Month: March 2022

Book Plunge Part 8: Politely Rejecting The Bible

What of Jude’s use of Enoch? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In the next few chapters, we will look at the biggest objections that Kapr has to the doctrine of inerrancy. This is in the book of Jude when the author, presumably Jude and we will assume him for the sake of this article, gives a prophecy that comes from Enoch. It’s not the prophecy that is being called into question but that Jude references Enoch as the source of this prophecy.

There are a few points to consider.

First, Kapr considers it difficult to think that an oral tradition would last this long and be referenced just around the time when 1 Enoch itself shows up and then starts being quoted, but is this really that unthinkable? Oral tradition lasts a long time in the ancient world and it could be that this was an oral tradition and it was written down around this time. I’m not saying it was and I don’t see how you could make a case, but it would be interesting to have done. Either way, just saying you don’t find it plausible does not mean it is implausible.

Second, we don’t really know what Jude believed about the book. We do know that he certainly found the prophecy useful. I don’t even think we could say he certainly agreed with the prophecy, but he found it worthwhile to quote. Now why would he do this?

It could be that the opponents he is dealing with in this book do think Enoch came from Enoch and do view it as authoritative and do use it. Thus, Jude could be saying “So you know, Enoch, the seventh from Adam Enoch, yeah. That one. The one that you read and cite regularly? He himself condemned what is going on and the people who are doing what is going on.”

If so, then this is kind of like Paul on Mars Hill quoting various poets and saying “See? Even your guys accept my viewpoint.” Enoch could have agreed with what Enoch said. He could have thought the author of Enoch was smoking mushrooms. Either way, he found the quote useful.

In reality, we don’t know enough about what Jude believed about Enoch. The same could be said about the Assumption of Moses? Did Jude believe the story? Maybe. Maybe not. He could again be using material his audience accepts to make the point. All we have is one quote of each of these and we don’t know enough based on that.

Some might think not enough has been said here to solidly answer the charge, but keep in mind as the one in the defensive position in this as Kapr is making the charges, I just have to show a possible solution to a problem. Again, the reality is we don’t know in this case and that’s okay to say. Maybe we will learn more in future research. Maybe we won’t. Either way, I do not see a hard defeater here.

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

Book Plunge Part 7: Politely Rejecting the Bible

What about canonicity and other such matters? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As we get to this chapter, Kapr finally has some matters of substance as far as criticism. He talks some about canonicity. Fortunately, he says nothing about Constantine and the Council of Nicea forming the canon so I’m going to say hopefully, based on what I’ve read so far, he rejects that one.

While there are different canons, as a classical Protestant, I plan to stick to the traditional 66 books. I also know that the book is rejecting inerrancy and I am replying to that, but I do not hang my faith on inerrancy either. Kapr also spends much time throughout the book on inspiration. I sit back and wonder “And the point is?” After all, suppose a statement in the book is true. How does it aid us to say “It is true and inspired.”?

I also freely accept that there was some editing of books. Do I think Moses wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy that described his death? No. I suspect that was added by an editor of his work after, such as Joshua, to give a fitting close to the book. There were other editing jobs done such as changing location names to names more familiar to the audience of the time, such as how the city of Dan shows up in early Genesis even though it didn’t come until centuries later.

Kapr does say that some of the books are anonymous and that the arguments for traditional authorship do not need to go unchallenged. I agree that we shouldn’t just blindly accept what the Fathers say about authorship, but I don’t think the reasons given for rejection are convincing enough. However, let’s say something briefly about a book being anonymous.

This is really more of a canard. We have a number of Pauline epistles that say they are by Paul and that isn’t enough for a number of skeptics, and some Christians as well. Are we to think the Gospels would be treated seriously if every text explicitly said, for example, “By Matthew”? If you think so, I have some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you.

One argument that is brought forward against traditional authorship is the case of the information from Papias and how he supposedly got wrong the death of Judas. This is just more of Kapr reading an account in a literal fashion instead of considering that Papias is instead trash talking Judas. Also, Papias is just one reason given for traditional authorship on some of the Gospels.

He also says it’s unusual that different quotes from different Gospels were blended together. It might sound unusual to a modern man. It doesn’t sound unusual to an ancient where blended quotations were not uncommon even in non-Christian literature. Thus, there is nothing strange about it whatsoever.

As for Mark, Kapr writes that Mark could be chosen since the tradition says Mark wrote what was said, but not in order, and thus the early church didn’t want to attribute that to an apostle. So it looks like you have a case where the church says we don’t want to embarrass a reputation of an apostle by this, but we do think it’s good enough to include in the canon?

He also assumes there’s a reason such a thing would be an embarrassment. Why? There is no interaction also with the idea that Mark is a very unlikely figure. Mark was a person not mentioned explicitly at least in the Gospels and in Acts, is seen as causing a split between the first two great missionaries of the church because he was a Mama’s Boy who wanted to run back home in the middle of a journey. Odd source to attribute an authoritative work to.

Kapr also says that a test was the books had to be line with orthodox teachings about Jesus and says this is comparing the Bible with the Bible, but this ignores that most of what was known about Jesus at first would be through oral tradition and the books at the time would need to align with the tradition at the time. It’s not as if after the Easter event, be it a resurrection or not, that Jesus would be untalked about at all until some epistles and Gospels were written.

Kapr also says some have argued that the books were accepted without much controversy. The Holy Spirit guided the people of the church so they accepted the books that they did. Kapr argues no evangelical apologist would accept the testimony of community in another religion for their seeing their Scriptures as authoritative.

Okay. I consider myself an evangelical and I freely accept Mormons and Muslims determining what is authoritative in their communities. Note I said authoritative, not true. I really don’t see that being disputed among evangelicals either. Who else should determine what is authoritative for any community except that community?

There is also talk about inspiration outside the canon. Again, I don’t care about inspiration but truth, but I do share Kapr’s concerns about people claiming God is speaking through them or through someone else. My own pastor did a sermon about this just last Sunday. I even get concerned when someone says “When I was reading the Bible today, God showed me that….” Automatically then, if God showed it to you, it had better be authoritatively true. You’re giving your idea the backing of God. Better hope you’re right.

Thus, Kapr can go on and on about inspiration and how you could know a book was inspired and I really don’t care. What I care about is truth. I also don’t hang my doctrine of inerrancy on inspiration. I hang it instead on studying the text for years and even then, it’s not a dealbreaker for me.

Still, while I don’t find the arguments here convincing, they are at least not on the same level as many other fundamentalist atheist arguments, though I do think there is a great deal of that still in Kapr. Next time, we will get to part 2 where we examine some specific claims.

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

The Slap

What do I think of what happened at the Oscars? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I remember back in 2015 seeing ads for a series called The Slap. The series description is as follows:

“A once happy family suddenly begins to fall apart following a seemingly minor incident in which a man slaps another couple’s misbehaving child.”

I remember seeing these ads for the series I never watched and thinking, “How could you make a whole series about a slap?”

My past self would be surprised to see what my social media feed looked like yesterday and no doubt will still look like today.

So there was apparently some event called the Oscars on Sunday night. I wasn’t even aware of it and didn’t watch it, but when I got home and got on my laptop and browsed through Facebook, I saw people talking about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock over a joke. There has been debate on all sides about this. One debate is if the event was staged or not, but I do want to ignore that and I’m going to treat it like a real event.

The event was about Chris Rock making a joke about Will Smith’s wife, Jada, and having a bald head which is actually due to a medical condition she has. At first, Will was laughing about it until he saw that Jada was very upset by it and so Will walks up on stage, slaps Chris Rock, and then profanely tells him to not mention his wife at all to which he agrees.

As someone who has been married before and hopes to be again, my first thought was this was a man defending the honor of his wife. I know in the past when someone insulted my ex on Facebook, I tore into them and I can honestly tell you it was a time of rage. I think most people know that when it happened, you get out the popcorn and watch. There will be fireworks.

But this is how little I pay attention to Hollywood. I didn’t know at the time that the Smiths practice an “open marriage” to which I don’t know how that can be called a marriage. Thus, for Will Smith, it’s okay if another guy sleeps with his wife, but God forbid if another guy makes a joke about her.

It’s hard to consider it a defending of honor after that.

Not only that, he was laughing at the joke at first and then later after he wins an award, gets up and apologizes to everyone. Hard to say “I was defending my wife’s honor, but I want to apologize to everyone.” A contrast to also make to this is the way Rock responded.

I suspect when he saw Will coming up to him, he knew something violent was about to happen, and assuming he was really hit, he stood there and took it and then made a self-effacing joke about it and went on. If this was real, that did take self-control. Should Rock have made the joke? Probably not. Does he come off the better man in this? Yes.

If this was staged, I suspect it won’t work anyway. Most of us view Hollywood as a mutual admiration society with people in it coming together to tell us about how evil wealth and popularity are while having wealth and popularity. We normally turn to entertainment platforms for, well, entertainment, and not to be lectured.

Thus far, my plans are that tomorrow we will get back to Kapr’s book. I did manage to finish it over the week, though if I finish the Michael Bird book I’m reading, I will have a brief interlude to give my thoughts on that. With this being in the news, I decided I needed to comment on that and honestly, there will be a lot to say about Kapr’s book tomorrow and I wanted to wait until I would have more time and since it’s my day off, it will be much easier.

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

 

What Is A Woman?

How do we answer this question? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

For all interested, my Dad is doing much better. He actually got to come home Tuesday of last week. I was betting on him being in there a lot longer, but no. We have also been regularly been having some fun with him on things he said and did when he was delirious such as asking me if I was an angel when he didn’t recognize me and how he was watching HGTV and asked my Mom if she had remodeled the house.

Over the week, we also had the fun of a new meme featuring Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in that she said she could not answer what a woman is because she is not a biologist. Funny? Yes. Many of my fellow conservatives were glad to see that she went to biology for the answer, which is something seen as being objective.

So yes, we all should know what a woman is. However, I also think we should ask in some ways what a woman is and I think this shows a deeper problem in philosophy today. It is a problem of not understanding essences.

Consider a small child. The child does not generally have training in philosophy, He sees his family has an animal that has four legs and tends to bark a lot and he is told this is a dog. He is out walking in the neighborhood with his parents and he sees several animals in the lawns of the neighbors. These creatures he sees are different sizes and colors, but yet he is told that they are all dogs. In the windows, sometimes, he sees these small delicate animals and if he could hear them, he would hear meows from them. These would not be dogs, but they would be cats.

The boy is not a philosopher per se, but he is learning something about reality. He is learning about essences. There is something essential that all these creatures have in common that makes them dogs and not cats, but they differ in other areas called the accidents that are non-essential. These are conditions such as size and color. A dog could even lose a leg and still be considered a dog.

Nowadays, we don’t know that. We have philosophies today that can question if the world is really real. The east has often had this, but it hasn’t been as common in the west. Now, it is becoming more and more so. I personally see this as coming largely from the influence of Descartes. Centuries ago, there was no field known as epistemology. Now there is.

So we come to the question of “What is a woman?” There are many ways we can explore this. It has been said that many a man asks himself the question “Am I a man?” There is no indication that he is talking about his biological features. He’s not going to take off his pants and look and say “I guess I am. Good to know.” Instead, when he asks this, he is more asking if he has the character that a man is supposed to have in his mind.

We can also go another way and just simply ask “What is a human?” Aristotle said it was a rational animal, but if we found another animal that was rational, would we say that was a human? Fans of science fiction and fantasy can easily think of material creatures that are rational, but they would not be considered human.

The problem in our culture is we don’t really think such essences exist anymore. Nominalism has taken us over and most of us don’t even know what that is. It’s one reason we think you can surgically alter a man enough and lo and behold, he becomes a woman and starts winning swim championships.

I’m not saying no one is talking about it this way, but I haven’t seen it. For most teenage boys, I suspect they would say “I may not be able to define in that way what a woman is, but I know one when I see it and I like it.” Perhaps beyond biology, we should have a deeper conversation about philosophy, something our culture has sadly lost sight of. When that happens, it’s not that we cease to do philosophy, we just do it exceptionally poorly. (Consider how a great intellect like Stephen Hawking can say “Philosophy is dead” in a statement teeming with philosophical nuances and all of it bad.)

I’m quite certain that some people will comment on my post at least on Facebook who hold to a sort of scientism. They often think they’re making powerful arguments, but they’re not. This is not to attack the sciences, but to reailze science has limitations and when it comes to essences, that is a limitation of science.

In no way also does this held the so-called transgender ideology. If anything, it tells us we can’t change our gender any more than I could take my little cat Shiro and do mass operations on him and turn him into a dog. We can change the appearance all we want, but it doesn’t change the reality.

Perhaps this would then be a good time since everyone is asking to think “What really is a woman?” What do all women have in common that is absolutely essential to them? What do all men? What do all humans? If someone wants to say “Nothing. It’s all subjective”, then there is no feminism or transgenderism any more at all. After all, if being a woman can be made to mean anything, then it really means nothing. (This is one of the dangers of trying to change what marriage is. If it can be made to mean anything, then it really means nothing.) We already started down this road decades ago when we decided to redefine what a human baby is and allow abortion. It’s not a shock that when one people group wants to destroy (The Nazis) or enslave (Slavery in America) another group, they often dehumanize them.

So in one sense, Judge Brown got a softball question and she failed miserably at it. On the other hand, she also got a complex question that we should all consider asking ourselves and pondering. Perhaps it’s time to return to Plato, Augustine, Plotinus, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. and see what we can learn. Maybe the past can actually inform us today.

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

Taking a break this week at least.

Folks. This week I am taking a break to catch up on some reading and also so I can spend more time on something more important.

Last week, I think on Sunday, I came home and had been told that my Dad had a stomach bug. One night, I remember also waking up in the night to hear him throwing up and asking my Mom for help. Wednesday, things weren’t getting better so he went to the doctor again. I got a call that afternoon that he was going to the hospital for possible surgery. I canceled my physical therapy that week for sciatica to be with him and my mother, the latter of whom I went out and got something to eat. My Dad had a successful surgery to help start dealing with a bowel blockage, but they found he had an irregular heartbeat. They are keeping him there longer.

However, he has so much medication that he is not in his right mind. When I saw him on Saturday before work, he thought I was his cousin for awhile and then thought I might be an angel. He asked once about his sister who only lived a day and asked if his Dad was coming by to see him, despite his dad dying 39 years ago. Somehow, I have been the only one I think able to get through to him at times.

I am hearing reports that he is doing better. If he can get his stomach cleaned out good, they can deal with an infection in there and then they can work on his heartbeat. My parents don’t have a lot of income so if there are financial needs, I am highly considering a GiveSendGo for them.

On top of all of this, I am involved in a major stressful situation at my workplace involving my sciatica and a manager who doesn’t like the fact that sometimes I am in so much pain that I have to lean or sit for a little bit and sit especially as that provides the best relief.

So this week, I will be breaking. I will be doing some reading of Kapr in the meantime and hopefully some other books as well so that there will be more to write about. Please be praying for me and my Dad and for my Mom as well and if you need to know more about what’s going on, just send me a message.

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

Book Plunge Part 6: Can Inerrancy Be Falsified?

Can you show this doctrine is false? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yes.

Okay. That was fun. I look forward to writing Monday morning and….

Wait….

You mean you wanted more?

You wanted to hear what Kapr had to say and what I think about it?

Okay. We’ll take a look.

Kapr does say that CSBI says that problems that have not yet been resolved do not undo the truth claims of inerrancy. Kapr thinks this means that the claim is not based on evidence as nothing can change the mind of the one giving it. For some, that could be true. However, for others, it does mean “Yes. There are still unanswered questions at times, but we have seen many supposed problems work out so we will give the benefit of the doubt to inerrancy.” This is not unreasonable. The remaking of a scientific paradigm starts with contrary data which at first is not accepted in the old paradigm, but no one wants to throw out a whole paradigm just because of few points. Wait it out and see what happens. The new paradigm becomes dominant when there is a strong excess of such points.

Please also don’t go to one of these web sites with 1,001 Bible contradictions. The overwhelming majority have been looked at already. I no longer waste time with those and have better usages of time.

Another point Kapr looks at as a reason evangelicals give often for believing in inerrancy is the witness of the Holy Spirit. I, also, am glad to see this position dealt with as I do not accept it either. I often wish Craig in his debates would change his last point because the subjective point is always the weakest one. Not everyone has the same emotional experiences either. I don’t deny many people do have strong experiences, but they don’t show the truth of Christianity any more than the burning in the bosom of Mormons, which I don’t deny happens, shows the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Kapr also does say that the method of determining who is following the Spirit and who isn’t when Christians disagree leads to a sort of blind faith. I would have phrased it somewhat differently, but I agree. Our Christianity has too much subjectivism in it and we’ve called it spirituality.

There are other arguments brought forward such as that we can’t trust the judgments of sinful men. The problem here is obvious. All of us are sinful men and women. No judgments could be trusted.

For me, inerrancy is not a presupposition, but a conclusion. I have studied the Bible for decades and have found that it holds up well. I think I am justified in giving it the benefit of the doubt. Is inerrancy a hill that I’m going to die on? Not a bit. My faith in Christianity is built on the death and resurrection of Jesus regardless of if the manuscripts that tell me about that are inerrant or not.

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

Book Plunge Part 5: Politely Rejecting the Bible

How do you find out what a text means? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As we return to Kapr again, he is now asking about how you determine the meaning of a text. It’s important to note that while this focuses on the Bible, of course, this rule would apply to any text, which could in essence include unspoken texts. Think how many times women have complained that the men in their lives have missed “obvious cues” from them.

Again, there’s not really much in this chapter I object to if anything. He does talk at one point about his grandfather who is a KJV-onlyist so it’s not hard to see why he has a section on this in the book. He also does rightly point out that languages change over time so new translations are needed of any text over time.

If there’s a major point worth talking about, it’s at the end where he gives a case study and it is the story of the widow’s mite in Mark and Luke. In this story, a widow comes forward amidst all the people putting great amounts of money in the offering plate and puts in two small coins. Jesus says that the others gave out of abundance but she gave out of all she had to live on. Typically, we often see this as a story of sacrificial giving with Jesus praising the widow as an example of how we should live our lives.

Kapr contends that what is more likely is that these are people who are having to give to the temple in a sort of tax and says Jesus never praises the widow in the story. He simply points out what she did. If anything, Jesus is angry that this widow had to give everything she had while these rich people had plenty to spare.

I found this intriguing as a possibility, but I am not convinced. The text does speak of people coming and giving their gifts to the temple. Jesus might not outright praise the woman, but his drawing attention to her would not be to shame her I think, but to honor her as an example. Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels praises abundant giving, such as when he is anointed with perfume for his burial.

So again, thus far, things are rather bland. I can assure you all, that will not be the case for long.

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

Why Not Watch Porn?

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

In a recent post on waiting for marriage again, I wrote about a recent conversation with two co-workers. That conversation about why one should wait until marriage also included talk about pornography. The guy in the conversation was definitely stunned that I don’t watch porn, though a lot of women have been stunned about that too.

The sad reality of today is it’s considered axiomatic. If a girl starts dating a guy, she will usually assume that he is caught up in watching pornography on some level. Even sadder, too many times, she’s right.

Now I being a formerly married man have got to rightly see a woman’s full body before, so what’s the harm? Why not go back to that? I mean, sure, these are women I don’t know, but why should this suddenly be forbidden grounds once again?

First off, let’s consider that rule about women thinking that their men watch porn. This is unfair to the woman as the woman will often then start watching if anything, just because she thinks she has to compete against what is on the screen. Newsflash: She can’t. What is on the screen is fantasy and acted out entirely. What is going on in reality is not acted out. It’s real flesh and blood and there are no retakes of a scene or anything like that. There are no airbrushed bodies either in reality.

No woman should think in anyway that she has to compete with a woman on a screen. Even if you’re not watching porn, I urge you married men definitely to not talk about an actress on TV or the movies that you think is attractive. That can make a woman think in a social media world that she has to compete.

Second, we don’t know the story of these women always, but many times they are caught up in sex trafficking, which still goes on here in America. Watching pornography can further aid that. Would you want to take part in anything that could enable the sex slavery of women?

Third, when I listen to the radio many times, I often hear ads about products that deal with ED. I strongly suspect the reason this has risen so much is pornography. Some men have been turned on so much by porn that they need something stronger and stronger in order to be able to respond to a beautiful woman. There are men in their 20’s and possibly younger that are struggling with this already and some that I have known like this have been struggling with pornography. Pornography has it that you need more and more to get the same sort of reaction and it has to be harder and harder. It’s the law of diminishing returns and you are damaging your brain further and further.

Fourth, this really makes you less of a man. There’s no need to go out there and really impress a real woman. Nope. Just go and watch a woman who doesn’t even know you take off all her clothes in front of you on a screen. That doesn’t make you a man. You might feel like one, but if anything, you are less of a man. You are really telling yourself you are incapable of getting that in reality, so you might as well go to porn.

Personally, I see a woman as a privilege and I want it to be that assuming I remarry, which I definitely hope for, that a lady will know I waited for her and when she shares her body with me, there is no competition. She doesn’t have to compete against a computer screen. She is the one and only.

And ladies, if your man is watching porn, declare war on it. Don’t accept it. It’s either you or porn. I’m not saying he will necessarily quit cold turkey. It’s a struggle. Still, he has to be willing to get help. It’s a form of adultery in the marriage and it should not be tolerated.

And always, please do work on your marriages. I can tell anyone easily that divorce hurts. In some ways, it hurts every single day to this day.  Please work on your marriage so none of you has to go through with this.

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

Don’t Panic

How do you handle something frightening? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have a general rule about major “crises” in the world today. That’s to do my best to not panic. Fearmongering doesn’t do any good. Generally, I am anxiety prone. Having gone through a divorce now, I even take medication to help me with anxiety and it does a great deal of good, but I still have to apply the wisdom I have and my knowledge of Scripture. I don’t condemn medication, but medication without sound practice is not wise at all.

When the Coronavirus was first announced, I heard the news about it being on a cruise ship and how the majority of the people there recovered just fine. I knew then the simple principle I had through all other number of diseases and viruses that came our way. It’s a simple tip. As Douglas Adams said, “Don’t Panic.”

So as I saw the rest of the world me panicking over the Coronavirus, I was handling it just fine. Now note this part. I am not denying the virus is real. I am not denying that many people suffered and died from it. I am not saying that we shouldn’t take precautions in this. What I am saying is we shouldn’t lose our minds in fear. My contention is a lot of the measures we take to stop the virus in the long run actually did a lot more harm than they did good.

I think many people who did that fear lean towards the left politically also, so let’s look at the right as well. Yesterday, my mother came upstairs to my room, seeing as I have been living with my parents since the divorce, though I hope to be accepted at NOBTS and move down to New Orleans soon. She told me that soon toothpaste would be at $10 a tube. I generally buy the cheapest store brand stuff that I can so I rarely pay more than $1 or so. We’re talking about a major price increase.

So I looked it up. I found that there was an article about inflation that said that Colgate was coming out with a new toothpaste that would be $10 a tube. My guess is someone saw that and panicked and ran with it. In our society, it’s like we have an addiction to fear. We practically want to be afraid of something. That way, we can feel safe when we know someone can take care of it.

Now to go back to what my mother said, note that I am not at all denying inflation. I work in retail. I see it every day that I work. I am not at all denying high gas prices. I am halfway between 41 and 42 and I have never seen gas prices this high. I would be lying if I said I didn’t have any concern.

However, let’s consider this. Isn’t it when times are hardest that often people rise up and do the most good? I just finished listening to a biography of John Adams while driving. It’s amazing to hear about what these ordinary people did in the start of our nation’s history. Were they scared? Sure they were. If they weren’t, they were crazy. They were taking on the most powerful people at the time in the world, if not the most powerful ever.

We also know there were preachers who preached a sermon every Sunday and yet they had a bounty on their heads. They kept going. They weren’t letting their fear control them.

We could point to many other times in history. As Christians, we hold that the disciples were scared after the crucifixion of Jesus. Where would our world be if they had not lost that fear? Where would they be if they had stayed locked in that room even after the Holy Spirit came? I happen to also like the prayer in Acts 4 that they speak the Word of God with boldness. They still had fear and needed to overcome it.

Panicking about something really does us no good. With medication, matters are much easier for me and if that’s what it takes for you, that’s fine too. I also recommend the book by Pierce Taylor Hobbs called Struck Down But Not Destroyed. The book is the best book on anxiety I have ever read and if you want to know about the Facebook group he has for this, well, you need to read the book and then join it as he tells the name of the group in it.

I don’t know how many times in the past I knew i needed to get up early to do something and I would worry if i would get to sleep in time to get all the sleep I need. Want to know what happened? No, you don’t. You already know. Odds are you’ve been there. You don’t sleep nearly as well that night.

Panic doesn’t do any good. Concern is one thing, but if it drives you to do nothing, then it is useless. If you have any fear or anything of that sort, let it drive you to do something about it. After my separation from my ex, for example, I knew I could lie down and be the victim and let life walk all over me. That was a choice. However, I chose instead to not be a victim anymore, but to get up and live my life and make the most of it. As a lifelong gamer, I chose to play to win. Some people after a divorce want revenge on their ex.

Sue Grafton, for instance, is the mystery writer who wrote those books that were the alphabet mysteries like A Is For Alibi. How did she get started with this? Her divorce and custody battles left her so hurt she thought about ways to murder her ex and knew she was a law-abiding citizen and would never do it, so why not turn them into murder mysteries? It’s certainly a better outlet than committing actual murder.

Also, as a Christian, I have recently told two people who have come to me scared about something to consider a Babylon Bee headline. Lord God Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Omnipotent and Omniscient is Totally Caught Off Guard by XYZ. Put whatever you want in that blank. It will work the same way. When you hear it that way, if you’re a Christian, you can say, “Yeah. That is ridiculous.

I also think of the Heidelberg Catechism. While this Catechism is Protestant and more specifically Calvinistic and used to teach Calvinist doctrines, the first part, every Christian Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, should be able to affirm.

1. Q.
What is your only comfort
in life and death?
A.
That I am not my own,
but belong with body and soul,
both in life and in death,
to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.
This is in gaming terms the ultimate cheat code. Whatever happens to you, you win. Now you may not like it as it is happening or when it happens, but you will still win in the end.

So folks, when the next craze comes along, take it seriously if need be and take proper precautions, but don’t panic. It never does you any good and only makes you less effective to handle it. Stand up and face the problem. It’s hard to solve it if you’re running from it.

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

 

Book Plunge Part 4: Politely Rejecting the Bible

How do inerrantists interpret the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this chapter, Kapr talks about his fundamentalist days. I think there is still some fundamentalism in Kapr, but I appreciate that he has admitted his past. As a reader pointed out, KJV-onlyism seemed like an odd target to go after and indeed, later on we learn that some of his relatives are indeed KJV-onlyists so Kapr does have personal experience with them. There is no word if he was one of them himself for a time or not.

As Kapr goes through the chapter, I really don’t find much that I can comment on because being a contextualist, I don’t find much objection here. Now there is some helpful history on historical criticism. There’s also plenty of pointing out that the early church loved allegorical interpretation. For instance, they did not always accept accounts as literal because they didn’t find something fitting into the character of God, including the deaths of the infants in the Passover event in Exodus.

Again, there are plenty of arguments against traditionalists, but nothing much against contextualists like myself. If you ask how I interpret the Bible as an inerrantist, I would still say the same as any other document. What about conflicting accounts? You try to harmonize them, but this is what we do with most any other account. We try to find the explanation that explains the most data that we have.

Again, there is not much to say here. Hopefully as we go along, more will come up.

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