Category: Apologetics

Matthew 24:4-5

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

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

4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Case Against Miracles Chapter 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Olivet Discourse Matthew 24:3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are you taking your throne?

When does the age of your rule begin?

What signs will tell us that this is happening?

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 1/11/2019

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

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

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

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

So who is he?

According to his bio:

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Matthew 24:1-2

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

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

“Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Look At The Olivet Discourse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Myths and Mistakes of New Testament Textual Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line. Buy this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Need To Read

What should we do with the gift of literacy? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We just got back from taking my wife to see the rheumatologist. On the wall in the office was a notice about measles and being on guard against it. As I saw it, I pondered that in the ancient world, the large majority of people could not read and/or write. Today, it is practically assumed that everyone can do so.

When the first Final Fantasy game came to the Playstation 2, it was Final Fantasy X and it did have voice acting, but it also had lines across the screen. This is still common in many games. Players don’t listen to many of the things being said. They read them instead.

Let’s not forget how many of us actually do spend our time reading. Facebook. I know we have Facebook live and gifs and videos on there, but a lot of it is reading. It’s really taken for granted.

It’s easy to say many of us are not readers, but it’s just not true. We just don’t read the things that we often should be reading. For those of us who are Christians, that should definitely include good books.

When you read, you learn and you are informed with what you talk about. Without that, you are often trapped in your own thoughts. If I think about something, I don’t just have my own thoughts. Naturally, I have Scripture in my own head. I also have people like Augustine, Aquinas, Lewis, Chesterton, and many many other scholars and apologists past and present.

So if you’re reading, why not read something good that will build you up and you can enjoy? I’m not saying you can never do anything else, but much of the time we spend doing other things we could spend actually enriching our minds and learning about the world we live in and also enjoying it.

That also means it’s okay to read purely for the enjoyment that it gives you. When I started reading the Harry Potter books, it was to learn what all the fuss was about from my fellow Christians. Were the books really what people said they were? Before too long, probably before I finished the first book even, I was reading for my own enjoyment.

C.S. Lewis said the same kind of things. He used to read fairy tales in secret, then as an adult, he found he read them out in public and enjoyed them. There was no fear of being childish for that fear of being childish is itself childish.

Reading is a gift. We are blessed that we live in a culture that reading material is so abundant. We have more access to it than ever. You can easily go to the library and get most any book that you want. Not only that, you can get books in a digital format on Kindle or some tool like that. Many libraries have programs where you can order Kindle books from your own home. If you must, you can get a book on Audible or some service like that and read it in the car or if you’re doing something else.

I often take a book with me if I just have to go to the grocery store. Want something to do waiting in the checkout lane? Read it some. Get in a paragraph or two or however much I can. It’s even better if I put it down and it becomes a conversation piece.

Also, read something you disagree with if you’re a debater. It pays to know both sides. That also means if you’re an atheist or a Muslim or a JW or Mormon or any other position, read the other side. See what they have to say. Don’t settle for just Facebook debates. Read the best.

Now go get in some reading.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Can Your Mind Be Changed?

What does it take to change a mind? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m not much of a music guy, except for music from TV shows, video games, or, of course, Weird Al Yankovic. Most music that is Christian I consider to be self-help pablum that doesn’t really build up. There are a few exceptions, but they’re not worth listening to Christian music constantly.

So when I drive, I listen to talk radio. Just a few days ago I was riding and heard a show with the host who is a believer apparently talking to an atheist who called in. The atheist said that he wasn’t going to change his mind nor was he going to change the believer’s mind. I find such a statement odd. Why is this something people say so easily?

Let’s consider some beliefs that we might be more negotiable on. You could pretty easily change your mind on a favorite TV show or movie if you found something better. On the other hand, there are some beliefs you hold that you would have a hard time changing your mind on and not just controversial ones. I am thoroughly convinced I married my wife on July 24, 2010. This is not controversial. I have scores of witnesses who were there and there isn’t much reason to dispute it, but it would take a tremendous amount of evidence to change my mind.

Now let’s move on to other beliefs. Perhaps we want to talk politics. It would take a lot to convince me my capitalist and conservative views are wrong, but what happens if I say I am unpersuadable? If I do that, haven’t I demonstrated that my position is not evidential? If evidence will not change my mind, then is my mind really convinced by evidence?

Let’s move on to religion. I want to address two extremes here. Consider the Christian first who says he will only be persuaded Christianity isn’t true if he is shown the bones of Jesus. Well, that would certainly do the trick, but is that a reasonable case to make?

Suppose that Christianity isn’t true. If so, then Jesus may be a great man, but He is just that, a man. If so, supposed we found bones. How could we possibly tell that they were the bones of Jesus? This makes the argument an impossible argument to make as the other person cannot produce the evidence because it would be impossible.

The same goes for atheists who say they will change their mind if they see a miracle. That would do it I hope, but what does that mean to me? It means I can present argument after argument and you have already decided they are false if I do not give you a personal experience. (This is also all the while arguing the personal experience of those who claim miracles is invalid, meaning the only personal experience you count as evidence is your own.)

Yet if we are in a debate, how is this fair to me? It tells me you aren’t willing to follow my arguments at all. Maybe they don’t work, but you are telling me argument will not change your mind. What will is a personal experience I cannot provide. I am not God to do such a thing like that and this tells me the dialogue is not genuine. (It would be even worse if you expected me to listen to your arguments as evidence, although I should anyway)

Does this mean you change your mind lightly? No. It does mean you’re open. If you really think the evidence is on your side, you have nothing to fear.

One of the best ways I find to do this is to read books that disagree with you on a regular basis. This is why I often ask atheists in a debate when was the last time they read a book that disagreed with them. It’s sad that I rarely get an answer to this question that indicates that they do this.

Be open to changing your mind. If you’re doing evangelism, you expect the people you are talking to to be willing. You need to be as well.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

More on Galli

So what do I think of Galli’s points on immorality? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Recently, I wrote a post on Mark Galli and his editorial on President Trump. A friend of Deeper Waters left a comment asking about Galli’s stance. What about the immoral behavior of Trump? Would we still want to live in Nazi Germany even if the economy was doing great and we had the judges?

To be fair, this reader immediately said we are not in Germany like that, and that’s something important to stress. If you don’t like Trump, that’s one thing, but if you say he’s Hitler, you’re being insulting. To Trump? Yes, but that’s mild. You’re being insulting to millions of Jews and others who died under Hitler and to their loved ones and to the survivors. I couldn’t stand Obama and Bill Clinton, but I wouldn’t have called them Hitler.

2016 was a strange year with the election. Most conservatives did not want Hillary Clinton in power. If you asked my wife why she didn’t, she would say one word. Benghazi. That’s enough. For me, I also knew Hillary is pro-choice and would appoint judges like that. I was honestly convinced and still am that our country could not have survived that.

Keep in mind at this point, I am not asking you to agree with my stance. You can think I am entirely wrong in it, but I cannot be wrong in that that is what I think. I thought the Obama years were a disaster and I did not want to see them go on and if anything, I was more concerned about Hillary since I think she had the capability to do a lot more damage if given power.

So we had to have someone to beat her. Now here’s the question that has to be asked. Why did so many conservatives flock to Trump? What did Trump have that made him so special that so many people looked and said, “I know he’s not the best guy in the world, but I’m voting for him.”

For one thing, we have seen several Republicans who seemed to bend over backwards to try to be friendly to the Democrats thinking they would get an olive branch in return. It never worked. McCain was one person who the Democrats loved, for instance, until he ran for president and then during that time he was a villain. Mitt Romney was someone the media couldn’t stand in his presidential campaign with stories of him about being a racist, causing cancer in people, abusing animals, and folders of women. Now he’s anti-Trump so he’s cool.

What was seen in Trump was someone who would not do that. Voters saw in Trump someone who fought back and stood up for what he believed in. He wasn’t afraid to step on any toes. This is something that was refreshing. With Trump, one never needs to guess where he stands. He comes right out and tells you.

Second, he wasn’t a politician. He didn’t have years of going through all these emotions. He was, in essence, an ordinary guy who wanted to do something for his country. He wasn’t worried about having a legacy to defend. He was an outsider to the system and maybe he could do something to make it work.

Third is he was talking about the issues people wanted to talk about. Okay. The Iran deal is something important to talk about, but most of us don’t wake up in the morning wondering about America’s relationship with Iran. We wake up in the morning wondering about how we’re going to pay our bills and what about our children and will we have freedom in our country or not?

Trump spoke to these issues. Illegal immigration was a great example of this. For many decades, people had got up and said illegal immigration is a problem. Trump just didn’t say it. He made it a focus. People liked that.

In the end, one ultimate difference is we were quite sure that Hillary would be happy to turn against us if she got power. The rights of many Christians we were and are sure would go out the window. We would have more issues with abortion, the homosexual movement, transgenderism, etc. (Worth noting that all of these issues have to do with sex. Consider what that means.)

Trump was not one we suspected would do that, and so far, we have been right. We have seen two justices appointed to the court that we think want to be faithful to the Constitution. More and more judges are being appointed elsewhere.

But what about what Galli says here?

“The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.”

One big problem here. Galli gives ZERO examples of this. Now some we can see. The Access Hollywood tape was a concern for awhile, but Trump supporters went forward for the still the same reason. It was like we were given a choice between Diocletian or Constantine. It might have been good to have a candidate who had the same political stances as Trump, but had moral character. We didn’t get that.

However, here’s something to consider. Who else had a major impact on our society in a very good way, but he also had problems of morality, including women? Martin Luther King Jr. He was even a pastor who had numerous affairs with other women. For some reason, I have never seen a rush to remove Martin Luther King Jr. Day from being a national holiday. We still support the cause that he championed of dreaming of a world of racial equality.

Some of this could also depend on the state you lived in. If you lived in a heavily Republican or Democrat state and it was certain to go one way or the other, then perhaps you could have sat this one at home last time. If you didn’t though, then your vote made a difference. You could have changed a swing state to go that way.

For many of us though, we live in a world where we are seeing the rise of transgenderism, abortion, and homosexual behavior being normalized for us and our children. My wife recently shared pictures from a book a friend shared that was young adult fiction for students in school and had quite explicit homosexual behavior being discussed in it. Go against any of this and you’re a wicked bigot and if the left has shown us anything, it’s that they’re more than happy to shut us down.

“Okay. But with impeachment, why not let Trump take the fall and get Pence? He’s a good Christian. Right?”

Because it won’t stop. It never does. If it is shown that a president can be removed this way, it will happen with Pence as well. Some charge will be found against him. Let Pence get in for reasons such as election in 2024 or if a tragedy happens to Trump in office.

To get back to where we were, in the end, many of us saw that we could either vote for someone like Diocletian or like Constantine. We didn’t know if Constantine had the moral character or not, but we at least knew he wouldn’t turn on us. If the Democrats want to change that, they need to produce a better candidate and so far, I’m not seeing it happen.

In Christ,
Nick Peters