we do not understand what Jesus said properly. In John, people often misunderstand Jesus because they read Him in a literalistic way. Let’s hope that we don’t do the same this time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 1/11/2019

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Life is sacred, so many of us think, but we live in an age where that is being questioned. An actress can stand up and win an award and talk about how she had to have an abortion to get where she is and is cheered for saying that. We have reached the age where post-birth abortions are talked about, in some cases even up to the age of two years old. You can even have abortions for your pets if you want to.

Yet there are rumors of change coming. Alyssa Milano can go on a sex strike in regards to things like the heartbeat bill here in my state of Georgia. (Hint Alyssa: Many of us men who are Christians who are anti-abortion don’t care if you don’t want to have sex with us because we already have wives to have sex with or we’re just not interested in women who want to kill their children and children of others.) Pro-life judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court and with two judges who could possibly be leaving the bench soon for various reasons, many pro-abortion activists are getting scared about the possibilities.

Now is a time when we need more and more facts on a side. Christians need to be ready. The good news is, like in many cases, the facts are there. The bad news is that many of us don’t really bother to access those facts. Fortunately, they are there and you can access them easily. Perhaps, one easy way you can access them is opening your phone and listening to a podcast, like my own, the Deeper Waters Podcast, and listening to my guest this Saturday, Trent Horn.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them.

Trent models that approach each week on the radio program Catholic Answers Live and on his own podcast, The Counsel of Trent. He has also been invited to debate at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and Stanford University.

Trent is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College, has written for The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and is the author of nine books, including Answering AtheismThe Case for Catholicism, and Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love.

We’re going to be talking about abortion then for January when we look at abortion for Roe v. Wade. I hope you’ll be watching for this new episode. I also hope you’ll be doing what you can in the fight for life.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Matthew 24:1-2

What does it mean to lose the temple? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going to be looking at the Olivet Discourse. The first verse is very basic and I am tying it in with the second. If you don’t have your Bible there with you and don’t want to look it up online, I will post the verses here.

“Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

We really need to think about what this means. The temple was not just a nice place to go and worship. For many of us, if our church buildings burnt down, that would be a tragedy, but we could eventually build new ones. No. The temple was the place that symbolized the covenant between God and Israel. If the temple was standing, then all was good between God and Israel. When the exiles returned from Babylon, the first thing they started building was the temple. They had to be encouraged to return to that building, but building it was essential.

The closest parallel I can name for us today that we can relate to is 9-11. It is possible to rebuild and make even better than before, but when those towers were hit, it was as if our country was hit as the towers were a symbol of the success of our country especially on an economic level. Those were towering bastions that reminded New Yorkers and any tourists coming through of the success of America.

You can picture what other catastrophes would be like. What if England lost Big Ben? What if France lost the Eiffel Tower? What if Egypt lost the Sphinx and/or Pyramids? What if India lost the Taj Mahal? Each of these would represent a great loss to the people.

Yet none of those could compare to the temple being lost. Losing the temple is not just losing a great tourist site or a pretty building. Losing the temple is losing the presence and the favor of God Himself.

Why am I stressing this so much? Because if we want to get into what is going on in the Olivet Discourse, we need to have it stated clearly what is going on in the culture. This would be a massive loss to the people. It would mean a massive upheaval has taken place. This temple was destroyed in 70 AD and Judaism hasn’t been the same since. Even many dispensationalists recognize the importance of the temple since they want to do all they can to build a temple.

So when the disciples hear this, they know something big is happening. To use another example, it would be like if we heard the White House would be destroyed and we believed it. Even without knowing the cause, we would know something drastic had happened.

So as we prepare to go into the Discourse, I want you to really try to put yourself in the mindset of the disciples. For the time being also, please try to remember you do not understand the resurrection or anything like that. All you know is Jesus going to Jerusalem. They are guys who know about the Old Testament and the prophecies of Messiah and still have hopes this guy they have been following is Him.

What they ask and what Jesus says will start to be covered next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Look At The Olivet Discourse

What do we make of this passage of Scripture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I would like to begin two kinds of series now. For one, I just recently began reading this book called The Case Against Miracles by some guy named John….John….John….What was it…..Loftus! That’s right. Don’t blame yourself if you’ve never heard of him.

The other is a look at the Olivet Discourse. This is for multiple reasons. First off, a question people often come to me about is orthodox Preterism. When I really get my YouTube channel going, I plan to do videos on the topic, including looking at what I call the Rapture Brigade, people who regularly make videos predicting when the “rapture” will take place.

Second, because I do debate dispensationalists quite often and I want to have a constant reference to rather than have to write things out. I also make it a point to never make it that one’s Christianity depends on their eschatology save for dealing with the ones that call themselves “Full Preterists” which I consider to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus. My own wife was of the dispensationalist position when I married her.

Third, this is an apologetics issue. One of the most common challenges given is how can we believe Jesus when He was wrong about the time of His return? How many times do I see someone say “2,000 years and we’re still waiting!” I hope to give an answer to that.

My view is known as Orthodox Preterism. In this, it is my belief that while the events described were future to the time of the apostles when they heard it, they are now past for us. My main reference for this will be Matthew 24. Of course, I will go to other passages including the parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21.

I hope there will also be a lot of good questions on this one. Many people I meet are not familiar with this viewpoint. It is also one I came to on my own as my seminary was very much pre-trib, pre-mill, and my Bible College I don’t remember taking a stance one way or the other. I also am one who used to hold to the position of the rapture and later abandoned it because I could not square it with biblical teachings.

So as I finish a chapter in Loftus’s book, I will write on that, and sometimes I will interject with what’s coming on the podcast, but expect this look at end times to be a focus for now. There aren’t many secondary issues I really get into for discussion, but this is one of them. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Myths and Mistakes of New Testament Textual Criticism

What do I think of Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson’s book published by IVP? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Textual Criticism is a fine science. There are many nuances to it and it’s easy to make mistakes in it. Fortunately, this book has been written to address many of the myths that one finds out there so that the apologist, scholar, and pastor can be better equipped.

About time isn’t it? Yep. Bart Ehrman has been putting some misinformation out there. It’s great to know that a work has been written to address his mistakes. Right?

Well, no. Ehrman is mentioned, but if anyone is in the sights of these authors the most often, it’s fellow Christian apologists! Does that make any sense? Why would a book devoted to errors in textual criticism be targeting people who are on their side?

Because many people today who are apologists and scholars and pastors are getting things wrong and if we want to be people of truth, we have to be willing to call out our own.

You could think that textual criticism is a big field, and you would be right. You could think that no one can be a specialist in everything out there in this field, and you would also be right. You could then think that two people couldn’t write a book addressing those areas, and you would again be right. That’s why Gurry and Hixson have gathered a team to write about these myths, each person having a specialty study in the field.

I am so sure of the importance of this field that I went to my father-in-law, who many of you know is Mike Licona, and told him that he needs to read this book before he goes anywhere and answers a question on textual criticism again. Many great scholars have bought into these myths. I even found some that I have held before, such as the idea that you could re-create a strong majority of the NT from the writings of the church fathers alone.

The reader will find several other topics here. Exactly how many manuscripts do we have and how does that compare to classical works? Are earlier works really necessarily better? Were the texts of the NT copied by amateurs who just weren’t competent as scribes? How many variants are there and how do we date manuscripts?

If you have spoken on textual criticism at any time and go through this book and don’t find you’ve made a mistake somewhere along the way, you are a very rare person indeed. I would recommend every apologist and scholar out there read this before speaking on the topic. We will still make mistakes, but let’s not make these mistakes again.

If you want to know how to avoid mistakes in the field, buy this book. If you want to know better information about how we got our text and its reliability in transmission, buy this book. If you just want to be better informed, buy this book.

Bottom line. Buy this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters