Month: January 2024

Book Plunge: Atheist Universe Part 1

Is there any reason in the atheist universe? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I get email subscriptions for Kindle books on sale and I saw David Mills’s Atheist Universe for sale. It sells itself as the thinking person’s answer to Christian fundamentalism. Those who can’t do, obviously teach.

I really strive to be open when I read different books and be as fair as I can. I have said a number of Christian apologetics books are no good. If I see good points in an atheist book, I will point that out. Your book is not automatically good because it’s Christian or bad because it’s not. The same holds in this case.

No. This book has thus far found a number of other reasons to be bad.

The first chapter is an interview Mills had with someone who I didn’t see named. Unfortunately, whoever it was gave a lot of softball questions. On the other hand, Mills could have sought them out for that reason. Who knows?

I wasn’t too long into this book before it was so bad I was sharing the quotes on Facebook.

So let’s start with one question asked. Why don’t you believe in God? In that answer, we find this gem:

Indeed I’ve written three full-length books devoted to thrashing out these arguments myself in great detail. But I now believe that it is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position to dismiss the god idea as being self-evidently ridiculous as Darrow quipped. Christians instantly disregard the Greek gods as being figments of an overactive imagination, and so I view the Christian god in the same way that the Christians view the Greek gods.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 28). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

In this, Mills treats all forms of theism as the same. I reject the Greek gods because none of them are ultimate. They are all dependent beings that depend on something else for their existing and are pretty much just superhuman beings. This is not at all like the deity in all three monotheistic faiths. Mills rejects them because they are gods.

But to answer your question directly, I am an atheist because no more evidence supports the Christian god than supports the Greek or Roman gods. There is no evidence that God—as portrayed by any religion—exists.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 28). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Which is frankly a nonsense statement. You can say there is insufficient evidence for the Christian God. You can say you don’t find it convincing. To say there is no evidence means that all the people out there who believe in the Christian God, including brilliant intellectual minds, do so without any reason whatsoever.

It’s fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s worldwide deluge, are fables. It’s easier to prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the Creation account and Noah’s flood are scientifically testable. Science may explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter mythology. So while, on esoteric philosophical grounds, I hesitate to claim absolute proof of a god’s nonexistence, I will claim proof that the Bible is not “The Word of God” because much of it has been shown by science to be false.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 28-29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps if you went with a literalistic YEC interpretation and even then, I know some YECs who I am sure could give Mills a run for his money in a debate.

Remember that the rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that a god does exist.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Actually, they don’t What is the reality is that whoever makes the claim has the burden to prove it. Suppose I was unable to convince Mills that God exists. It does not follow from that that God does not exist. What follows is I didn’t have good reasons to believe or Mills is not following an argument properly for whatever reason. If I do show up and say “God exists” it is my burden to demonstrate that. If you show up and say “Christianity is false”, it is your burden to show that.

We should recognize that all children are born as atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 29). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Actually, there are studies that have been done that seem to indicate children instinctively find purpose and design in places. Also, children are not born knowing their multiplication tables or the laws of physics. So what?

The interviewer later asks how the universe could have been created without God. The response?

Leaving aside your presumptuous use of the word “created”—that line of reasoning is known as the Aquinas cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas, who lived during the 13th century, argued that everything needs a cause to account for its existence. Aquinas believed that if we regress backward in time through an unbroken chain of causation, then we would eventually arrive at the cause of the universe itself. Aquinas argued that this “First Cause” could be nothing other than God Himself.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 29-30). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Well, Aquinas didn’t say anything about backward in time. He actually didn’t think the universe having a beginning could be established by reason alone. He even wrote a small book arguing against that notion. Other than that, what could possibly go wrong here with Mills’s argument?

Many of you probably know where this is going and are waiting for it.

This so-called “First Cause” argument, however, is a textbook illustration of ad hoc reasoning. For if “everything needs a cause to account for its existence,” then we are forced to address the question of who or what created God? If God always existed, and therefore needs no causal explanation, then the original premise of the cosmological argument—that everything needs a cause—has been shown to be erroneous: something can exist without a cause. If everything except God requires a cause, then the “First Cause” argument becomes ad hoc [i.e., inconsistent and prejudicially applied] and is thus logically impermissible. If we can suppose that God always existed—and thus requires no causal explanation—then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation. Many people, including some atheists and agnostics, misinterpret Big Bang theory as proposing that mass-energy popped into existence ex nihilo [i.e., out of nothing] before the universe began its current expansion. This something-from-nothing belief is not only false, but flagrantly violates the law of the conservation of mass-energy.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 30). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

There is not a single defender of the cosmological argument that has ever put forward such a thing, and by defender, I mean someone who knows the literature well, not Pastor Steve down at your local Baptist Church. Aquinas would want Mills to explain the actualizing of potential in the universe to which Mills would likely give a blank stare and say the typical atheist quip about word salad.  Then, Mills goes and repeats the other false notion about the argument.

But let me summarize by saying that the “First Cause” argument not only begs the question logically and is scientifically bankrupt, it also fails to address which god is supposedly proven existent by the argument! In other words, Zeus or Allah has just as much claim to being the “First Cause” as does Jehovah or Jesus.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 30-31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

And?

The first cause argument is not meant to prove which God does exist. It’s meant to prove that some God does exist. Mills is faulting an argument for not proving what it was never meant to prove in the first place.

How about beauty and order? How is that explained?

There is some degree of beauty and order within Nature. But each year, Nature also cruelly victimizes millions of perfectly innocent men, women and children through natural disasters:

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

But is there beauty and order? How does that get explained? Christians have a ready explanation for the cruelty we see. We live in a fallen world. You can think that’s a cop-out, but it is fully consistent and an essential part of the Christian claim on reality.

Christians are masters of selective observation—or “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” Anything Christians perceive as attractive or orderly is counted as evidence for God’s existence. But anything Nature offers that is grotesque or in disarray is never counted against God’s existence. Any theological conclusions based upon such selective observation are therefore meaningless.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 31). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It appears there’s only one master here of selective observation. Mills has brought up all the cruelty and said “No God”, but the beauty is not explained at all. He needs to explain both. Christians freely admit the problem of evil and have written numerous theodicies explaining it. Has Mills written something on what Chesterton called “The Problem of Pleasure”?

On another question he says:

Atheism is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought, which, in my opinion, are highly positive and desirable.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (p. 33). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s hard to say how they are synonymous since some atheists say that on atheism, you have no free-will. You’re just matter in motion and doing what the matter in you has to do. On that, I agree with them. As for my Christianity, I do value freedom of thought and freedom in general and think God provides for both of those.

Then he is asked about a sort of Pascal’s Wager question:

That argument is known as Pascal’s Wager, because it was first articulated by Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher. There are several fallacies in the argument. But the most obvious is that the same argument can be applied to any religion—not just to Christianity. For example, I could say that, since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to Islam, we should all become Muslims. Or since we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being Hindu, we should all adopt Hinduism. Christians never stop to consider that they are in just as much danger of going to the Muslim hell as I, an atheist, am in danger of going to the Christian hell. Pascal’s Wager is also flawed in its premise that a person has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by converting to a religion. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, our earthly life is the only life we’re ever going to experience. If we sacrifice this one life in doormat subservience to a nonexistent god, then we have lost everything!

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 33-34). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s a shame this is the one argument Pascal seems to be remembered for the most. Everyone should go and read the whole of Pensees and hear his other thoughts. Not only this, but I don’t understand Mills’s reasoning at the end. How have we lost everything? After all, if atheism is true, you’re not going to be kicking yourself in an afterdeath wishing you had lived differently.

In talking about Christians, he says:

No wonder His followers are so intolerant. They are only following Jesus’ declarations that anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs deserves eternal incineration.

Mills, David. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (pp. 34-35). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Well first off, many Christians like myself don’t believe Hell is a fiery torture chamber. Also, Christian societies are by and large extremely tolerant. Let Mills go to a Muslim country and see how well he does arguing that there is no Allah or arguing in favor of the LGBTQ+ community.

There is more in just this first chapter. When we return to it, we will start looking at the historical Jesus and what Mills has to say.

Brace yourselves.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Essential Asatru

What do I think of Diana Paxson’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I always try to be going through at least one book that either directly disagrees with me or is from a worldview that I do not share. In this case, while looking for another one, I remembered how a couple of years ago I had been at Wal-Mart and I think I had a book on the resurrection with me and someone saw it. He then told me that he was a follower of Norse religion.

I had enough experience in the field to recognize this as Asatru. I went to Kindle immediately to see if I could find a good book on the topic really trying to explain it well. It would be easy to find something that didn’t treat it seriously but was more on a popular level, but I wanted something as scholarly as possible.

In the end, I chose Essential Asatru, by Diana Paxton. I started the book then, but just never finished it as other things came up, but when I wanted something new, I decided to go back and start it again. I wanted to know what these people really believed and also why they believed it.

To many of us, it can sound strange to be a follower of Norse religion. Most of us when we hear that think of Thor and then we think of the Avengers. You want to follow a deity who is in a comic book? (That is a topic that never came up in the book. Many followers consider themselves heathens and I would like to have known what they thought of a deity of theirs being a comic book character. Are they allowed to see the movies or read the books and enjoy them or is that sacrilege?)

Yet as I pondered it further, I thought perhaps it isn’t that strange. Areas like Iceland still hold to a lot of tradition such as a large number of people over there believe in elves. If you’re going to believe in some deity or deities, and I contend secularism has left such a hole, and for whatever reason you don’t want to go with the monotheistic faiths, why not go back to the religions that have some historical precedent?

The book has several chapters with each starting with a scene from a get-together in the Asatru religion involving passing around a horn filled with ale of some kind and sharing together. Then each chapter will go into a different point about Asatru and how practitioners worship in it. It is certainly a look into a world unfamiliar to most of us.

Many of this is also a history of beliefs of the people in Scandinavia with many times talking about how Christianity intersected with the culture. There can be a bit of what can look like ancestor worship, but I suspect it’s much more just wanting to honor the great heroes of the past. The closest parallel I can come up with from the Christian perspective is the way Catholics and Orthodox tend to have feasts and days to honor saints, all the while not worshipping them.

Then the book goes into a description of the different deities in Norse religion, which yes, includes Thor. If you are interested in Norse mythology, as I do happen to have an interest in such though mainly in Greek, this could be a fascinating part for you. Loki is included and I found it interesting that different gatherings have different rules on how to treat Loki and it’s best to ask before coming to one’s first meeting.

The final chapter deals with day to day lives of heathens and how they are when they gather together. This includes ethical beliefs as well as how religion is practiced with regard to priests and priestesses and events like weddings and funerals. Would there be such a thing as an Asatru seminary one day? It doesn’t look like there will be any time soon, but the writer herself is a priestess so they do exist.

So in the end, of course, I don’t agree with Norse paganism beliefs, but I am glad I am now more informed about them. I suspect that as time goes on, we will see more and more such beliefs rise up as secularism leaves a hole and many people have too many negative associations with Christianity (Such as supposedly hating people who are same-sex attracted or being anti-science). While we as Christians disagree, we can recognize the clues of the God-shaped hole and the longing of people to seek something beyond themselves.

It’s up to us to give them that.

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

 

 

Racism and Christianity are Incompatible.

Does racism work with Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

With today being MLK Day, we think about a man who said he wants people to be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. The dream was to see black and white boys and girls playing together and being friends. There was to be no advantage or disadvantage to race.

Sadly, the church hasn’t had a perfect track record here. It could be a natural human tendency to look with suspicion at the other. We often treat slavery as if it was the worst evil and also uniquely American. It is a great evil indeed, though I think some are worse, such as mass genocide, but it is also not uniquely American. Most every other culture has enslaved a group and been enslaved themselves. Many groups have enslaved their own people and sold their own people to be slaves.

There were too many Christians who were defending slavery in America. I recognize that my own denomination’s history has a black mark here, one that I am thankful we have recognized the error of. I have a professor here who has said if he could ask Jonathan Edwards one question, it would be “Why did you keep slaves?”

Generally, we recognize racism as wrong today, but why? What makes it wrong? We can’t just take these ideas as if they are a given. After all, if you went back 2,000 years ago and asked the average person in the Roman Empire if slavery was wrong, they would look at you puzzled. Of course not. Why would you think such a thing? Oddly, many of the slaves could think the exact same thing.

As Tom Holland argues in his book Dominion, even as an agnostic, he finds his values are really Christian ones. Our culture has been so shaped by Christianity that we don’t see it. We tend to think “This is the way everyone thinks.” No. It isn’t. Our beliefs on morality are something that have been tinkered out over a long period of time. I also suspect we’re about to see how important they are as the major movement today is to avoid any idea of morality in many areas, especially sex.

In Christianity, mankind is created in the image of God. There is no distinction in that regard between male and female. Both are said to be equally in the image of God, despite them both being very different. (Hallelujah that women are so different, might I add.) Too many of us have this idea that if there are any differences between two things, then one is superior and the other is inferior. Not always.

Are men superior in any way? Yes. Absolutely. So are women. Men are superior at being men. Women are superior at being women. (Something our culture is trying to destroy the idea of. It’s amazing women are complaining about the patriarchy all the while supporting the transgender movement.) There are benefits to being a man and there are benefits to being a woman and there are downsides to both.

The same can apply to races. Can there be differences between the races besides appearance? Absolutely. Does this mean that any one race is superior or inferior? Not a bit. (I cannot recommend enough Thomas Sowell on these kinds of questions.)

What racism does is it treats the image of God, the main aspect of man in Christianity, as if it was of lesser importance than race. Taking any secondary characteristic of a person and treating it as a primary characteristic is demeaning. This is also the same when we treat the most important aspect of a person to be any of the aspects I mentioned above.

This does not mean that these secondary qualities are unimportant, but they should not be ranked above the most important. Each person you meet is in the image of God. If they are, then you are to love them as yourself. You can speak all you want against what a person does, because that can be wicked and evil, but humanity is a good still, a good regardless of any of the secondary characteristics.

Also, this racism is not just treating as someone lesser because of a secondary characteristic. It’s also treating them as greater because of it. James had a problem with special privileges being given to the rich. He would have just as much problem with special privileges being given based on the secondary characteristics as well. If you want to see racism die in a society, you have to get rid of privileges as well as disadvantages.

A truly Christian society will be a society that is without racism.

Let’s aim for that.

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

 

 

The Lord of the Sabbath

What does this say about Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Much of the rest of the Old Testament on the Sabbath is really about the people breaking it and not keeping it. It’s not about the nature of the Sabbath. Thus, we’re going to move ahead to the New Testament. The first place to go to is Matthew 12. This pericope shows up in other Gospels, so we’re only going to look here:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

So in this passage, Jesus’s disciples are picking heads of grain and eating them. The text doesn’t say, but knowing how the Pharisees are, I wonder if Jesus told them prior it was acceptable to do this. Why are the Pharisees with Jesus? Most likely keeping an eye on a new teacher and making sure their own status in the community is safe.

And now they’ve got him! His own disciples are violating the Sabbath! Now Jesus Himself isn’t getting the grain, but it doesn’t matter. The disciples are supposed to reflect the teachings of the master and Jesus is not rebuking them at all! The Pharisees have Jesus cornered.

Yet as we know, Jesus always turns the tables on them.

In this case, Jesus first points to the example of King David and let’s not miss the underlying cut He gives these guys? “Haven’t you read?” It’s so simple, but Jesus is really shaming them. “Hey, guys. Haven’t you heard this story? Most of us learned it in Sunday School. You really don’t remember this?” Obviously, these were the guys that were supposed to be masters of the book. Surely they would know this!

So what happens? King David comes in and takes bread that is meant for the priests only. There is no condemnation of David. He had men who were hungry and defending Israel and they needed to be cared for. The needs of the people come before the Law.

What about priests? Priests themselves have to work in the temple on the Sabbath. Thus, they are desecrating the Sabbath, but there is no condemnation for them. They are innocent even though they could be seen as technically breaking the Law.

An indignant Pharisee could have said at this point “You think you can just set the rules for everyone? Who do you think you are?”

That is not in the text, but had He done it, Jesus’s next statement would really show them and stun them. Jesus says God desires mercy, not sacrifice, meaning real actions of faithfulness to God from the heart more than ritualistic behavior. He then says if they had understood, they would not have condemned the innocent, namely His disciples.

This is sandwiched between two statements. The first is that one greater than the temple is here. The second is the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Consider the first one. The temple was where the glory of God was supposed to dwell. The glory of the second temple Haggai said would be greater than the glory of the first. This was where the very Shekinah dwelt. This was how the people knew God was with them.

And Jesus says He is greater than that place where the Shekinah glory dwells.

The second is that He is the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath. One of the big ten. The one that got Israel in trouble for not obeying. The one that let the land have rest for seventy years.

And Jesus is Lord of that day.

Now if you were a Jew, you could think “Wait. The Lord of the Sabbath is….”

What does that mean about who Jesus is?

Jesus declares what the Sabbath is and what it is for and how it is to be honored. We’ll see how that happens in salvation history as we go on.

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

Femininity is a Good Thing

Is it good for a woman to be a woman? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I read some of a mystery every day. Yesterday morning, I read this in the one I’m going through now where a female detective is wanting to find out how to get close to a male suspect she wants to question.

“Rob Saunders is obviously a bit of a Casanova. You’re a young, pretty girl. You could use that to your advantage.”
“What? You’re not telling me to seduce him, are you?” cried Ellie.
“Oh, don’t look so shocked. I’m not suggesting that you sleep with him,” said Aunt Olive, clicking her tongue. “But a man like Rob… well, now, he’d be easy to interrogate if you know how to play him.” She saw Ellie’s expression. “Oh, come on, poppet! Calculated seduction is a time-honored tradition in intrigue and espionage! I know it’s not politically correct to say this nowadays, but you can achieve a lot with a suggestive smile and a show of cleavage.”
“Aunt Olive! You’ve just set the women’s lib movement back fifty years or something!”
“Rubbish!” snorted her aunt. “A woman who knows how to use her feminine charms to get what she wants is the one who’s truly empowered.”
I realize some people might think the language here is a bit crude and no, this is not a Christian work, but ultimately, as I read this passage, I had to agree with Aunt Olive in her basic point. The empowered woman is not the woman who tries to deny her femininity. It is the one who knows how to use it properly.
The feminist movement has really been very anti-woman. One of the main problems is that they set up a sort of competition between men and women. Men didn’t have this problem. Women did. Women wanted to be able to focus on a career, not worry about children, and not be seen as a piece of eye candy.
I am not against a woman having a career and not every woman will be a mother. Certainly a woman shouldn’t be treated as an object, but the way women went about these goals was wrong. It was not by being better at what they were, being women, but by trying to in essence not be women and be men.
So a man can have sex and not have to worry about carrying a baby for nine months as a result. No problem. Use birth control and if that doesn’t work, get an abortion. Deny your biological clock (Which men don’t have) and just work at your career and you decide when you want to have a baby, if you ever do. If men can walk around topless, women can too!
It hasn’t worked well for women.
Believe it or not women, if you want to get a real man, a man wants a woman who is a woman. He doesn’t want a woman who is trying to act like a man. He likes the things in a woman that set her apart from men.
That includes beauty.
That beauty is a good thing also. Yes. A woman can do a lot of damage to a man if she misuses her beauty and seduces him into doing things that he shouldn’t. However, she can also use that beauty to greatly inspire and motivate a man.
Consider Jacob in the Bible. When he sees Rachel, he’s immediately impressed by her beauty and when asked what his wages will be, he already knows. He wants Rachel! The text says he worked seven years, but they seemed like a short time because of his great love for her. I can imagine him easily out in the fields working hard and here comes Rachel walking by with a cute smile, the breeze blowing through her hair, the grace of her figure, everything, and Jacob just thinking “Soon.”
Then when the seven years is up (Is Jacob counting down the days), Jacob is awfully brazen and just goes to his future father-in-law and says “I’ve done my work. Give me your daughter. I want to sleep with her.”
That’s what the text literally says! I honestly can’t imagine going up to my former father-in-law on the day of the wedding and saying “You ready to give her up? I’m wanting to sleep with her.”
Now in the story, Jacob had to work seven more years for Rachel, but he did it. Why? Because female beauty is highly inspiring to a man. A man can do things he never would have dreamed of doing before just for female beauty. My ex-wife did cause some major good changes in me just because I was motivated by her beauty, something no one else could do.
Ladies. Keep this in mind also. Perhaps a guy who asks you out isn’t a ten in your minds, but consider this. If he is of good character, go out with him and see what changes can be brought about in him just because he wants you. You can inspire a man to be a man in ways he never was before just because your beauty has that effect on him. (Consider how in the Christmas special, Rudolph flies immediately just because Clarice says she thinks he’s cute.)
It’s the way God made the system. Enjoy it. He knew what He was doing.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

1 Cor. 8:6 and the Trinity

Does this verse demonstrate that Jesus is included in the divine nature? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m a member on Facebook for a group to debate the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sadly, many witnesses really do not know what they’re arguing against when it comes to the Trinity. Most arguments against the Trinity are arguments against modalism. Also sadly, too many Christians outside of this group that are lay Christians would probably explain the Trinity using modalistic descriptions.

One passage that can regularly come up from JWs is 1 Cor. 8:6. They seem to think it really makes the case. Let’s look at it.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There you have it! There is one God, the Father! Jesus is not that one God. Jesus is Lord, but He is not God. On a surface level, one can say, “If that’s the case, then the Father is God, but He is not Lord.” That is indeed problematic enough, but let’s go further in looking at this text.

There are two parallel themes.

1A: For us, there is but one God, the Father.

1B: From whom all things came and for whom we live.

2A: And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,

2B: Through whom all things came and through whom we live.

There is indeed parallelism here, which is fascinating, but could there still be something more. Imagine that a Jew makes a statement that there is one God. What will other Jews immediately think of? The Shema, Israel’s great monotheistic statement.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The terms Lord, God, and One, are all repeated here. Paul is using intertextuality to call to mind an Old Testament text. The same takes place in Romans 1. Paul uses terms like creator, and “male and female” to point to Genesis 1 as the basis for his argument for divine revelation in creation and for the wrongness of same-sex erotic practice.

What then Paul is doing is he is taking Jesus and he is slipping him into the Shema, Christianizing it and putting Jesus in the divine nature. Rather than denying the deity of Christ, Paul is emphasizing it in strong terms. Also, Jesus is presented as the means of creation, which is incredible since in Isaiah 44:24, God is said to have done creation alone.

“This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,

Some can see this as wisdom, but if you read Jewish writings like the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom was taking on a more and more role of deity as a hypostasis of God. The formula is always the same in the New Testament be it John 1, 1 Cor. 8, Hebrews 1, or Col. 1. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

I have presented this several times asking JWs to show where my exegesis is wrong. To date, no one has. Let’s look at some objections that are brought up.

“But Jesus is not His Father!”

Which shows the person doesn’t understand Trinitarian thinking. Saying Jesus is God is theological shorthand. It really is saying Jesus fully partakes of the divine nature. It in no way means Jesus is the Father.

“But the Shema never mentions Jesus!”

True, and irrelevant. This is progressive revelation. This assumes God had to reveal Himself as triune from the get-go or else He isn’t.

“But what about these passages that show Jesus is not God?”

And whatever passage is brought up needs to be discussed, but unless a JW wants to deny inerrancy, which I don’t think they do, then they need to explain this passage as well and show where my exegesis is wrong. If not, then you are saying this one passage teaches X and the other one teaches non-X, which is a denial of inerrancy.

The gauntlet has been cast down. I wait to see if any JWs are willing to pick it up and take the challenge. Show where the exegesis is wrong.

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

 

Advice For Younger Apologists

What do I recommend younger apologists do? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I had my friend Evan Minton stay with me for Defend, so I read his review of his trip. In the middle of that, he mentioned this blog post by Chris Stockman and Will Hess. I resonated with a lot of their concerns. I figured it would be helpful to say some of my thoughts on the subject.

Generally, I have tried to make it a point to avoid specializing in in-house debates. I have taken a strong position against a number of issues such as the idea of how God is supposed to normatively communicate today and against beliefs like the rapture. Generally, this is about more than just going against the viewpoint, but trying to deal with something that I think does more harm than good and to reassure other Christians.

Recently, I wrote about Satanic Panic, for example. This is because I know of many Christians who live in paralyzing fear by well-meaning Christians and because this distracts us from the bigger problems out there. I am much more concerned about kids who get caught up in Instagram than I am those who get caught up in Pokemon.

The only time I can think of when I got directly involved in a debate that was in-house with major ramifications was when Norman Geisler went after my then father-in-law. For one thing, this was my family. I also did this at great sacrifice to myself. Despite all this, when Geisler died, I made sure to write a tribute to him because he did do a great service for us.

I also happen to have a number of friends who are Catholic. I meet with them regularly on Thursday night for a Zoom meeting where we discuss Aquinas, relevant to me seeing as I am a Thomist. They know I am one of the token Protestants. Sometimes, I’m asked my view on a passage as it relates to something like Marian dogmas or praying to saints. I disagree with those positions and yet, I make it a point to not be antagonistic. Not only that, but usually, there’s not pushback. I give my two cents. I move on.

I’m not saying all Catholics are Christians, but I also don’t say all Protestants are Christians. My ex-wife used to attend an Orthodox Church and I went with her and I formed great friendships with the people there. Did I disagree with them? Yep. Do I think they’re still my brothers and sisters in Christ? Yes. Do I think they’re all Christians in the Orthodox community? Not at all, but again, that is true for the Protestant community as well.

One of the big debates I see going on on Facebook now is the minimal facts approach vs the Maximal data approach. I have made it a point to not enter into this. Why? Because for one thing, I still am on good terms with my former father-in-law and I remain a great friend of Gary Habermas. On the other hand, I have the utmost respect for Tim McGrew and one of the great delights I have in Defend is when he comes by.

So which approach do I recommend?

Both of them.

For one thing, it depends on the situation one is in. If someone starts talking about problems in the Gospels, well we go to the Gospels. I am prepared to defend them. However, if someone wants to talk about the resurrection of Jesus directly, I normally go with the minimal facts approach. I prefer to have as many arrows in my quiver as possible.

The authors of the piece talk about how Frank Turek is a target regularly. I did read years ago I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. I found it helpful for where I was. Would it help me today? Probably not, but would I encourage someone starting out to read it? Sure.

Not only that, but also, Frank Turek is incredibly personable. Whenever I have met him, he has been nothing but kind to me and I remember him giving freely of his time in Charlotte to invest in young people so they could know better how to answer opponents. Will they learn how to answer specialized opponents from that? No. But will they learn how to answer their peers? Yes. That’s what matters.

Interestingly, this is in many ways the same thing Tim McGrew does when he comes to Defend. He has specialized talks, but then he has talks where he just invites people to come and discuss coffeeshop style and many of those are younger people. Not all of these people are going to specialize in apologetics. They just want to know what to say to their peers.

I also do understand that part of having your ministry is putting yourself out there. I have to do fundraising sometimes as an apologist. I hate it. I really do. I hate having to talk about myself and why you should support my Patreon. Despite what some of you might think, I do try to avoid anything that could increase pride in me. I know it’s a struggle.

It has to be done to some extent though, but if I am going to build my reputation in the world, the last way I want to do it is by tearing someone else in the apologetics field down. When it comes to many of these issues that we disagree on, I tell people I am fine to disagree with them, but when it becomes a divisive area between us, I am done. If I am discussing with Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists and Catholics and Orthodox come alongside me, I am happy to unite forces with them against the one who is outside of the faith in the hopes of either winning them over or defusing their arguments so the weaker can see how weak they are.

Are there a lot of pathetic arguments going around against the faith now? Yes, and we need to answer them. We do need to answer people like Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Most people are not going to bring up objections from Mackie and Oppy, and this includes atheists themselves. I realize that many New Testament scholars don’t know how to answer mythicists, which I think is a shame, because these are the common arguments that are being floated around on the internet and that their audience is encountering.

Also, keep in mind that though you disagree with someone, they can still teach you a lot. I try to make it a point to learn from everyone that I meet. My therapist here at the seminary is I am sure more than a decade younger than I am. Don’t care. I have a lot to learn. I am older than some of my professors here. Don’t care. I have a lot to learn. For my own personal reading, I am going through probably more than ten books at the time, and not all of them are academic. Some are just fun books. I happen to love reading mysteries.

By the way, my fellow seminary students, if the only reading you are doing is the reading you are doing for class, please re-examine what you’re doing with your life. You should be trying to learn something always. I have even made it a point to get the syllabi in advance for my classes so I can go ahead and do the reading and get started on the work.

Ultimately, I just want to encourage those coming up to try to spread more light than heat. Never forget the people that you are really doing this for. No matter how well you know something, you should always be capable of explaining it in terms anyone can understand and if you can’t do that, then I have to question if you really understand it.

If you disagree with other Christians who are recognized in the field, do so respectfully as best as you can. For all the time you go after them, make sure you go even more after the real opponents out there. Never lose sight of where the battle really lies.

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

Death For Gathering Sticks?

Isn’t this a stiff penalty? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many readers can be puzzled by this story in Numbers 15 and internet atheists love to share it:

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Wow. All this guy was doing was gathering wood and he gets put to death?

The context of this is right before this, the text speaks of the sin of the high hand. This is someone who acts defiantly in the face of God. They know that something is wrong and they go and do it anyway. It is an act of treason in such a covenant.

And that is what this man did.

Also, keep in mind that there is just one man who does this. Just one. What does that tell us? It tells us that this man knew he was doing something in isolation as the rest of the community was resting and if by some strange reason he didn’t know why, it would have been easy enough to find out.

Note also that if we say he was gathering wood for cooking, then we have a bigger problem. On the Sabbath, fires were not to be set (Exodus 35:3), no cooking was to be done, (Exodus 16:23), and of course, this was one of the Big Ten Commandments. Everything about this act is wrong.

Even if for some reason he had not had enough food somehow, hospitality was greatly valued in the Middle East. It would have been easy to go to a rich person who had an abundance and get something to eat. Also, in a worst-case scenario, no one is going to starve to death before the sun goes down.

When we get to the New Testament, we see Jesus allowing exceptions on the Sabbath for something like necessarily daily care for animals or for someone who is sick or in a place of injury. Does that cancel this out? Not at all. None of those situations shows what is going on here. It was still defiance and individual defiance would put the whole community at risk.

Also, if this man is willing to do such a thing for something so small, what is to stop him from doing it for something greater? Proverbs says a thief can be understood if he is trying to get food to eat. Again, this is not the same scenario.

Ultimately, what we can learn is that in the Old Testament at least, God does take keeping the Sabbath seriously. To mess up in this area leads to the death penalty. This is something we should keep in mind with out future study of this.

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

 

Satanic Panic and Pokemon: A Case Study

Should we beware of pocket monsters? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A friend of Deeper Waters was deeply surprised when in my last newsletter I mentioned going out walking at Christmas which also helped me with Pokemon Go. But isn’t that a satanic game? Isn’t that connected with that other demonic game, Dungeons and Dragons? I was given a link to this article.

The problem I have with this is so much of it was based on personal experience. Okay. This lady has an experience with her son concerning Pokemon. Now let’s suppose there are far more other people who have positive experiences with their son about Pokemon. Do those people overrule the negative experience here? Does the truth change based on experience?

Now this isn’t the first time I have come across such things. I wrote years ago on the writings of Phil Arms on this topic. I found it lacking then and I still find it lacking now.

So let’s go back and see how things started off. We can say that Role-playing actually began with J.R.R. Tolkien and creating the world of Middle-Earth. We got introduced to many races and creatures and that book has had a lasting impact. Today, there are immense fandoms about this. People eventually would want to play games about this.

So then comes Dungeons and Dragons. Unfortunately, that got a bad rap early on with incidents like the Pulling Report and the book Mazes and Monsters. The problem is this was highly unrelated to anyone playing the game. If anything, these incidents would have been highly isolated incidents in response to the far far far more people playing a game with any adverse responses.

Question. Why do we listen to very rare isolated incidents ignoring the numerous people who don’t have this happen and make a national panic out of it?

And now, let’s prepare ourselves for a shock. One of the co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax, was a Christian. What about the Pulling Report? Nonsense. So why did it get so popular? Because fear sells and sensationalism sells. Look at what happened in our recent history with Covid. So many people went into a panic and now we look back in retrospect and say “Yeah. It shouldn’t have happened.” Similar happened with Y2K and back then, I was even scared about things, not being well-equipped yet. The same happened before 2012. There were Christians who were making a major deal about a Rosh Hoshanah eclipse.

D&D is just a game like any other game and it is what you make of it. I happen to play with some others around here. We get together and it’s one of my favorite times of the month because we all come together and laugh and form friendships and it is about the relationships. I also recommend you see this video on the topic.

So what about Pokemon?

Okay. One criticism I remember seeing is about having creatures fight one another. Is this not promoting violence? People. If you have boys, you know they way they are. I remember going to the house of some friends of mine who played army on their birthdays. Kids will happily bring out toy guns and shoot at one another.

Yet they all know it’s fantasy. It’s not real. Right after playing army where they were trying to “destroy” one another, they were the best of friends. If anything, in Pokemon, the characters never die really.

In looking at the article, I find it amazing that the author wants to avoid pagan influences, but her kids play with Star Wars sabers, They just don’t use the force.

Okay. I don’t know Star Wars well. I went and looked this up and I’m sure some Star Wars fans can verify. This is from ScreenRant:

The most crucial part of a lightsaber (as well as the rarest and most expensive) is the kyber crystal. Kyber crystals are naturally attuned and imbued with the Force itself, making them immensely powerful objects. In other words, each kyber crystal is a small, physical manifestation of the Force. Jedi younglings didn’t simply choose any crystal they found in the Ilum caves. Instead, they often searched or endured a small trial before feeling a specific kyber crystal calling to them. The crystal would then bond with the user for life through the Force.

In other words, someone playing with a lightsaber is automatically using the Force.

Do I have a problem with that?

No, because if someone says “This is fantasy” and they know it, then this is not a problem. Was Star Wars made to share Eastern thought like Buddhism? Yes. Is Star Trek based on humanism and an atheistic worldview? Yes. Does that mean they’re all wicked and evil? No.

Christians need to engage with the imagination. If Christianity is true, even in non-Christian works, we will see shades of the gospel. We will see stories of redemption. We will see good vs evil. It is unavoidable. If Christianity is true, the gospel is unavoidable in great stories, even non-Christian stories.

For me personally, as a person on the spectrum, these games have been extremely helpful to me. I have got to have a community with people and laugh and share with them. I have gone to the community park around here with people and been accepted immediately because we all have that common bond.

The opposite, the satanic panic, leads to the opposite effect. If anything, this drives people away and makes them want nothing to do with Christianity and usually is based on highly false premises. Now by all means parents, you are the authority. You determine what is and isn’t allowed in your household, but you cannot shelter them forever. They will be on their own some time and if they think they were misled by you, they will likely blame that on Christianity also.

Instead, really discuss issues together and really let your child come to their decisions based on informed research. Talk to people of opposite perspectives on this. Do you find a Christian who enjoys something you think is evil and you don’t understand why? Ask them.

As a gamer, for instance, there are some games I wouldn’t play as a Christian. Suppose I met someone who did. Suppose I met someone I knew to be a devout Christian who played the Grand Theft Auto games for example. I would be intrigued and ask “Okay. I have some concerns with them. What do you think about XYZ?” Maybe I agree. Maybe I don’t Maybe I just need more time. The point is, at least I better understand my neighbor and if they are convinced they are fine in their own mind, then it’s a Romans 14 matter.

Also along the lines of the issue of concern about Pokemon and other games, I found this blog quite helpful. I recommend looking through and following the links.

If you disagree, let’s chat.

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

 

 

 

Does Exodus 31:16 and the Sabbath

Does this verse teach the Sabbath is a neverending covenant? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Exodus 31:16, we read this:

The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.

The ESV seems stronger:

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.

Same with the NASB:

So the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a permanent covenant.’

And one final example is the NAB:

So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.

By all means, this is not exhaustive. There are some translations that say this is a perpetual covenant.  I have chosen the strongest ones that give an idea of permanence. Is this the case then? Is someone like myself violating the text?

Good question.

Also, does it even apply to us? That’s another question. Are we Israelites? If so, what does that mean?

The word used to describe the covenant is Olam. There are some cases where it obviously doesn’t mean something that lasts eternally. Exodus 21:6 refers to making someone a servant for life of another. This hardly means that when the two meet in the afterdeath, assuming they do, that the one will still be a servant of the other.

Some cannot be forever. Exodus 27:21 gives such an example. That tent of meeting and the temple are no longer there so the lighting cannot be done. If you take it that this was simply a way of saying that this would go on for an indefinite amount of time, which is a proper interpretation of the word, you have no problem.

In the Levitical offerings in 6:22, one share is to be the Lord’s olam share. This does not mean that the share will last forever. It means that as long as the sacrifices are going on, the Lord will get this. In Scripture, we know God never intended animal sacrifices to go on forever, so this is surely something with an end date.

Leviticus 16:34 uses the word to describe the Day of Atonement. Again, this is no longer the way we as Christians pay for our sins. We do not sacrifice one goat and release another in the wild. Are we denying Scripture then?

In Deuteronomy 23, the word is used to describe the descendants of the Moabites and Ammonites who may not enter the kingdom of the Lord and this is said to be up to the tenth generation, thus even a time limit is put on this. Despite this, Ruth is a great hero in Scripture. Not only that, even more so is her descendant, a guy of some importance in the Bible named King David.

In 1 Samuel 2:30, God says He promised Eli members of his family would serve before Him forever. No more after what they have done! Now you could go the route of Open Theism and say God didn’t know. However, you could more plausibly go this is an anthropomorphism and that the covenant is not forever.

The same applies to 1 Sam. 13:13. God had said earlier in Genesis that the scepter would come from Judah. Did He not know?

In 2 Sam. 12:10, in light of the affair with Bathsheba, David is told the sword will never depart from His house. Despite this, Solomon still had a peaceful realm. It was notable for being peaceful even.

In 2 Chron. 7:16, the temple is where God will be forever. This same temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. Did God not know this was coming, or does Olam mean something besides forever?

It is used to describe Judah and the surrounding nations as an everlasting ruin in Jeremiah 25:9 at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Are we to think Jersualem was never to be rebuilt? It was rebuilt in the Old Testament itself and if you go to Israel today, I’m pretty sure Jerusalem is there.

Now does this mean that the Sabbath covenant is not an everlasting covenant?

No.

It does mean that this verse alone is sufficient to establish that. It could be that, or it could be simply a long and indefinite time. We don’t know on the basis of this verse alone. That requires looking elsewhere.

We’ll do that another time.

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