Category: Apologetics

Book Plunge Part 2: Politely Rejecting the Bible

What does Kapr have to say about textual criticism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is an odd read. The second chapter is about textual criticism. Now what would have helped this case even more would have been to have had a description more on how textual criticism works. There was some of this, but I would have liked to have seen more. Again, Kapr is surprisingly friendly to the Bible and doesn’t seem to think arguments from textual criticism to break down the Bible really work at all.

However, what made this into a more surreal experience was the fact of who Kapr goes after the most in this chapter. It’s not fundamentalist atheists. While it is Christians, which is expected, it’s the group of Christians that he goes after the most that is most surprising.

Kapr has a long and sustained argument against the King James Only movement in this chapter. Ironically, he does a lot of work to undermine the position and has the data from the translators of the KJV at this disposal as well. There is no demeaning of the KJV as it is a fine translation, but it is not a perfect translation sent down from Heaven. (I suspect at this point anyone who is a follower of the blog who is a KJV onlyist has hit unsubscribe.)

The argument I think actually works. If I had been told that I was reading a Christian author, I would not have been surprised. Kapr’s way of approaching this I think is more often fair and even-handed than the majority of atheists out there.

I know this is short for a blog for me, but there’s really not much to say. Right now, I’m leaning towards thinking if an atheist wanted to read a non-scholarly work from their position, this could be a good one to start with. So far, I am under the impression that I could have a reasonable conversation with the author. It’s rare and refreshing.

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

Book Plunge: Back to the Batcave

What do I think of Adam West’s book published by Berkley Trade? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I remember my first encounter with the Adam West Batman series. I don’t remember how old I was, but I remember I was a young boy and I came downstairs and saw it on the TV. I couldn’t tell you the episode, except the villain was the Joker.

There are different things that draw me to a series. Honestly, the first that drew me in to this one was the appearance of Robin. I liked the character of Robin because like me, he was a youth as well and yet here he was out there fighting crime and being a hero in Gotham City.

Naturally, something I came to love about the series also was the fight scenes. It’s incredible that at the time ABC executives were skeptical about putting in a bunch of POW! BAM! ZLOCK! OUCH! over and over again, but yet, this is one of the main things that stands out about the series today.

The book is about the Batman series, but it is also about Adam West and his life and how he came to get the Batman role and the impact it had on him. One striking feature is that while on the show Batman is a picture of morality in every area, Adam West really wasn’t always as noble. I don’t say this to shame him. He’d probably agree. He had multiple marriages and neglected his first two wives.

Learning about the making of the show was quite revealing. The main producer behind it, William Dozier, often wanted to try new and innovative techniques. This is why when Season 2 started you had new villains that were virtually unheard of showing up like the Archer or Ma Parker. West had the idea of wanting to go to the comics and bring out villains that hadn’t been on the show yet, such as Two-Face. (And it was a surprise to me to learn Two-Face did go back that far. I hadn’t heard of him until the animated series.)

This can also relate to apologetics. Too often, to win people to the church, especially youth, we think we have to do huge special events and get their attention that way. Why not just use what we already have? If we know of anything that wins families to a church, it’s good and solid preaching (No. Music is important, but the main draw is good preaching.) Furthermore, if the father comes to church, he is more likely to get the rest of the family to follow him.

West talks about the time when Batman came to an end and how for awhile, it was hard for him to get any roles whatsoever because he was so tied to Batman. There was even some hatred on his part of Batman. Eventually, he did work his way through that and today you can see him on a number of series. There are times he plays either himself or Batman on these series. Lately, I have been watching a clip from The Big Bang Theory of when he came on and is talking about how all the different Batmans rate and why he should be #1 on the list.

The Batman series came out over 50 years ago and despite the changes in our time, it still remains a classic to this day. I watch it with my Dad as I’m living with my parents since the divorce for the time being, and we make fun of how campy the show is (I like to point out how everything is labeled), but at the end of the day, it’s just a fun show to watch. As I told my pastor about it Sunday, who sadly didn’t know about it, it’s a clean show also the whole family can watch together, including the children.

Nothing against the movies that have come out since then, though I have not seen the latest one, but for the best time, I still go and watch the original series. Of course, the other great one is the animated series, but I don’t have access to that now. Maybe some day.

This has been more of a read for fun review. Of course, there is some relation to apologetics in here. Would Batman have lasted longer had they stuck to the source material, the comics? Perhaps. Maybe we should stick to our source material the most, the Scriptures, instead of trying to be new and innovative to the point that we neglect the source.

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

Is Paul autobiographical in Romans 7?

Who is being talked about in Romans 7? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So I caused some debate in my Sunday School class yesterday when Romans 7 was brought up and I started hinting that it’s not autobiographical. Now the problem I see with this is too many people go to their experience, see that they struggle in a way that sounds like Romans 7, and then say “Paul must be talking about that!” Our experience is very real, but it doesn’t mean that the Western way of thinking is what Paul has in mind.

For a start, let’s look at the passage in Romans 7:

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Well there you go! Paul speaks in the first person. Obviously, he must be talking about himself.

Except, what about Philippians 3?

“Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.”

Here, Paul does talk about how he kept the law. He says he was faultless. Now I was told yesterday that this is just how Paul appeared to others, but there’s no indication that he is talking about that here. Paul is just stating the facts in his mind, just as all the above about his heritage are facts. Furthermore, this makes no sense later on of the passage when he says “All that righteousness, I count as dung.” The Greek word for dung is skubalon which could be an expletive. Paul never says “I considered myself righteous with regards to the law, but I knew I wasn’t.” That would weaken his testimony. His testimony is, “As good as I was before God, that is all worthless before Christ.” Go the other way and you could have him saying “If I could have kept the law, I wouldn’t need Christ.”

But that still leaves us with a question? Who is being talked about in Romans 7?

Go back to Romans 5. Who do you see as the main person being spoken of? It’s Adam. What if we brought him into Romans 7. Does this make sense?

After all, my opening question yesterday was “When was Paul apart from the law?” He never was. In Galatians 4, we are told Jesus was born under the law. So that means the Jewish Jesus was born under the law, but somehow Paul missed it? Paul would have never said in his days before Christ that he was alive apart from the law.

But what about Adam? Suppose we see that when he got the commandment about the fruit in the garden, that that which was meant to bring him life, did become an instrument of death as he broke it? Not only that, some of the Jewish rabbis at the time thought that the sin that was committed in the garden was coveting. Adam and Eve wanted the fruit so they could have what God has.

If we go that route, things make sense. My main concern also is too often we are identifying with Romans 7. This is even after we have come to Christ. Once you come to Christ, your true identity is in Romans 8 and all the wonderful promises in that.

What do we have to do to reach this? Just stop starting with our own experience. Paul is not talking about himself in this passage even if this could have been a struggle for him at times. If you accept Philippians 3, you need to find a way to reinterpret Romans 7 for this way. If you go the route I have presented, you have no difficulty at all.

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

Book Plunge Part 1: Politely Rejecting the Bible

What do I think of Dan Kapr’s open? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I saw this book while browsing through my Facebook feed and seeing as it was cheap on Kindle, and still is, I decided to get it. The book says it is by a former seminarian who came to see the Bible in a light that showed it was not a perfect revelation from God. Well, if the guy wants to invest in it, other people could be reading it, so I might as well give my own insights here.

First, thus far, I do not see any of the angry atheist diatribes. While that is refreshing, at the same time, the read is pretty boring. For one thing, the writing comes across as patronizing with the writer wanting to explain everything in detail. Of course, that could be a problem on my end since too many people today do need to have details about something like this explained in great detail.

Second, it’s not a shock to see that this is largely about inerrancy. With an update of Defining Inerrancy in the works, this is a topic I have written about and have great interest in. It’s not a shock that this comes out often as a cause for people abandoning Christianity. This is not to say inerrancy is false, but it is made too much of an emphasis such as some people walk away thinking if there is one contradiction in the Bible, then absolutely nothing in it is true. (Oddly, it seems an idea like “Do not murder” is still true.)

At the same time, Kapr does at least admit that fundamentalism exists on both sides of the spectrum so that there are fundamentalist atheists. These would be the people who say if there is one error, then everything is false. Of course, that’s just one example of fundamentalist atheism. One problem though is that Kapr seems to imply that fundamentalism is the same as anti-intellectual.

Say what you will about the fundamentalists, it doesn’t mean that they were anti-intellectual. They were simply wanting to return to the fundamentals. Kapr is also right when he points out that evolution wasn’t even seen as a defeater for Christianity and Scripture with someone such as B.B. Warfield (aka Mr. Inerrancy) not having a problem with evolution.

Kapr is also right that inerrancy is not a modern doctrine. Now certain understandings of it can be modern, but not the doctrine itself. It’s also true that you can be a Christian and reject biblical inerrancy. Talk is made of inspiration, which I agree it is not a well-defined term and I tend to not talk about it. After all, I want to emphasize the text is true. Suppose the text is true and also inspired. Does that mean it’s more true? No. It’s hard to say even what it does add.

I plan to go through this chapter by chapter over the next few weeks. For this first one, there isn’t much to say. In all honesty, it was a bit of a boring read for me as a lot of it was old hat stuff, but we’ll see if something interesting comes up ahead.

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

How To Ace Bible Trivia

Is answering trivia the goal? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A few days ago at my workplace, I found an item someone decided not to purchase that had been left behind. It was a book for middle schoolers on how to ace a world history exam. As I saw it, I thought that is part of the problem with the education system today. We teach students how to pass tests. They are taught knowledge for the sake of knowledge. They are not taught how to apply it.

When we don’t see the relevance of something to our lives, we quickly forget it. I can remember how to get through levels on video games I played decades ago, but I don’t remember a bit how to do quadratic equations, with respect to my algebra teacher. Why is that? Because I have never once had to use the process to do quadratic equations, but I sure have played my share of video games.

Fortunately, this doesn’t go on in the church. In the church, we only learn what is relevant to our lives. We don’t just give information so we will know stuff. We show the relevance of….oh please stop laughing already.

Yes. This is exactly what we do in the church. Let’s take something simple. We teach our children the ten commandments. Okay. That’s good. Why do we follow them? Don’t murder? That seems like an obvious one, but why not? Why is murder condemned? How many of us as young children also cited “Do not commit adultery”, but we had no clue what adultery was?

We teach our children how to do Bible drills. Congratulations! You can look up Philippians 4:13 faster than anyone else in the church! What good will that do you if you don’t have a clue what the passage really means? If we teach them anything about verses, well, it’s all about them. Philippians 4:13 is not about the glory of Christ, but it is about winning football games.

Don’t forget the trips that we send them on! They go on these trips that are youth conferences and come back and get super excited and want to tell the world about Jesus and life is awesome!

For about a week or two if that long.

After that, it’s right back to the same old thing.

If all we are teaching our youth is the content of the Bible, we are failing them. This is nothing against said content. This is just saying that we need to know the relevance of the content. We don’t need just pieces of Christianity. We need a whole tapestry of Christianity woven together so the students do see the importance and relevance of it in their daily lives.

Otherwise, the guy is with the girl and they’re alone together and she starts coming on really strong to him. So here he has a hot girl that he will really want to be intimate with and on the other hand, he has a verse in his head saying “Do not commit adultery” with no reason why other than don’t. Which one is he going to listen to? Now imagine instead if he has a whole biblical worldview on sex and marriage and understands based on that the importance of waiting for marriage and how giving in to temptation dishonors the God He serves who is to be His king?

Folks. It’s not enough anymore to just teach our youth facts about the Bible. They will forget them just as quickly as we forget things in school we don’t deem relevant to our lives. They need to be taught a whole worldview, a whole curriculum. They need to be taught about how every facet of their lives intersects with Christianity. It can’t just be about them. We also don’t just teach them isolated verses. We teach them the context of those verses and how they apply.

In the end, they’ll have a greatly informed biblical worldview that does apply to them to help them in their lives.

And they’ll probably still rock at Bible drills anyway.

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

Book Plunge Part 3: How Then Should We Choose?

What do I think of Gordon T. Smith’s work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Until now, I had not heard of the relationship view of decision making. Unfortunately, it looked like the specific view stance to me, but with mysticism thrown in. Some of the practices could be good, like the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, but that doesn’t mean the position that it’s being used to promote on decision making is good.

Smith says he will take us through church history and show that the idea of seeking God’s will for your life has been there consistently. In doing this, he takes us to Origen, Bernard of Clairvaux, Ignatius of Loyola, and John Wesley. Note that this is not counting modern times.

I don’t give Bart Ehrman a pass when he does something similar and I won’t give Smith one because he’s a Christian. Not only is four an odd way to show a consistent path, but also many of these writers could just be talking about wise decision making. That’s an issue no matter where or when you live.

Smith encourages increasing an intimacy with Christ and properly understood, I have no problem with that. I do question the language though much like I question it when teenage girls say “Jesus is my boyfriend” or I hear Christian music today that could be sung to either your boyfriend or to Jesus and you can’t tell. It used to be a group I’m a part of, the Mentionables, that when we got together for a podcast would play a game called “Love song or worship song.” Lyrics were read and we had to guess which it was. I don’t think I missed one, but some of them were pretty hard.

Some ideas in this chapter are good, such as not making a major decision when you’re in a time of intense emotion. Of course, sometimes you have to, but if you can wait to make a major decision, say after a good night’s sleep or after you have had a good meal or anything like that, that is generally best. Few of us make good decisions when we are under duress. The idea is to try to train yourself in your mind so that you will rarely be under duress, but even then sometimes there are overwhelming emotions.

Ultimately, I contend that this view again just boils down to subjectivity. This view looks at peace and other criteria as signs that an emotion or impression of some kind is coming from God. The wisdom view doesn’t have this. While some could say that the interpretation of Scripture is subjective, and that is true, Christians by and large agree that we know Scripture comes from God and thus, we can all agree on the data that we have. When we look at other positions, we don’t know if God is the direct cause of a circumstance, a dream, an impression, etc. I realize there can be exceptions to this such as Muslims having dreams that draw them to Jesus, but in many cases, if we are not sure, that could be a good indication that they are not. We are spending a lot of time interpreting something when we don’t even know the source of it.

In the end, I still stick with the wisdom view, but will you? That is for you to decide. This is a highly accessible book for any to read and if you want to get the best case for all positions, this looks to be it.

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

Book Plunge Part 2: Decision Making and the Will of God

What do I think of Garry Friesen’s contribution to this book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As I said at the start, Friesen is the one I know of who’s opinion on this topic I am most inclined to go with. Friesen did what his dissertation work was on, decision making and the will of God. He used to hold to the more traditional specific-view will and found it just didn’t work. He then went back to the Bible and found that the traditional view just really wasn’t there. While some Christians were pleased with this work, including myself, many were scornful of Friesen and at least one Christian speaker declared him a heretic.

Friesen’s view is the wisdom view. In his view, all moral commands of God that apply to us today are to be obeyed without question. However, there are times that we don’t have a moral command and there are two or more options that can be chosen from and none of them violate a moral command of God. Which one do you go with? Friesen has the incredible idea of actually looking at the options and weighing the pros and cons and making a wise decision.

What strikes me is that this view is at all controversial. In any other position in life, we go with the wisdom model. However, when it comes to being a Christian, somehow it’s a more holy model to think that you’re supposed to hear the voice of God just like everyone in the Bible supposedly did, although we only talk about the exceptional people.

Friesen in looking at the text notices, especially in Acts, that this happens many times. There’s even a passage where there is an open door, and yet Paul chooses to not go through it. The first missionary journey was indeed called out by God, but when it comes to the second, Paul and Barnabas just decide to revisit the towns and before that they get into an argument and end up choosing separate partners.

Having said that, there are some mild criticisms I have of the chapter.

First off, Friesen says the prophets had no doubt that God had spoken to them. I would like to have seen this fleshed out a bit. Gideon seems to be doubtful of God in Judges and Abraham is called by God and yet lies about his identity. John the Baptist saw miracles around Jesus and while in prison asks if He was the one to come still.

Second, while Friesen does go to Acts, I wonder what he would say about Acts 1 where lots were used to determine the replacement of Judas. Also, I would think it would be great to go to Acts 15, the first church council where you would think a word from God would be determinative, but none is given, except one possibility. The text does it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. I would have liked some interpretation from him on this passage.

Third, while Friesen points to prayer, I would like to know how he thinks prayer is supposed to work for us here. How does God interact? Does He clear the head of the believer to make a wise decision? Can God indeed recall to mind a Scripture or something similar? Overall, how does God interact with our lives?

Finally, as a respondent says, what about the Holy Spirit? Friesen says little about Him in this chapter if anything. What roles does the Spirit play in our lives?

It has been several years since I read his main book on this topic so it could be there, but I would like something to go on in this chapter still. I agree with Friesen on the Wisdom view. I just want to see it fleshed out some more.

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

God is in Control

Does God being in control help out? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I saw a friend on Facebook share the image below:

My friend was not happy with it. Now I’ll grant he could know the person behind the tweet better than I do. Maybe they do have a theology that denies that God is in control. Of course, we could also debate what it means for God to be in control. A Calvinist and an Arminian could both say that, but they would have different ideas on what control is.

Now my own approach to this at first was that I understood it. If someone is in the midst of a crisis, it is true that God is in control, but saying that God is in control might not be helpful. It’s true, but we are to speak the truth in love. If someone has a major crisis going on, God is in control, but that doesn’t always help the emotional pain they’re going in.

Of course, I think it is far better to have God in control than to have the alternative. However, it doesn’t always deal with the pain that someone is going through. It’s theology that is true and can be helpful in its own way, but it has to be delivered at the right time.

I have told men before that if you are ever the pastor of a church and a mother comes to you and has lost her teenage son in a car accident and is wondering why God let this happen, you had better not be a philosopher or an apologist at that moment. She may be asking that, but that is not what her heart is really wanting. She’s really wanting love and comfort at that time. There will be a time later to answer that question, but that time is not then.

Sometimes, it could even make it worse to hear that. The person could already have some anger at God, and I really believe all Christians have at times, and then to hear He is in control could lead them to see Him as responsible for whatever suffering they have. Some could think God directly caused it and will get angry or more depressed thinking they are being punished for something and they don’t know what.

Now is there a time to say this? Yes, but as in any case involving giving counsel and support, it needs to be earned. The friend who shared this has gone through suffering also and when we talked about divorce, he could relate to me and give comfort and if he ended a conversation with me on a good note and said “Remember, God is in control” at the end, I would have been responsive in a good way.

Right now, I can tell you I feel the pain of my divorce every day still. At this point, I know still that He is in control and that helps, but when I was at the start of it all, that’s not something that would have helped me to hear. What really was helpful was to have a friend instead. I don’t say this to down good theology. Good theology has been a blessing to me for decades now. However, in the midst of chaos, good theology has a harder time hitting home. That’s when you need a friend to be, as Gary Habermas tells me, “Your surrogate frontal lobe.”

Now as I said, some who know the person who tweeted the message better than I do might know things about them that would change my mind on their saying it, but I am speaking of the overall message. Speak the truth in love. Listen to the person first and where they are before giving them your theology.

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

Book Plunge Part 1: How Then Should We Choose?

What do I think of Douglas Huffman’s book published by Kregel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is a counterpoints book with three different authors (Or in the first case a group of authors) discussing their views on decision making and the will of God. You have the traditional view, the wisdom view, and the relationship view. I haven’t heard of the last one until now so I will see what I think of it when I get there, but going on, I hold to the wisdom view.

The first view presented is the traditional view also known as the specific-will view. In this case, which many of us grew up with, God has a specific will for your life and you need to find it to get God’s best. This includes where you go to school, who you marry, and many other decisions. This chapter is written by Henry and Richard Blackaby.

There is a lot of wisdom here, but the oddity is that it comes mainly when they actually talk about using wisdom instead of their view. The case for their view I did find extremely weak. I suspect the reason many evangelicals hold to it is tradition and also, it makes the emphasis be on us. Our natural proclivity is to self-centeredness.

The Blackabys write on how God spoke in the past to people like Moses, and indeed He did, but most of us don’t have bushes catching on fire in front of us without burning up and even in the text itself, it regularly says that God spoke to Moses like He did to no one else. If the Blackaby view was true, why was Moses even needed at all? Couldn’t all the Israelites in the wilderness experience the leading of God and known what to do?

That is a key weakness of the position. It looks at the exceptional times and presents them as the normative times. We know about what was said to Moses. We don’t know beyond what the text tells us what Joe Israelite thought, aside from the time where they begged Moses to NOT have God speak to them and this was after God spoke to them from the mountain.

I also notice that when examples are given, it is examples of someone who made the decision, but I don’t see what happens after they make it. Maybe what they thought God was leading them to do turned into a disaster later. I remember Greg Koukl talking once about how he was not looking forward to Christmas one year and he was driving praying for a good Christmas and the next thing he noticed, the truck in front of him on the back said “Xmas4U” on it. Yes! Confirmation! God heard his prayer! The traditional view worked! Koukl thought so.

So he went and had a great Christmas.

No. Wait. He says he ended up having a miserable Christmas that year.

The comparisons of how God speaks are also not the same. In the times of the prophets, they were certain God had spoken to them. Now if you have the experience of Isaiah where God calls you up into His heavenly temple, yes, you can be sure God is speaking to you. What do we have instead? Inner impressions and a still small voice supposedly. Those are way too vague.

How many times have you gone to bed very anxious about something and when you woke up the next day, the anxiety was gone? Happens to me several times. Should I be heeding that nudging every time of anxiety? Should I see that strong impression as God telling me something?

The traditional view has many people fearful of making the wrong choice so many times that they tend to get stifled in their pursuits. While the Blackabys do encourage going to Scripture, too many times we focus on our own experience instead of Scripture. I remember my ex went through a lot of times where she was paying attention to dreams wondering what God was telling her. I told her, “If only you spent as much time trying to understand Scripture, which you know comes from God, as you do dreams, which you don’t know come from God.”

Next time we look at this book, we will discuss the wisdom view. I’m on that chapter now and I do agree with much of it, but there are some criticisms. Stay tuned.

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

Book Plunge: The Angels and Their Mission

What do I think of Father Jean Danielou’s book published by Thomas More Publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is subtitled with “According to the Fathers of the Church.” Thus, while Scripture is used from time to time, Danielou is largely sharing what the fathers have to say. Also, these are normally the early church fathers, though sometimes the post-nicene ones are cited. Rarely is Aquinas mentioned, which is surprising seeing as he’s the angelic doctor, but I suppose he was considered too late to be a father.

I understand authors don’t always get to choose the titles of their books, but I was left thinking that “The Mission of the Angels” might have been a better title since not much is said about Angelology in this. Instead, much of this relates to what angels do in the service of God. That’s fine, but those wanting angelology will need to check other resources.

That being said, this is in many ways very thorough starting with what angels did before the birth of Christ and then with what angels did during the Earthly incarnation and then what they do following. How do they act in the lives of believers and unbelievers? Do we have a guardian angel? What do they do when people die?

In this, one surprising area was left out and that was the incarnation itself. What did they do during the ministry of Jesus? I couldn’t help but think of how N.T. Wright has talked about the making of the creed and having it say “Born of the Virgin Mary” (Which I do affirm), crucified under Pontius Pilate.” He says he can picture Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sitting in the background saying, “We spent a lot of time on that stuff in the middle and we think that it’s rather important.”

The book is also definitely written from a Catholic perspective, but that doesn’t mean you have to be Catholic to get a lot out of it. A Protestant like myself could disagree with some aspects such as the idea of angels and the sacraments with the role that baptism and the eucharist play in the RCC, but we should not be dismissive of angels. If anything, angelology is a subject that Christians need to spend a lot more time thinking on, especially since we have so much misinformation, such as the idea that people become angels when they die.

One other section it might have been good to have had something on is demons. Yes. I know when we talk about angels, we normally think about the good ones who are meant to serve the Lord, but we also need to have a doctrine of demons. Again, we have a lot of misinformation here as we tend to either see them everywhere or else we deny their existing altogether. They are happy with both positions.

However, if you want to see a Catholic understanding of the work that angels do, this is a good resource. It is a doctrine that Protestants need to work on a lot more as well. Paul says we will judge angels one day. It might serve us to know a little bit more about them before we get to that job.

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