Category: Apologetics

Nine

What’s there to celebrate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So for many people, it’s their typical Wednesday. They get up and go to work and come home and see their families and go to bed. For some, it will be different, but for many, today is a day like any other day. I can’t blame them for that. For some people though, there can be something special about a day that to us seems absolutely normal.

For myself and my wife, that day is today. Today, we celebrate nine years of marriage together. On this date nine years ago, we stood at an altar and promised exclusive lifelong commitment to one another. That commitment has been tried and tested a few times, but it is still there.

Marriage is something incredible because by a divine speech-act as it were, something is called into being that wasn’t there before. Allie entered a church one day as Allie Licona and left that church as Allie Peters. I entered the church technically still a bachelor and left a husband.

Over time, love has grown. Now does that mean that the same feelings and excitement are always there like they were at the start? No. Of course not. There is instead something deeper. There is a love that is not dependent on my emotional state. It can lead to strong emotional states at times, but it goes beyond them.

Some people are surprised to hear that marriage is work. How can it be work to love someone? That’s pretty easy to say when the two of you are dating and you’re putting your best foot forward. It’s not as easy when you have to make a budget together, work out who will do the chores, and realize the other person snores and has morning breath sometimes.

In this, I find it helpful to remember that I am also very hard to love. We all are. There are things about us that drive other people around us crazy. (Okay. Sometimes on my end it is intentional.) Allie has to put up with a number of my mannerisms that seem normal to me but can drive her batty. Sometimes, those same idiosyncracies you thought were so cute when you were dating become major annoyances later on.

Yes. Marriage is hard work. Still, it is worthwhile hard work. There is nothing like having someone I can wake up to every morning and when we hit the road to go on another adventure together, and every trip is just that, she is by my side. There is the gift of getting to share your love together which in marriage includes the gift of sexuality and I am constantly amazed when I see my wife that her beauty never gets tiring. Despite her being nine years older, though since I married her young that means right now just 28, she has kept getting more and more beautiful in my eyes.

Everyday, my Princess is to be loved, but today is a day to especially celebrate that love. No. I am not telling what our plans are for the day as I have surprises in store that she does not know about, but that’s okay also because they’re not for you. They’re for my one and only, the lady who still brings a smile to my face.

Happy anniversary Allie! I love you so much!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Does Christianity Violate Logic?

Are any laws of logic violated by the story of Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have a saying about many skeptics that I meet that they honor reason with their lips but their heads are far from it. One such rule is the idea of logic. For many, being logical doesn’t mean following the laws of logic. It means just not believing in God and miracles because those violate logic because, well, they just do because that’s not logical.

To be fair, some skeptics will try to point out some logical contradictions in the nature of God, and this is entirely valid. If there is a logical contradiction in the nature of God, then God does not exist in the way we have conceived Him. If that is what is being done, that is not what this post is about. This post is about the claim that something like the resurrection of Jesus violates logic.

Let’s start by saying what laws of logic are. They are simple. The Law of Identity is A = A. What you are talking about is what you are talking about. Something is itself. The Law of Excluded Middle says that A is either B or non-B but nowhere in between. Something has to fall on the spectrum somewhere as either true or false. The Law of Noncontradiction says that A cannot both B and non-B in the same time and in the same sense. Contradictions can’t be true.

From here, consider a story like Cinderella. This is one that we all know is meant to be a fairy tale and not a historical reality. We can say all we want that the events in Cinderella never happened, but that does not mean that they violate logic. In the story, a fairy godmother turns a pumpkin into a coach and mice into horses.

Has any law of logic been violated? Not a one. What would be a violation is for mice to not be mice while being mice or for them to become horses and not become horses in the same time and in the same sense. It would also be the case that either the mice became horses or they did not.

Even the staunchest atheist can conceive of a story where a pumpkin becomes a coach. It doesn’t mean he thinks it would ever happen, but he can have a suspended disbelief of sorts where he watches the movie with a daughter, for example, and goes with the story as is. What he cannot conceive is a story where Cinderella has two pumpkins and the fairy godmother gives her two more and she has five pumpkins. You can conceive of a world of magic. You cannot conceive of one where 2 + 2 = 5.

So let’s look at the resurrection of Jesus. The event is the resurrection of Jesus and not anything else. It either happened or it didn’t even if it’s the case that we can’t know if it happened or not. There are no contradictions involved. A dead body coming back to life does not violate logic. You could try to argue it violates science or materialism, but not logic.

This is the case with most miracle claims out there. Whether they are true or not is another matter. Now if they violated logic, they could not be true, but in the same sense, just because they do not violate logic does not mean that they are true. Cinderella doesn’t violate logic, but that does not make it true. The truthfulness of the claim will be determined on other grounds, namely historical grounds.

In dialogue with skeptics, remember that logic refers to something very specific. Skeptics will often act like if you are logical you don’t believe in God or miracles or something of that sort. That needs to be backed. That kind of reasoning on their part is not illogical, but it is certainly not rational.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Diotrephes

What can we learn from this unknown man in the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In my nightly Bible reading, I have been reading 3 John. This is a really short book so I read one verse a night and just think about it. The book opens with a greeting to the recipient, Gaius, who the author, who we will refer to as John be it the elder or apostle, prays that Gaius may be as well in body as he is in soul. This man must have a very good soul.

In the middle of the letter, we read about a man named Diotrephes. John writes that Diotrephes does not welcome him and those with him and spreads malicious nonsense anyway. When John comes, he will call attention to what is being done. After that, he tells Gaius to not imitate what is evil because those who do what is evil have not seen God. This I take to certainly be pointing back to Diotrephes.

Yet something else is said about Diotrephes.

He likes to be first.

So let’s consider the irony here. Gaius is as far as we know a quite humble individual. John speaks glowingly of him. Diotrephes is apparently a leader of the church since he has authority and his goal has been to be first. He wants to be the big man.

In his time, he could have been that. Yet here is the problem. His pride was keeping the good teaching out of the church because he wanted to be the one in power. He wanted to get the attention that would hold him up in honor.

What makes this even more ironic is that Diotrephes because of his pride wanted this number one position. He wanted to be known as the leader and no doubt, to be remembered as the leader. He took all these steps to insure that he was number one.

Yet today, we see Gaius being the recipient of this letter and him being the one spoken of in glowing terms. Meanwhile, everyone who has ever read this letter knows that Diotrephes is the bad guy. He wanted to be number one, but now he’s being seen as the villain that he is.

Because of his pride, Diotrephes did not become the first. In his eager dash for honor, he is now a person of shame. Not only that, he is that for all time. Anyone who reads the Bible will want to be more like Gaius than they will Diotrephes.

C.S. Lewis said that pride was the greatest of the sins, and indeed it is. It is because of the pride of Diotrephes that he is not remembered well in church history. Diotrephes had his own small community that he wanted to be number one at. Instead, not only did John publicly call him out, but all churches everywhere know that Diotrephes is someone you should not be like. Diotrephes’s pride led to a greater fall so that here, nearly 2,000 years later, he is still remembered as the villain of the letter.

Pride has no place in the church today at all still. When we are tempted, let’s remember Diotrephes and the impact he had on the church. We won’t appear in the Scriptures, to be sure, but eternity will remember what we do and the effects of our actions will carry over there. Make sure it’s something good for you. If you are a church leader definitely, do all you can to avoid pride.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Further Responding to Jim Hall

How do we deal with common objections? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So do you remember Jim Hall? You don’t? Yeah. His work is pretty unforgettable, but he’s the guy who wrote a book which is not worth your time to read at all and I reviewed. I shared my review with him publicly on Facebook and he has yet to respond to it at all. Instead, he has told me I am intellectually dishonest. On what grounds? Well, none have been given. Recently on someone’s wall he made a list of claims that are common I figured I’d respond to here just because I can and I know again, he won’t respond.

Objection #1:There are over 60 gospels, only four were arbitrarily added to the Bible.

Yes. Arbitrarily added. Of course, Hall will never ever dare read a book like Charles Hill’s Who Chose The Gospels? Nope. That requires research. He won’t look and say “Hmmm. Who were the ones the earliest church fathers were pointing to?” We find extremely early on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being put out on display. Why is this? Because these were seen to be the most reliable by the church and connected to apostles.

As for arbitrarily chosen, by who? Perhaps Hall buys into the myth that these books were voted on at the Council of Nicea. Good luck finding evidence for that. It’s a common myth, but there is nothing that has been produced from the Council itself saying it. As Ehrman says:

http://ehrmanblog.org/widespread-misconceptions-council-nicea/

Ehrman on the NT Canon and the Council of Nicea. Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea (For Members)

One of the reasons I’m excited about doing my new course for the Teaching Company (a.k.a. The Great Courses) is that I’ll be able to devote three lectures to the Arian Controversy, the Conversion of the emperor Constantine, and the Council of Nicea (in 325 CE). It seems to me that a lot more people know about the Council of Nicea today than 20 years ago – i.e., they know that there *was* such a thing – and at the same time they know so little about it. Or rather, what they think they know about it is WRONG.

I suppose we have no one more to blame for this than Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, where, among other things, we are told that Constantine called the Council in order to “decide” on whether Jesus was divine or not, and that they took a vote on whether he was human or “the Son of God.” And, according to Dan Brown’s lead character (his expert on all things Christian), Lee Teabing, “it was a close vote at that.”

That is so wrong.

There are also a lot of people who think (I base this on the number of times I hear this or am asked about it) that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided. That is, this is when Christian leaders allegedly decided which books would be accepted into the New Testament and which ones would be left out.

That too is wrong.

So here’s the deal. First, the canon of the New Tesatment was not a topic of discussion at the Council of Nicea. It was not talked about. It was not debated. It was not decided. Period. The formation of the canon was a long drawn-out process, with different church leaders having different views about which books should be in and which should be out. I can devote some posts to the question if anyone is interested (I would need to look back to see if I’ve done that already!).

Short story: different church communities and Christian leaders preferred different books because they (the communities and leaders) had different understandings of what the faith was and should be – even within the orthodox community there were disagreements.

The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).

There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!



We can also point out that when we look at the earliest opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus, what do they respond to? Yep. The four Gospels.

Finally, let’s see what Bart Ehrman says about this:

If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons–for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons pure and simple. (Ehrman, The New Testament, page 215)

Objection #2: None of the Bible authors ever actually met Jesus face-to-face.

Again, no evidence is given of this. It’s an assertion. Could it be true? Perhaps. Does he respond to someone like, say, Richard Bauckham with his work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses? Nope. Not a bit. No historians are cited.

Atheists like Hall often make these statements of faith. How would they establish that? Again, Hall gives us no reason to believe that.

Objection #3: The gospels were written anonymously, at least 30 years after the crucifixion.

Let’s suppose they were anonymous, although Martin Hengel disagrees. So what? Many works from the ancient world were anonymous. That doesn’t mean we have no idea about who the author is. E.P. Sanders has a reason also why they were anonymous.

The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written ‘this is my version’ instead of ‘this is what Jesus said and did.’  – The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.

Furthermore, the Pastoral epistles are not anonymous and say they are by Paul. Does that mean that skeptics immediately jump on that and say “Hey! Paul wrote those!”? No. Why should I think a name on the Gospels would be any different?

Objection #4: Luke/Acts is widely agreed upon to have been written around 80CE.

Again, no evidence for this whatsoever. Hall gives no information to believe this claim. I also find it hard to believe that the author of Luke/Acts would say absolutely nothing about the death of Paul, Peter, or the destruction of Jerusalem. Now again, I could be mistaken in my belief, sure, but Hall doesn’t give me any evidence to go by.

Objection #5: If Harry Potter was the most-studied book in history, that still wouldn’t make it true.

I don’t know anyone who is saying the Bible is true because it is the most studied book in all of history. I have no idea what Hall is trying to establish with this claim. Let’s move on to the next.

Objection #6: There is no moral teaching in the Bible that cannot also be found in much older religions’ texts.

Reply: So what? The Bible is true because it contains some unique moral teaching? Morality is common knowledge that is meant for all men. You don’t need the Bible to know it.

Objection #7: “Positive impact on the world”? It has been cited for centuries to justify slavery and the subjugation of women.

Reply: Yes. The Bible has been misused. So what? Evil people misuse good things constantly. The Bible has also been used to end slavery repeatedly and to raise up women. That is never mentioned. Hall is free to find a nation untouched by the Bible at all where he would rather live if he thinks things are so awful in places the Bible has reached.

Again, I know Hall will not respond. He can claim I’m intellectually dishonest all he wants, but that will not work as well as just responding to the claims. Show I am wrong on something and I will accept it. We’ll see if that happens, but don’t hold your breath on it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 7/20/2019

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

Since the dawn of humanity, there have been two things that I think we can say have been readily apparent.

#1. Men and women need to come together or else the human race is doomed.

#2. Men and women have a really hard time knowing how to relate to one another.

Today we have the church and we know that in Christ there is supposed to be no male and female. Yet still, there are difficulties. There are so many passages that seem to put women in a lower place and at the same time, we don’t want to make sure the church isn’t just kowtowing to the culture.

How are we to do this? Don’t the Scriptures say that a woman is to submit to her husband? Don’t they say that she’s supposed to keep quiet in the church as in all the churches and learn from her husband at home? Isn’t it the case that a woman is not supposed to teach or have authority over a man?

Yet at the same time, we have these other passages. What about 1 Corinthians 7? Is it really the case that man is the head except in bed? How are we supposed to relate? If we say there is complete equality, could we open the door elsewhere? Could it be that there is no distinction between men and women, maybe we open the door for the approval of homosexual practice?

What about women pastoring a church? Can women even lead Bible studies? Is it acceptable for women to teach women but not men? But if a husband and wife wanted to teach together, say a marriage seminar, could that be done?

And if we go to the Bible, don’t we see women in places of teaching? Don’t we see Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos in the Bible? What about Phoebe in the letter to Romans? What about Junia? Didn’t the Lord Himself associate with women and let them be the first witnesses to His resurrection and teach them?

We’ll be discussing this debate on my podcast this week. To do that, I am bringing on a guest who is not a scholar in the field, but using legal examination tactics, has written a book engaging with the best scholarship out there. His work will definitely give both sides something to think about. The book is Men and Women in Christ and the author is Andrew Bartlett.

So who is he?


1973 BA in Law, Oxford University
1974 Called to the Bar of England and Wales. Practised until 2019.

1988 Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
1993 Appointed Queen’s Counsel
From 2001 Various part-time judicial positions in UK while continuing in practice as a barrister
2012 BA in Theology, University of Gloucestershire

Current work:
Mainly as an international arbitrator

Christian background:
Did not grow up in a Christian family. Became a Christian as a teenager.
I have served in various churches as an elder or churchwarden.

I hope you’ll be listening to this latest episode. I am still working on getting the latest ones uploaded. The website is having some problems, but I hope to have it fixed soon.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

On Forgiveness

What is the big deal with forgiveness? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Forgiveness is always something we seem to struggle with. One of the most popular posts I have written concerns the issue of if someone’s murderer will be in heaven. Also, I have written about if Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven or not. With skeptics, if God punishes sin, He’s in the wrong. If God forgives sin, He’s in the wrong.

When it comes to us, we always think there has to be a catch. No one just forgives. In reality, this is the Christian way. This is what we are all told to do. Why should we though?

To begin with, everyone of us who are Christians has been forgiven. We have been forgiven of divine treason. Whenever we have sinned, we have in essence been saying that we wish God was dead. We have denied something about Him to be true. We have called into question who He is.

That’s a serious charge.

Yet we are forgiven. Forgiveness was offered when we did not seek it. We definitely did not deserve it. We definitely did not earn it. There was no obligation to provide a way of forgiveness to us. God could have let us all go our own way and go to Hell and have it be He and His angels in eternity together and no one could have said, “You did wrong.”

Forgiveness cannot be earned. If it could, it’s not really forgiveness. Forgiveness, like love is a gift. What does it mean?

To forgive does not mean that there are no consequences to the action. There may be. There may not be. You can forgive someone who abused your kids. It doesn’t mean you’re going to hire them immediately to be your babysitter.

What it means is there is no personal debt they owe to you. The relationship may or may not return to normal. Sometimes it does, but it takes time, such as in cases of infidelity.

If we are hesitant to forgive though, it is because we do not realize what we have been forgiven of. We are the person in the parable of the unforgiving servant who refuse to show mercy despite the great mercy that has been shown to us.

If we put a catch on forgiveness, then we are not realizing what we have been forgiven of. Is that risky? Yes. Is it hard? Absolutely. Do we want to push against it? Yep. We have to let go of any desire for revenge or to teach someone a lesson.

As I said though, forgiveness does not mean no consequences. Someone can be in prison and come to Jesus for forgiveness, and they will still be in prison. Someone can forgive someone for murdering a loved one, but that doesn’t mean the state will drop charges. We can choose to forgive. We cannot choose the consequences.

Forgiveness is also freeing not just for the other person, but for the forgiver. It’s a way of ending the cycle of retaliation. It’s a way of letting bygones be bygones and work towards and restoration that can be of the relationship.

I also consider it important to wait for the other person to ask for forgiveness first. The gift of repentance is a great gift to give. That being said, one should always have the attitude of forgiveness. It is not always wise to approach someone you need to forgive. Sometimes, you might not be able to, such as if the person has died. Sometimes, it could be risky, such as if the person has hurt you in some serious way such as abuse. Have in your heart the mindset of forgiving them, but let them approach you before you pronounce forgiveness.

If someone says they forgive you also, try to forgive them, and if they bring it up again, let them know they gave forgiveness. Work on rebuilding the relationship if it is possible. It depends on how much the relationship is valued, but God is in the business of doing things like that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is Love Deserved?

Can someone earn love? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There is a thought I have been pondering lately about the love of God. When I hear someone complain about the God of the Old Testament and the claims of genocide and such, I always ask what God owes anyone. After all, does God anyone any moment of life whatsoever? God can take anyone’s life and be just in doing so.

What about us today in the times since the New Testament? What are we owed? Necessarily, nothing. The only thing God will have to give us is something that He has promised us, not because we deserve it, but rather because He is a covenant God who keeps His promises.

What about love? We live in a society where love is often conditional, which makes sense since we are fallen human beings. This is a world where too often marriages fall apart. We often have a hard time thinking that there is love that is unconditonal.

There is. This does not mean some sort of universalism where everyone gets accepted into heaven in the end then because God loves everyone. God loves them and respects their choice to want nothing to do with Him in this life and be excluded from the blessings of the covenant. God being loving does not mean a warm sentimentality where everyone gets to feel good about themselves in the end.

This also puts us in a strange position since we are used to earning love. Today, we have to win someone’s heart for their affections. In a sense, this is understandable. After all, you don’t give your heart to just anyone. There are degrees of trust in relationship and love never means putting up with abuse.

With God, it’s vastly different. The love is unconditional. This doesn’t mean we get special privileges for being a Christian either. We can spend ages in the presence of God and we still will not deserve the love of God. After all, that would mean that at some point God owes us His love. He won’t. He doesn’t.

Love from God is always a gift. It is based more on who He is. The idea of Scripture is while we were enemies, God still loved us and gave His Son for us. We can never make up for it. We can never do enough good that it is owed. Love is not ever going to be a debt just as grace and forgiveness aren’t debts.

How this works out on a horizontal level is more difficult, but it is the kind of love that we should strive for. We can often put conditions on love that are needless to make sure that we are protected. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to hurt, but we can be so protective we also cut off love.

But when you pray, please keep in mind that love is not earned. God’s love for you is always a gift. You will never just be so awesome and special that you will deserve the love of God. After all the ages, you will still not deserve the love of God. God will always be giving you a gift in the gift of Himself.

Keep in mind you also never lose the love. The love is always a gift. A gift is not earned. It is freely given. Enjoy the gift.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Thoughts On Comic-Con

What can be learned at a place like Comic-Con? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This past weekend, my wife and I went to Comic-Con together. If you don’t know, it’s a convention where people who like comics, anime, sci-fi, video games, those kinds of things, all get together. Some people come in costumes dressed as popular characters known as cosplaying.

For me, my big honor was getting to meet David Yost who played the original blue power ranger on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Allie got to meet Sean Schemmel who does the voice of Goku on Dragonball. Goku was a hero of hers growing up which was a major honor.

We did meet one person who had a stall set up with a comic series he has that is Christian-based and chatted with him briefly. Other than that, I didn’t really see much in the terms of religious reference there. However, while religion isn’t explicitly there, let’s mention that many of these people are fans of series that do not kowtow to a materialistic view of the universe. These are universes where magical beings roam. Sure, it may not be God, but there is an openness.

There is also the reality that bullying really doesn’t go on at these conventions. Now, of course, I haven’t been to every convention, but when I have, people are really friendly and open to each other. People don’t hesitate to speak with one another.

These people are at a place where in many instances, they are free to be themselves. There is a great openness there. It kind of makes me wonder what it would be like if that could happen in a church. What if we could come to a church and share what is really going on in our lives and do so without fear of judgment? I’m not saying at ComicCon people gather together and spill their guts, but we all unite around our common interests there. We share a common passion and it’s easy to speak to people when you share that common interest.

Now supposedly at a church, we’re all supposed to share a common interest, and that is the interest of following Christ. We are all supposed to be chasing after God and pursuing holiness together. Yet for some reason, there doesn’t often seem to be that same kind of togetherness there.

As I said, there was one guy doing Christian comics, but what if we did have more of a Christian presence at places like anime conventions and comic cons and places like Dragon Con and others? These people need to hear the gospel as well. Thankfully, there are some people like Vic Mignogna, a popular voice actor, at these places sharing a Christian light, but they are the exception.

The harvest is ripe. Your neighbor is right next door to you. He might be dressed up as Deadpool, but he is still your neighbor.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Can We Trust The Gospels?

What do I think of Peter J. Williams’s book published by Crossway? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is a short read on the reliability of the Gospels. Don’t be deceived by its size. It is small, but it puts forward a succinctly powerful argument. Williams has written a book that is useful for the layman and yet incredibly scholarly at the same time.

It starts with just looking at bare facts about Christianity from outside of the New Testament. The information about Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, with an emphasis on Tacitus, is extremely helpful. Williams doesn’t spend time arguing with the idea that Jesus never existed, but he could have it in his sights.

Don’t think that means the information is light. It’s quite good and Williams still deals with popular objections, such as the spelling of the reference of Christ when it comes to the writings of Tacitus. Tacitus is probably the best extra-Biblical source we have on the base existence of Jesus and it’s quite helpful.

He then moves to an overview of the Gospels. This discusses what they are, why they are, and when they were written. Each of these chapters is short enough to read on its own, though reading the book as a whole will be more rewarding.

Then we move into Gospel reliability. In this, Williams leans heavily on Bauckham, and for good reason. This is the longest chapter, but it also contains a number of charts to help catalog the information. Williams looks at details like names, geography, finances, and even botany, to show that the Gospel authors did not make things up and were not writing from a standpoint where they were unfamiliar with the area.

Williams also looks at the idea of undesigned coincidences, made especially famous by the recent work of Lydia McGrew. This is not an extensive look, but it is a sufficient look. You could say this chapter is meant to pique your interest and if it succeeds, you could look into the research of McGrew on this.

From there, we get more into if we have the words of Jesus and if the text has been changed. Again, these chapters are short, but they contain a lot of really good information on the subject. I really encourage you to consider reading this even if you are knowledgeable on the subject. Williams has material that you won’t find in your regular apologetics book.

There is a brief chapter on contradictions and then one asking why this stuff would be made up. This last one ends with a powerful appeal to consider really recognizing who Jesus is and taking Him seriously. Naturally, that includes an argument for His resurrection.

This book is a gift to the church and one that skeptics will also need to take seriously. The layman will greatly appreciate how helpful and scholarly it is. The experienced apologist will appreciate having a brief guide to several key facts on the Gospels. Bottom line is to get this book and read it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Should You Live Together Before Marriage?

Don’t you need to see if you will work out? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Go back a few decades in time and it would have been taboo to be pregnant before you were married. There was just this idea that if you are pregnant out of wedlock, you have done something wrong. That doesn’t mean that the treatment of such a person was always right, but we did recognize the wrong.

In a couple of decades, things have changed. Now not only is it entirely acceptable to many, but many couples are also living together before they get married. This includes nowadays people who are Christians and get divorced and then do so before they remarry, or people who are Christians and haven’t been divorced, but they are sleeping together without marriage. You can hear a news story about a woman and her boyfriend living together spoken of so casually.

Yes. It is a big deal. Something we have lost sight of is that Christianity entails a certain sexual ethic. One such rule is that sexual intercourse is to be reserved only for marriage. Some might say we’re going to live together, but we’re not going to have sex. Yeah. Just keep fooling yourself. You’ll sleep in the same house together and shower in the same house together and all that, but nope, sex will never happen.

Some people will say marriage is a big deal, of which they are right. They will say that one should not make the decision lightly, which is again right. Then comes forward the analogy that they use. You wouldn’t buy a car without taking it for a test drive would you?

The question has to be asked who is the driver and who is the car? In each case, the person is asking if the other person is capable of meeting their needs. Marriage is much more about meeting the needs of the other person instead of getting your own needs met. If both parties work at that, they all get their needs met.

If the driver decides they don’t want the car, the car won’t tell. A person will care. A person will care if they have been rejected as they are while giving all that they have. This is one reason why it’s so especially devastating on girls when a guy they love will sleep with them and then dump them the very next day.

Sexuality is something too beautiful and too sacred to treat as a test or to treat as no big deal. There is something awesome and magical going on when a person gives someone else so much trust with their whole body. When a person is giving sex, it is a way of saying they are giving themselves entirely. Women especially need to realize this since they usually set the standards.

There are exceptions of course, but normally the men are the pursuers and unless they’re willing to rape, they take no for no, although they could beg and plead some before finally accepting. Women are normally the determiners then of if sex will happen and when a woman says yes before marriage, she has said what has to be done to get all of her. What is she worth? Dinner? Three dates? A month? A year? Engagement? Perhaps instead, full marriage?

When you live together, you are not upholding the Christian sexual ethic and as Paul said in 1 Cor. 6, sexual sin is in a different category. He who sins sexually sins against his own body. It is essentially testing each person and treating the relationship as a contract instead of a covenant.

Ladies. You’re the big losers here. Guys who move in with you get what they want, the sex, without the cost that they want, the commitment. They can pack up and go at any time and you are the ones who are living most often in fear of that. Guys don’t have to worry about being stuck with alimony and get their fun in at the same time. You’re not giving them incentive to commit. You’re removing incentive. Want to give them incentive? They only get to have their fun if they make that commitment to you.

This is also why sexual refusal is so painful in marriage. For a guy, it is them getting a message that they are still not good enough. This is not to say a woman can never say no, but there’s a reason Paul encourages couples to make the withholding something mutual and only for a short time. Paul knew what he was talking about.

Also, I really don’t think that anyone who is living together with someone of the opposite sex without marriage should be in a position of Christian leadership at all. We are often rightly fighting the marriage battle for marriage being a man and a woman. It does not help us if our own leadership is living like marriage is no big deal. They either get married or one of them moves out. Save sex for the marriage bed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters