Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: The Question of Canon

What do I think about Michael Kruger’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In our day and age, there is much debate about the topic of biblical canon. For those who don’t know, that means how is it that we got the list of books that we have today in our NT? One of the latest volumes discussing this question is Michael Kruger’s “The Question of Canon.”

Now this is pretty much a book about formation to be sure. You won’t find in here a list of the history of the debates as to what books should or should not be in the canon nor will you find information on when this canon was finally ratified. (Though let me give a quick hint. It was not at the Council of Nicea.)

Kruger’s work in this book is largely critiquing the extrinsic model of the canon. This is the idea that there was no idea in the early church at the time of the writing of the NT canon to form a list of books that would be authoritative and it was largely the work of Marcion that led the church to think “Yeah. We need to establish a rule of faith.”

Kruger does admit that the extrinsic model is the most popular one and admits that several aspects of it are in fact true. It is certainly not the case that, for instance, when the Gospel of John was written, it started glowing and the church knew “Ah! That’s one of the books in the canon!” Of course there was dispute over a few books, but the extrinsic view of canon and Kruger’s own intrinsic view must explain the same data and see which explanation has the greatest explanatory scope.

It’s refreshing to hear on page 22 that Kruger writes that his model is historical in nature. In fact, one need not believe in inspiration in order to hold to Kruger’s position. I suspect an atheist could read this and disagree that there is any truth to Christianity and still say “Yes, I can see how they arrived at the canon anyway and that does seem fair and accurate.”

Kruger’s book is certainly rich in scholarship starting with the definition of canon. From there we move on to the origins and the realization that in a Gospel such as Matthew, Matthew would have seen himself as presenting a continuation of Israel’s story. There will be more on this later, but a quote said in the book is that New Israel would need New Scriptures. We could say a new covenant would need a new testimony to it.

The next question is if the early Christians were adverse to writing. Now I think Kruger might be too skeptical of oral tradition, but I also think those of us who highly value oral tradition should not be too skeptical of written tradition. Christianity, like Judaism before it, was a religion of the book. This is in great contrast to a religion like Mithraism which has left us to this date, zero texts to it.

In fact, we have a great clue in this due to how many manuscripts we have of the NT in relation to other works of antiquity. Churches also had readers who had the assigned job of reading the text and a liturgical reading would often be composed just for a church. Epistles were highly prized and passed around and as is shown in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the passages would be quoted by the fathers and the assumption would be that these were well known. When a father recommended reading the epistles of Paul, it would be assumed the church had those epistles.

He also explains the Papias quote about a living voice. Papias is not saying he doesn’t care about written testimony, but he is saying he would prefer to talk to an eyewitness or someone who knew an eyewitness. Most of us would prefer the same today! Would you rather read a book about something like the Kennedy assassination or would you prefer to hear about it from someone who was there?

So what about the writers themselves? Did they know they were writing Scripture? Kruger abundantly thinks they did. In fact, he even quotes Armin Baum in saying the historical books are anonymous to match the kind of writing of the historical books of the Old Testament, a fascinating idea to consider!

Kruger throughout this chapter will quote from several books of the NT to show that the writers did see themselves as passing on the commands of the Lord and continuing the story of Israel. If they considered themselves doing that, it is quite likely they knew they were passing on new Scriptures.

Finally, we get to the dating of canonization. When did this happen? Here Kruger goes through the early church fathers and shows that they were quoting books that were seen as authoritative in their time and there is no hint that they were producing something innovative. It is as if they were speaking in terms their audience would already recognize.

Kruger’s book is an excellent question on the topic, though it must be read for what it is. You will not find information about what books should be in the canon as much as you will find how books were recognized to be in the canon and early Christian attitudes to canonicity.

I also want to thank IVP for providing me a copy of this book for review purposes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note — fans of this blog and the Deeper Waters Podcast will be pleased to know that IVP is working on getting in touch with Dr. Kruger to talk about coming on the Deeper Waters Podcast to discuss this book.

Book Plunge: Letters To A Young Progressive

What do I think of Mike S. Adams’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve often said it’s good to read people you disagree with. It’s also good to read from people you hate, and like many of you, I hate Mike S. Adams. Who doesn’t? It’s the national pastime after all. It’s also why I was thrilled to receive his book as a Christmas gift.

This had been a book I’d been wanting for a long time. I check Adams’s facebook page everyday to see what he puts up and I get a kick out of a lot of it. He’s a blunt and in your face type who’s not afraid to offend those who disagree with him. Good for him. The cause of Christ needs more like that.

The format of the book is Adams writing letters to a student in his class who he has noticed, particularly after a remark made in the class by the student. The student, Zach, is actually a conglomerate of several kinds of students that Adams has seen in his classes.

Adams also writes from experience, having once been on the side of an atheist liberal progressive who came to Christ and began to renounce his past positions. He is writing then hoping that Zach, and all students represented by Zach, will learn from his experience.

Throughout the book, you will find writing on many issues, though the most prevalent one is likely abortion, and who can blame Adams for this one? Adams is disgusted by the thought of women killing their own children in the womb and frankly, we should all be disgusted by that.

You’ll also find other topics dealt with such as handling of crime, gun control, capitalism, claims of homophobia, antagonism towards Fox News, and a modern work ethic. While Adams is often blunt with his opponents, one does not see any hostility in the letters to Zach. One instead sees a sort of kind father figure wanting to come and guide a young man on the path that he should go.

The letters are also very short which means one can easily go through them and have something to think about. Of course, this means one cannot expect to find the most total answer in every one, but one can find satisfactory starting points and the willing student is one who can search further on his own and Adams rightly recommends using books and journal articles more than internet sources and cable news programs.

There are some areas I would like to have seen more on.

First, I wouldn’t mind seeing more pushback. I did not note much resistance on the part of Zach. The reader only sees one side of the dialogue. It would have been interesting to have seen something like Greg and Ed Boyd’s “Letters From a Skeptic.”

The other aspect is that I understand letters don’t come with footnotes or endnotes, but I would have liked to have had us have some of that anyway for the sake of we on the outside. Adams makes some great points and while he does mention books, it would be nice to see more referencing of where the claims come from in case one is ever asked.

Still, this is a great book. It’s going to give the reader enough to think about and it can be read quickly. I started one day and finished the next. I got halfway through it on the first day just enjoying everything I was reading.

If this is the kind of field you’re interested in, I do recommend it.

Oh, by the way, I just want to remind everyone that I hate Mike S. Adams.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God: Part 8

Is there a place for the paranormal? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’re returning now to Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier. I’m skipping over a couple of chapters because there’s not much I really want to cover in them other than some minor details. I’d just say on the chapter of reason that I trust in reason because of a good Thomistic common sense realism.

I use paranormal in the opening line because that is the term Carrier uses, but it is not a term I prefer to use. I do not even prefer to use supernatural. I go by the terms suprahuman and supranatural instead. To say supernatural often implies that nature is just fine on its own and needs no deity sustaining it. This is a point that I disagree with so why should I use a term that automatically grants credence to a position I find highly questionable?

As we go through the chapter, on page 213, Carrier says that there is an approach that bypasses science altogether by pointing to a superior metaphysics and going under the name of first philosophy. Carrier is never clear on what this is. Does he mean all of metaphysics in general? This is the only conclusion I can reach. If so, there is a great problem here as metaphysics is never defined.

As one who has studied metaphysics, I often find this to be the case. People dispute metaphysics, but they don’t really know what it is. Metaphysics is simply the study of being as being. This does not go against science as the sciences often study being in a certain condition. Physics studies material being in motion. Angelology would study angelic being. Biology would study material living being. Astronomy studies being in space. Zoology studies animal beings. We could go on and on.

Interestingly, Carrier places metaphysics dead last, but on what authority? Why should I accept that? Am I to think studying the nature of being itself is dead last in understand the nature of truth, that is, in understanding that which is? It looks like knowing what “is” would come first.

The first method of finding truth that Carrier speaks about is, SHOCK, the scientific method. Now as readers know, I am not opposed to science, but I am opposed to a scientism approach that places the natural sciences as the best means of determining truth. Now if everything is purely matter and there are no essences to things, then this would follow, but that is the very aspect under question.

On page 215, Carrier says

“But htis is another strength of science: science is not only about testing facts for truth, but testing methods for accuracy. And thus science is the only endeavor we have that is constantly devoted to finding the best means of ascertaining the truth. This is one of the reasons why science is so successful, and its results so authoritative. Yet metaphysics has no room for means of testing different methods for accuracy, and if it ever started producing surprising predictive successes, it would become science.”

The problem I see here is yes, metaphysics is not done the same way the natural sciences are. So what? The whole idea starts off presuming the natural sciences are the best way to know something. Yet the natural sciences are more inductive than deductive while metaphysical arguments are designed to be more deductive. The conclusions are to be known with certainty. Metaphysical arguments also do for most of us start with sense experience and what we see.

Yes, science is successful, but as has been pointed out earlier with using the analogy of Feser, a metal detector is the best tool for finding metal objects at the beach, but that does not mean that the only objects to be found are metal objects. Science is the best tool for finding truths about nature, but that does not mean those are the only truths to be found.

On the next page he says

“And science does not simply undergo any arbitrary change, as religious ideology or clothing fashions do, nor does it hold out long against contrary evidence, asserting that the facts must surely be wrong if they do not fit the going dogma.”

Now this is interesting since any changes that were made would not be arbitrary. I am not Catholic, but it isn’t as if the Pope woke up one morning and said “What a beautiful day. I think I’ll declare the perpetual virginity of Mary.” There were historical debates and discussions. I do not think the perpetual virginity claim is true, but it did not just happen arbitrarily. The same with fashion tastes. People change tastes in fashion for a reason.

Yet the great danger in Carrier’s statement for him is that the sword cuts both ways. For me, for instance, if macroevolution is true, cool. I’m fine with that. What happens to the atheist position if macroevolution is not true? I do not doubt there will still be atheists, but an extremely important beliefs of theirs being gone would cause some doubt I suspect.

Another example is the case of miracles. Let’s take a work like Keener’s book “Miracles.” Let’s suppose it has 500 miracles in it. I haven’t counted. Let’s suppose only 50 of those are shown to be real honest miracles. Okay. I’m disappointed some, but hey, I have 50 miracles right here. My worldview is still fine. I have evidence of miracles which backs Jesus rising from the dead.

What about the atheistic worldview? Can the atheist say the same if he has to admit that there is no known natural explanation for what happened and that the event did indeed happen? He can say “Well we’ll find a natural reason.” He’s entirely allowed to do such, but if he is assuming there has to be one, is he not then using a naturalism-of-the-gaps? Could it not be that just as much, the fact of a miracle must be wrong if it does not fit the dogma?

And no, I am not going to deny that too many Christians think this way as well. There are too many Christians who stick their heads in the sand and don’t even bother to interact with different evidence. This is what I call the escapist mentality.

Before moving on, it’s worth noting that Carrier says on page 217 that metaphysics sets the lowest bar for credibility, but yet has not defined metaphysics once.

Carrier says that if faith is placed before truth, it will lead to conflict. With this, I agree. Everyone should. Truth must be paramount. Yet Carrier goes on to say that if faith is what someone has because something is true, then science becomes the one true faith.

Why should I think this?

I believe several claims that are not established by science and act on them. I believe in the laws of logic. I believe in rules of mathematics. I believe that there is a world outside my mind. I believe propositions about morality and beauty. Can there be knowledge outside of the natural sciences? Yes there can be. If so, why think the scientific method is the best method?

Before moving on, once again on page 219, metaphysics is denigrated and once again, it is not defined. The same happens on page 221.

Carrier then goes on to talk about how science was in the medieval period. Yet this is not an accurate history at all. I would like to know his sources, but unfortunately, he never gives them. I will instead give some counter sources. First off is my interview with James Hannam on this topic that can be found here. Atheists can also consider the work of Tim O’Neill, an atheist himself who disputes this dark ages claim. An example can be found in his look at Hannam’s book here. In fact, he has a graph there that is common on the internet that is supposed to show the lack of scientific endeavors in the period and refers to it as “The Stupidest Thing on the Internet Ever.”

And once again, worth noting, is that on page 222, again metaphysics is secondary to science, but again, no definition.

On page 223, Carrier asks why it is God supposedly packed up his bags and stopped doing miracles when he had supposedly been doing them in abundance.

Well first, there has never been a period of abundant miracles.

“Wait! Don’t you believe in the Bible?”

Yes. Yes I do. And the miracles are actually sparse in it as well. There are three times where miracles become more abundant but they never reach the kind of idea Carrier has. Those are the time of the Exodus wandering, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Yet miracles have not ceased. Indeed, Keener indicated earlier has made a strong case they are still ongoing. You can find my review of his book here and listen to the interview that I did with him here.

Carrier expects a world where guns turn into flowers and churches are protected by mysterious energy fields. Why should we expect any of this? Because God exists and can work miracles, He should work miracles in the way we think He should? Why?

Much has been said today, but there is more coming on history. I prefer to save that for a fuller approach and will do that next time I blog on Carrier’s book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Swedish Atheist, The Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails

What do I think of Randal Rauser’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I honestly don’t read many books that are apologetics books often. Yet Christmas Eve came and I’d finished reading something on the Kindle and was looking for something else and I had this one and figured I’d give it a try. The name is certainly a curious one after all so I wanted to see what this was all about.

The book begins with Rauser’s definition of apologetics where he says it is a quest to get at the truth, whatever it might be. This is I think an important aspect to consider. Too often, we don’t really know how to honestly investigate the other side. We all come with prior commitments. I have them. You have them. The atheist has them. The Muslim has them. Everyone does. This is why it’s important to engage in real discussion with the other side and read real authors on the other side, including the best in scholarship.

The setting he gives for this is at a coffee shop and Randal is the apologist arguing for Christianity while you, known simply as “reader” sit nearby watching. The conversation begins when a guy named Sheridan comes in with a thumbs-up Jesus T-shirt with the line that a sucker is born every minute. He sees Rauser’s copy of The God Delusion placed on the table and immediately comes over to engage in a conversation about the book.

And off it goes from there.

The conversation is a give and take with each side making its own points and some answers on Rauser’s side are not the best. Rauser himself admits this as he tries to make the work as real as possible and we all know there are times we are in conversation and only much later do we think of the perfect thing we should have said. (I have even had times of having one idea jump into my head months later that I wish I could have used.)

You’ll find questions on science, God’s existence, and morality to be plentiful. Some areas are not dealt with as much and some I think are not dealt with as well. I don’t think Rauser’s argument is too convincing on the wars of the OT for instance. He doesn’t think the accounts are really true accounts, but that they were included by God for some purpose. That’s an answer that raises even more questions. I also don’t agree with Rauser on the nature of Hell (especially since I see it as more shame and my own view can be found here.

If there was another problem I had with this, it was also that too little was said about Jesus’s resurrection and the Gospels. The central claim of the Christian faith was never defended. Oh at the start, we do have a brief comment on Christ-myth nonsense with a hat tip to Paul Maier, but that’s it. I found this to be a disturbing lack and I hope that in later works, Rauser will deal with this question.

Despite these disagreements, overall, there will be much to think about and the setting does make the conversation much more lively. The chapters are also small enough that you can easily go through one and have enough to think about. While I do have problems with the book and the approach, I still do recommend it for those wanting to get a start on apologetics.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Money, Greed, and God

What do I think of this book by Jay Wesley Richards? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Economics I find to be an interesting field. I had my first entry into the field with Ron Nash’s lectures on Christian ethics. I then proceeded to read Henry Hazlitt’s book which I still consider essential reading for anyone interested in the topic. I read some of Nash’s other books on the topic as well and would listen to podcasts especially coming from the Austrian school of economics. Apologetics has been my forte, but I wanted to educate myself at least a little bit on economics.

After all, such thinking I understand improves your thinking overall. If you learn to think wise economically, you’re likely to be a wise thinker in many other fields. It requires learning to look at the big picture and think beyond the immediate effects and think instead of the long-term effects. You don’t look at just what the intentions of an action are, for those are quite normally good, but what the actual outcome will be.

When I was given a copy of this book on Kindle by a friend then, I was eager to jump into it. I found it to be an absolute delight. I generally read my Kindle at night and the book got me looking forward to the night time so I could read more of Richards’s book.

Richards starts off with a confession that once he bought into the economic worldview of socialism. He had all the reasons he needed for despising capitalism based on his education. He could also see it based on his Christianity. Doesn’t capitalism encourage greed? Does it not keep the poor poor and the rich rich?

Besides, aren’t Christians people of equality? How can one support a system that produces such inequality and keeps the gap there? Especially if this is a system that is exploiting the poor and in fact, those in third world countries.

Richards was convinced, but then problems started developing in his worldview and he looked closer at the system he had been believing and took a closer look at the capitalistic view that he had rejected and found that lo and behold, the capitalists were the ones that had the best method.

Richards does admit that the world is not perfect economically, but that’s for a good reason. People are not perfect. The problem is not capitalism. The problem is sin. Capitalism is the idea that for Richards best contains the sin problem and the greed problem and enables a society to move forward and help the poor.

It does not work to just give the poor money. Of course, every now and then, someone does need financial support, but we will not get the third world out of the third world by dumping money on them. We will not cure poverty in this country by dumping money on the poor. The way to help the poor is by enabling them to produce their own wealth.

This is simple enough to see. If you give me $1,000,000 and let me do with it what I want, I could go out and buy that much worth of books. I could be said to help the economy a little by putting more money in circulation, but to get somewhere where I am earning back for that, well I’ll still be poor. I could sell the books, but what will I do with the money?

Now let’s suppose instead that I use that money and start my own business and then through that business I start producing wealth. While it won’t be immediately, I will reach the point eventually if I work hard enough that I could surpass the $1,000,000 that you gave me. Not only that, I will likely be hiring people to work with my business so I will be helping them to earn wealth as well. Furthermore, I will be supplying a good or service for people in need so once again, I will be helping others out.

In fact, this is what we call a win-win game. If I sell you something, I get the money that I want from you. On the other hand, you get the product or service that you want from me. Each one of us gets what we want the most. I want the money more than the good or service. You want the good or service more than you want the money.

In all of this, Richards also deals with some myths that are out there and practices believed to help the poor. These include ideas such as why we should buy fair-trade products are why we should be wanting to grant people a living wage. Richards points out that these problems only damage the market and thus buyers and sellers in the long run.

He also deals with biblical objections. Wasn’t the community in Acts 2 communistic? Didn’t Jesus make many statements about freely giving that go against Capitalism? Doesn’t Capitalism in fact encourage greed and isn’t greed necessary for Capitalism? Hasn’t the church always condemned usury?

No. I won’t give you the answers that he gives. I encourage you to read them for yourself, and it should be a good read for you. This book is an easy read and does not use difficult language and terminology that is hard to understand. The examples are every day examples and Richards explains things the best way that he can.

It is with zero hesitation then that I recommend this book. This is the kind of book Christians should read before they say anything about economic theory. The reader of this book will be getting an excellent start in dealing with many of the myths in economics out there.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Killing Jesus

What do I think of the latest in the series from Bill O’Reilly? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I used to like Bill O’Reilly. Really. I did. I’m extremely conservative after all and I like having a voice that seems conservative, but my respect for O’Reilly has dwindled to non-existent, especially with regards to how he handles the topic of religion.

Now I understand that not everyone can be a religious expert. This includes not just people on Fox, but CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. Pick any news station you want. You might be able to speak authoritatively on politics and other matters, but that does not necessarily mean you can do the same with religion. You can be an expert on politics and religion, but being an expert in one does not entail being an expert in the other.

I read Killing Jesus at the request of my parents wanting to know what their son who does study the topic of Christianity in-depth would think about it. I was admittedly approaching with great hesitancy.

One other factor of this was Killing Lincoln. My mother had started to go through the book from the library and asked me if I wanted to. She just couldn’t finish it. It wasn’t interesting to her. I agreed because I read nearly anything I can get my hands on. I hate not finishing a book so I finished the whole thing and had to agree sadly. It was simply a boring read.

And I thought the same about Killing Jesus.

I have thought often about why this is. I have a number of theories.

The first is that he’s trying too hard. I suspect he’s trying to make the story exciting instead of just telling the story. Of course, there is historical fiction that might paint in some details, but O’Reilly just really seems to detract from the story.

Second, it’s like combining a textbook with a novel. It doesn’t work. The story is interrupted constantly by O’Reilly wanting to explain historical data. Unfortunately, many in our society don’t know the basic history and need it explained so one goes back and forth between history and story instead of letting the history be the story.

Third, if these are true, then it really doesn’t bring much success as history and story both since there can be too much speculation on what was said and done that is not really historical, such as what people were thinking and saying at the time. Much of this is unfortunately ideas in an individualistic society pushed over onto an agonistic society. It is a way of thinking foreign to the people of the Bible.

There are also concerns that lead me to question O’Reilly’s historical research, although I do give some bonus for referencing my father-in-law Mike Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

At the start, we are told on page 1 that we have the four gospels, but they are written from a spiritual perspective rather than a historical chronicling. Now it could be this is the case, but why assume it? The Gospels in fact are Greco-Roman Biographies, with the possible exception of Luke which is a historiography perhaps with tendencies towards such a biography.

On p. 14, we are told prophecies that are fulfilled in Christ. I doubt that O’Reilly can find such a list in Jewish understanding. We interpret Isaiah 7:14, the virgin birth passage, as a prophecy, but is there evidence that Jews at the time were saying “The Messiah will be born of a virgin!” Such an understanding I think will lead to problems in dialogues with Jews.

p. 74 contains a claim that the spot of the temple was also where Adam was created. I am quite dubious of such a claim and would like to see some documentation for it.

On p. 90 among other places, O’Reilly makes the claim that Mary Magdalene was the prostitute who came to Jesus in Luke 7. This is not held today by biblical scholarship and is a false reading by one of the Popes in church history. There is no biblical basis for the equation between the two.

p. 98 says that John the Baptist was speaking about the end of the world. The end of the world is an idea that is really foreign to the Biblical text. It talks about the end of the age. For the Jews, God was acting in this world and living in it and would bring it about to its original purpose. He would restore the creation and not destroy it.

I wonder about the dating of the gospels. O’Reilly says they were written as many as 70 years after Jesus’s death. Mark is the early 50’s, Luke between 59 and 63, Matthew in the 70’s, and John between 50 and 85. At the latest, this would mark 55 years after the death of Jesus.

On p. 131, O’Reilly says of the preaching of Jesus in the synagogue in Luke 4 that the message was Elijah and Elisha were rejected by Israel. O’Reilly leaves out the most important part. Jesus specifically said that blessings went to Gentiles instead of to Jews. The message of rejection was well-known already and while disappointing, would not lead to the desire to stone. To say the blessing went to Gentiles instead would.

On p. 255 O’Reilly gives us the myth that Hitler sought the holy lance that was supposed to have been used on Jesus. This is a historical myth however. It is largely popularized by Trevor Ravenscroft.

Also, there is a strong emphasis on Jesus’s claims to be God. This was not the message Jesus went around preaching. I do fully uphold the deity of Christ of course, and we should defend that, but the main message of Jesus was the Kingdom of God and God acting through Him as that King. O’Reilly gives the impression the gospels were written to show the deity of Christ. They were written to show the life and message. Deity is a part of that, but not the message entire.

My conclusion is that the history in here is at best mediocre at times and readers would better be served by picking up scholarly books, such as Craig Keener’s on the Historical Jesus, and going through those. Another read they could consider is Gary Habermas’s “The Historical Jesus” and works by N.T. Wright like “Simply Jesus” and “How God Became King.”

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 3

What’s my opinion on Carrier’s take on method? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Our continuing review of SGWG involves looking at the chapter on methodology next. To be fair, I do indeed think it’s important to show one’s methodology. Usually in a debate on the NT, I will ask someone what their methodology is for determining authorship or the historicity of a text. Usually, they have none.

Carrier says at the start that the end result of any method can never be absolute certainty, but why should anyone think this? It could depend on the claim. Some fields use a more inductive reasoning. Others use a more deductive reasoning.

For instance, consider the following syllogism.

All cats are felines.
Shiro is a cat.
Shiro is a feline.

If the premises are true, the conclusion follows with absolute certainty. I have absolute certainty that tautologies are true and contradictions are false. With other fields, like science and history, one has a more inductive approach. These fields rely more on probability. (It is strange to see the emphasis on science which is inductive and the disregard then of other fields that use more deductive approach, as certain philosophical arguments do.)

Carrier even says a god cannot have absolute certainty. He could be the victim of a greater Cartesian demon. As a Thomist, this argument doesn’t apply to me because whatever is at the end of the chain is ultimate and in fact, it is necessarily good. I will not full flesh out that argument here, though I have written more about it in my review of the Summa Theologica portion on God and on the five ways.

Carrier in seeking a good method starts out with predictive success, but is this not begging the question? Axioms of logic don’t involve predictions. They start with a certainty that a contradiction cannot be true. Logic in fact is not a method of finding truth but rather of finding error. Some methods work less by predictive power and more by explanatory scope.

It’s not a shock that in fact Carrier comes down on the side of the scientific method as the best method we have. As I said last time with pointing to Feser, the method works great with science, but it does not work great with other fields of knowledge. The scientific method has often been made too all-encompassing. As said before, this is not to denigrate science and it is a shame to think that such a claim is a denigration of science. It is to recognize its limitations. Use the scientific method for science. Use a literary method for literature, historical method for history, etc.

The problem that often comes is one has a claim that falls outside of the realm of science, such as miracles or the existence of God and immediately hears “Well do you have any scientific evidence?” You might as well ask if you have any mathematical evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays. Of course, science can help inform us on these areas, such as showing us the way nature works when there is no interference (Although to be fair, I question the existence of laws of nature seeing as I hold to essences more) or perhaps Intelligent Design arguments. (Which I’m also skeptical of seeing as it treats the universe more like a machine)

Eventually, we get to the historical method. We are told on page 58 about how experts in the field should meet qualifications of reliability. These include genuine qualifications suited to the issue at hand, corroboration by others, and that the bias be controlled. I have no problem with these by and large and of course, the list is not limited to these.

I do think it’s important that we seek experts who have credentials in the field and I would add that we seek them from all sides. Too many atheists are ready to discount a claim in NT history because it comes from a Christian scholar, just as too many Christians could deny a claim in scientific theory because it comes from an atheist. Both are wrong. Look at the evidence. Don’t look at the position.

I also agree that one should seek corroboration from other experts. This is why I find it important to look for works that are by writers who have undergone peer-review. In history, we recently had the case of Joseph Atwill and “Caesar’s Messiah.” Atwill did not put his opinion to scholarship first to have it tested. Nope. He went straight to the media. This is sensationalism.

It’s also important with books to see who published the book. Most academic publishing houses want to protect their reputation and not publish material that will be embarrassing to them. This doesn’t mean everything by a non-academic publisher is false as its harder and harder to get published today, but in today’s age, self-publication is easier and easier, meaning one must be quite careful.

Also, biases need to be controlled. We all have them. That’s also the purpose of peer-review. You submit your work to those who are of a different mindset and see if you can defend your view. It doesn’t mean you will prove your view, but it means you do defend your view.

All of this is well and good but I found myself wondering, “Does Carrier’s Christ myth idea pass this criteria?” The answer is no. This is one of many reasons I can’t take such an idea seriously.

The next section we will go through in our review will be discussing the origins of the universe. We’ll cover that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 2

Are there any words to be said about words? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Our review of Sense and Goodness Without God (SGWG from now on) continues with a look at the importance of philosophy and of words. Having been a Master’s student before I left the Seminary I was at studying in philosophy, I do agree it is important. It’s also why on my own podcast I’m working to bring in more philosophers to talk on important topics in philosophy.

But I do not think Carrier is the one to be telling us about philosophy. As I’ve said, those wanting a more thorough philosophical analysis of the material of Carrier are invited to see the work of David Wood, who is in fact a credentialed PH.D. philosopher. I invite others skeptical of my stance on Carrier here to by all means go check with those who are more authoritative in whatever field and see what they say as well.

So getting to what we have, Carrier has a revealing line saying “This is a little known secret of thinking like a genius; it doesn’t matter where your ideas come from, or how many turn out to be harebrained, so long as you only trust the ones that are soundly proved.”

My first thought in reading this is what kind of way must a person think about themselves to think that they can tell us the secret of thinking like a genius. For saying that there is not much in the Bible, it would have been well to have gone to Proverbs 27:2 and read about how you should let another man praise you and not your own lips.

My second thought is how far does this go? I should only trust that which is soundly proven. Okay.

Is that proven?

I figure I could keep going on and on. Part of the problem is that if we just go by what is proven, we have to at some point reach some claims that are unproven, but that we think would be absolute nonsense to deny. “The universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago with false memories in our minds and false foods in our stomachs.” No way you could prove this, but only a fool would think the universe if five minutes old.

There are also statements that you do not prove or disprove because they are tautologies and contradictions.

“At this time, my wife either exists or she does not.”

This statement has zero predictive power and in fact it would be bizarre to think about proving it. It is entirely true regardless of which one it is! (She just went up to my mother’s to wrap Christmas gifts, but I am certainly hoping the former is the case and no mysterious sink hole has swallowed her or something of the link.)

Now here’s another statement.

“Right now, my wife is married and not married.”

This statement could not be proven at all as it is nonsense. Someone cannot be both at the same time. Of course, you could say that she is married to me and not married to any other man out there, but that requires adding information to the claim.

And finally, we can ask how a statement is proven. Too often in the book, Carrier holds to a mild form of scientism that places science on the highest level. Science is great for scientific predictions. It’s not for everything else.

For instance, if I am studying Shakespeare and I am being told that when saying X, Shakespeare is really making a comment about Y in his day, how should I verify this? Do I do so scientifically? No. I go and use literary methodologies including asking literary experts who know the field far better than I do.

There is a great danger we have in our day and age of thinking science works so well where we apply it that it just has to work everywhere else and if we do that, we will end up missing out on other truths that could, for the sake of argument, be out there. Let’s consider it with the metal detector analogy of Edward Feser. In this short section of that post, Feser presents the common view and then responds with the analogy.

1. The predictive power and technological applications of [post-Galilean, post-Cartesian, mechanistic] science are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.

2. Therefore we have good reason to think that [post-Galilean, post-Cartesian, mechanistic] science can explain everything that there is to explain.

And that sort of argument is no better than this one:

1. Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has.

2. Therefore we have good reason to think that metal detectors can reveal to us everything that there is to be revealed.

For those interested, Feser also deals with an objection to that here.

Thus, I wish to warn my readers about a mild scientism coming up in the future in the book. The sad reality is too many readers will think I am anti-science. Not a bit. I am for using a proper methodology in its right field. A table knife is a just right tool to spread peanut butter on a sandwich for lunch. A chainsaw doesn’t work as well, but that says nothing about one’s overall view of table knives or chainsaws.

On page 26 Carrier says “Above all, I have a clear sense of always improving myself and my worldview, a sign that I am indeed approaching the truth, and am with every step closer to it.”

It is a wonder to read this and see how this could be known. An obvious problem that should leap out to anyone is there are numerous Christian philosophers who would say the same thing. There are Christians in history who would all say the same thing. We all think we’re approaching the truth and we all think we’re improving ourselves and our worldview. Does that mean we’re all closer to the truth? Carrier is getting deeper and deeper in his atheism. Okay. Mike Licona is getting deeper and deeper in his Christianity. Are both of them approaching the truth? How could they both be when both of them are diametrically opposed?

There are other steps one would take. One would want to read that with which one disagrees. One would interact with disagreement. One would seek to get the best scholarship in any field. There would definitely be any testing and living out of one’s ideas to see how they apply in the schoolhouse of life.

After all, everyone thinks they’re approaching the truth. I can say I have refined my view drastically in all my years of study. I would certainly say I am closer to the truth, but I am constantly reading to see where I am at and interacting with others who disagree. Does that mean I’m necessarily approaching the truth. I would hope I am, but it could be tomorrow I will make a discovery that leads in the opposite direction. What then? Will I then turn and say the same thing after a few years?

As we move on to the chapter on words, there’s really not much to critique here. I will instead pull out a few points to consider.

On page 29, Carrier writes that

“Naturally, applying this first principle to itself, it follows that if we can find any proposition that has meaning but does not make any predictions, or that makes predictions that does not have any meaning, or that can be confirmed as true or false without any reference to what it predicts, then this principle would have to be revised, and my entire philosophy reconstructed from the ground up (unless the revision has no other consequence than to expand or qualify what was already established). So it is important to see if I’ve got it right here, and equally important that I help you grasp what I am talking about. In the process, you will get a taste of different aspects of my whole philosophy, on which I expand in later chapters.”

But as David Wood has said, these statements do exist. Tautologies and contradictions. See the examples above.

I suppose it’s time for a total overhaul.

Carrier also goes against Plantinga’s idea of Warranted Christian belief. I’d leave it to Plantinga to defend it, though I doubt he’d even bother. My own position is more of a common sense realism. Yes. The world outside of my mind exists. How do you know?

You tell me why I shouldn’t.

As soon as I accept the claim that I need to demonstrate this, I am no longer a realist. I see no reason to deny the reality of the material world any more than I see a reason to think the universe popped into existence five minutes ago with false memories in my mind and false food in my stomach. Carrier could say could exist anyone why they believe in the material world and they’d point to evidence. I wouldn’t. Every bit of evidence could be assumed under an idealist system. Kicking a rock done not refute Berkeley. (Berkeley was a bishop who was an empiricist and held to the non-existence of matter. While I disagree, it would be difficult for many of us to refute the arguments he puts forward in his dialogues.)

Eventually, the idealist path gets us to where Carrier arrives, and I’m not surprised, and that is the place of the Cartesian demon. Maybe it’s really an evil power outside of me that’s causing everything and just leading me to think my beliefs are true.

And again, I do not take such an idea seriously since I do not hold to any idealism. Could it be that such a power exists and is tricking me? Perhaps, but it would be up to my opponent to demonstrate that. Note also in my Thomistic arguments for God, His goodness is entailed as well in the arguments, hence many atheistic arguments against God really don’t even touch the arguments that I prefer to use. To critics out there, I also do not prefer to use most arguments used by Christian apologists today, such as the Kalam argument or the design argument. Part of that is also realizing my limitations. I have no study in science and therefore would not comment on the scientific aspects of such arguments.

In our next review, we will spend time looking at Carrier and method. There will not be much, but I hope it will provide some fun and informative interaction. For those wanting to get to the heart of the issues, be patient and wait. We will. (Though I will be regularly interspersing with posts about the podcast and some Christmas post as the holidays draw near.)

Book Plunge: Sense And Goodness Without God Part 1

Does Carrier really provide a good defense of metaphysical naturalism? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Carrier’s book is Sense and Goodness Without God, but it looks like it doesn’t deliver on either account. Going through this book will in fact be extremely laborious for anyone else who tries to do so. (I think of Allie’s repeated question of “You’re not finished with that yet?!” No love, I’m not.) The writing is entirely dry. There is apologies for that saying it will apply at the start, but it never picks up.

Of course, the real meat of a book is found in the arguments that it gives, and in this case, they’re not good at all. We get the sound of one-hand clapping largely, meaning there is often total neglect of arguments for the other side. For instance, in the long chapter on why there is no God, I was hoping I’d see the Thomistic arguments, my favorite ones, interacted with since so many people leave those out. Indeed, they weren’t. In fact, no theistic arguments were interacted with.

Another problem is that Carrier is too much of a polymath. He wants to write a little bit on everything, some of which the reader wonders what it has to do with metaphysical naturalism. Do I really need to know what Carrier’s views are on politics in order to defend metaphysical naturalism? Does it really matter what he thinks about abstract art?

If I’m to take what’s in this book seriously, I am to believe that Carrier is an authority on linguistics, philosophy, morality, free-will debates, cosmology, evolution, theistic arguments, history, economics, art, interpretation of court cases, etc.

We could grant for the sake of argument that Carrier should be seen as an authority on one or two of the issues perhaps, but on all of them? Not a chance. Now there could be some basic study in other issues, but not enough to really be taken as an authority.

No problem! That’s what footnotes are for!

Except there aren’t any.

In fact, he explicitly says there aren’t any! On page 5 he says “I use no footnotes or endnotes.”

Hardly ever will you find a book and page number as a claim for where an argument came from. Instead, at the end of a section Carrier will list books you can read on the topic with the idea that if you read these books, somewhere in there you will find what backs what is being argued. Excuse me if I don’t want to order a dozen books and read through them to verify one claim that will be found somewhere in all of that.

When he does also mention someone he is arguing against, it is a wonder why he thinks that person should take him seriously. Why should Moreland or Plantinga really be interacting with what Carrier says? Does anyone think these credentialed philosophers are going to be listening to the words of someone like Carrier at this point? Now he’s free to make critiques of them, but if anyone will get the benefit of the doubt in this case, it will certainly be these credentialed philosophers. Of course they could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Carrier has shown the case from what I’ve read. For those wanting to see more on the philosophical issues, I recommend reading David Wood’s review.

Because there is so much problematic with this book then, I am not going to have a full review in one post. I am going to handle this as a multi-part process.

Carrier starts with the praise of philosophy. No problem with that! Yet too often in this book one will often find philosophy somehow morphs into science. That is something indeed problematic, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Of course, I wonder if he has a right understanding of philosophy. Philosophy is not just thinking about stuff. It’s a rigorous process which is why one needs to be interacting with those who have best shown themselves to be authorities and to interact with those who have studied it on an academic level. Hence, while I am a Thomist, I will give a basic defense of my position, but then point to others who know far better than I do, like Edward Feser.

Carrier describes his religion as philosophy and says the following:

“Every hour that devout believers spend praying, reading Scripture, attending sermons and masses, I spend reading, thinking, honing my skill at getting at the truth and rooting out error. I imagine by most standards I have been far more devout than your average churchgoer. For I have spent over an hour every day of my life, since I began my teenage years, on this serious task of inquiry and reflection.” (page 4)

It’s nice to begin a book with a bit of hubris. Readers of Carrier’s book will not learn much about metaphysical naturalism, but they will learn much about Carrier.

On page 5, we find that he says “For all readers, I ask that my work be approached with the same intellectual charity you would expect from anyone else.”

I want readers to keep this in the back of their minds for now. If this is so, then when we get to Scriptural interpretation, we should see this intellectual charity. We won’t. He goes on along these lines on the same page and the following page to say:

“If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case. Whatever interpretation would eliminate the contradiction and produce agreement is probably correct. So you are encouraged in every problem that may trouble you to find that interpretation.”

I have no problem with this kind of idea. I have a problem with it not being consistent. Again, when we come to Scripture, will we find the same thing? Will we find a desire to try to work out supposed contradictions between events, or will we find there is not even an attempt. You don’t need a crystal ball (Which Carrier doesn’t believe in any way) to know the answer to that.

So since that was short and all of that in the first chapter, I’ll move on to the second for today as well.

This one deals with how Carrier got where he was. Carrier grew up in a background that had this idea that the text should clearly say something. Granted his church was not conservative. Still, there is this hang-up in most American churches today that the Bible should be clear to modern-day Americans. I always wonder why clear to us? Why not clear to 16th century Japanese or 19th century Germans or 13th century Chinese or 11th century Frenchmen or 9th century Italians or 1st century Jews?

You get the picture.

What hubris our culture has!

Carrier also asks why the Bible wasn’t saying much that seemed to be about what was on his mind. Why does it not talk about science or about Democracy? It never seems to register that these were not issues the biblical writers were wanting to talk about. That does not mean they’re unimportant to them. You won’t read hardly anything on my blog about nutrition or medical care, but that does not mean I find them more important. It simply means the focus is elsewhere.

On the other hand, gender equality was there as well to which I can’t help but wonder why Carrier wasn’t paying attention to the first chapter of Genesis? Man and woman are both created in the image of God.

On page 15, we read Carrier say that “In general, no divinely inspired text would be so long and rambling and hard to understand.” He goes on to say:

“The Bible is full of the superfluous–extensive genealogies of no relevance to the meaning of life or the nature of the universe, long digressions on barbaric rituals of bloodletting and taboo that have nothing to do with being a good person or advancing society toward greater happiness, lengthy diatribes against long-dead nations and constant harping on a coming doom and gloom, I asked myself: Would any wise compassionate being even allow this book to be attributed to him, much less be its author? Certainly not. How could Lao Tzu, a mere moral, who never claimed any superior powers or status, write better, more thoroughly, more concisely, about so much more than the Inspired Prophets of God.”

This boils down to an argument one sees repeated often in the book.

I would not do X if I was God.
God does X.
Therefore, this claim cannot be a claim of God.

Never does it occur to Carrier that the Bible is the story of the people of Israel and all of this information is indeed relevant to Israel. The genealogies matter greatly as for the ancient mindset, who you came from spoke volumes about who you were and your history. The judgments against nations that were long-dead would remind the Israelites of God’s faithfulness in doing what He said He would do, which would mean He could also be trusted in to do what He promised He would do through them. Finally, if the Christian claim is true, it means God has interacted to deal ultimately with the problem of evil in Christ. How can that not be towards the advancing of society?

Of course, I would not deny that one should read the great philosophers. I certainly think so. They comment on many issues the biblical writers did not comment on. I happen to enjoy going through the Golden Sayings of Epictetus for instance. Yet why should I think the Bible is written largely with the idea of telling me how to be a good person? That is in there, but that is not the main point of Christianity. The main point is how God is dealing with the problem of evil in Christ. Being a good person is part of that, but not the whole of the situation.

It’s not a shock also to find on page 16 the complaints about the God of the Bible. The picking up of sticks in Numbers 15, the idea of judgment through war on those who were opposed to Israel, genocide and fascism, slavery, etc. All of these have been seen numerous times before, but it’s nice to see that intellectual charity disappeared so quickly. No. You won’t find Carrier responding to responses to these. They’re just asserted.

Be wary always of the sound of one-hand clapping.

Carrier in fact on page 16 says “It does not good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man’s message would not need such excuses. It follows that the Bible was written neither by the wise nor the good.”

So let’s see what we have here.

A good and wise man’s message does not need excuses. (I’m sure Socrates would have liked to have known this when he was on trial. However, we see no defense of Carrier’s claim whatsoever.)
The message of the Bible needs defending. (No problem here.)
It follows then that the Bible is not from a good and wise man and certainly not God.

But it doesn’t! The first claim is not backed at all! How many good and wise men in history have had to give account for their actions? How many have written defenses of their own message? If Carrier ever has to defend himself from his critics, does that mean that he is not good and wise since if he had a good and wise message, it would not need defense?

It’s furthermore just a way of saying to avoid looking at the evidence on the other side. Why should someone not want to do that? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do, especially if we are to follow the path of intellectual charity?

On page 17, Carrier says when he finished reading the Bible, that he declared that he was an atheist.

Really? The most you could declare is you think the Bible’s message is false. You certainly can’t get to atheism! There are so many more arguments for theism than just the Bible. Did Carrier not interact with them?

On page 18, Carrier talks about what the experience was of declaring himself an atheist in the society around him.

“For the first time, rather than being merely consistently pestered, I was being called names, and having hellfire wished upon me. It was a rude awakening.”

I am sure right now Christians in Sudan faced with death constantly are thankful they do not have it so rough. There’s real persecution. Carrier was called names and had hellfire wished on him.

This is amusing considering how just before he talked about the awful history of Christianity. He talks about the terrible things they’ve done and are still doing such as “trying to pass blasphemy laws to murdering doctors, from throwing eggs at atheists to killing their cats, from trying to dumb-down science education to acting holier-than-thou in pushing their skewed moral agenda upon government and industry alike.”

For murdering doctors, I suppose he’s talking about abortion doctors. If so, the huge huge huge majority of Christians stand outside abortion clinics and protest and offer help to those considering an abortion. This is entirely within their legal rights to do. For those who are bombing clinics and murdering doctors, we certainly condemn those, but this is the rare rare rare exception to the rule.

Of course, there’s always the great danger of having eggs thrown at someone and having their cats killed. I know I regularly go out and meet with my evangelical brethren. We get together at the grocery store and buy a mass of egg cartons and look for atheist houses and let loose! When we find their cats, we kill them and bring the corpse to church giving thanks that we tormented the atheist.

Of course, there are some legitimate problems in all of this. I have no desire to dumb down science education for instance and think Christians make a mistake when they treat the Bible as if teaching about science. At the same time, if someone wants to present evidence for a view like ID, for instance, a view I’m somewhat skeptical of as a Thomist, then let them do so. I’m open to it. As for holier-than-thou types, I have zero patience whatsoever with them. If Carrier thinks he finds Christians annoying, he’s not the only one.

Well Carrier certainly does show how he views the opposition. As he says on page 19 when writing about the Christianity he faces, “So great is the threat of this superstition against individuals, against society, against knowledge, against general human happiness, that it would be immoral to not fight it.” He later describes it as a crusade. (So apparently Carrier doesn’t condemn all Crusades.)

Sometimes people wonder why I speak in the language of battle. This is why. I believe the stakes are high and ironically, I see holding to an atheist system as a threat to society. Of course, to be sure, my idea of combat is only intellectual though I do use physical metaphors to explain the picture. I don’t doubt that Carrier has no desire to use physical violence either in this kind of debate, but I wonder if atheists in history have thought the same way.

We’ve only gone about 20 pages through and already there’s a lot to deal with. We’ll deal with even more next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths

Are we honoring paganism when we celebrate Christmas? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, my ministry partner, J.P. Holding of Tektonics, released a Kindle Ebook called “Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths.” One of the benefits of being the ministry partner is getting to get copies of a book like this so I can personally review them.

Holding does say up front he’s not much of a holiday person. I, on the other hand, happen to love the Christmas season, but I’m also a guy heavily into traditions. Still, my desires have changed over the years. Normally as children we look forward to all we’re getting. Now, I look forward to all that I’m giving. Frankly, I have no real idea of what I’m getting this year. My wife and I went to the mall and looked at several items and took pictures and of course, I have an Amazon wish list, but other than that, no idea. I’m fine with that.

What I’m not fine with is that there are several who wish to hold over the heads of others that Christmas is something pagan. Now I have a great resource that they can all use. That’s the book by Holding on this topic.

A benefit of this book for several of you is that it’s a short read. You might think that this is right before Christmas and you don’t have time to read something like this. You do. I started it one night and had it easily finished the next day and that was even with just reading a little bit here and there.

Holding easily dispenses with much of the hype and hysteria on this issue and one that needs to be addressed considering how many horrible sources I see being cited by the opponents of Christmas. (Alexander Hislop anyone?)

This includes dealing with passages like Jeremiah 10 supposedly being about Christmas trees, Santa being pagan, and when Jesus was born. (Would shepherds really not be in the fields if Jesus was born on December 25th? The answer might surprise you.) He also deals with supposed NT contradictions on the nativity. Now this last section is not exhaustive, but it does deal with important material.

There are a number of reasons why I think this is important for the church today.

First, if the church throws around ideas that are foolish based on a cursory examination even, we show ourselves to be making claims that indicate we have not done the historical homework that we’re supposed to. I’m not talking about something that’s just somewhat controversial as there are no doubt disagreements in history. I’m talking about something that has no historical basis whatsoever.

This includes our use of sources. If we consistently use sources that are not reliable, we show that we have no criteria whatsoever for choosing a source except to say that the source is one that agrees with us. (Personally, I enjoy going through books by non-Christian scholars about the historical Jesus and highlighting points of agreement. Nothing like enemy attestation!)

Second, when we do this, we leave ourselves wide open for the pagan copycat hypothesis. “So you think Christmas is stolen from pagans? It gets worse! The whole system is stolen from pagans? Haven’t you ever heard of Mithras?!” (Holding rightly points to his own work “Shattering the Christ Myth” here where these views get demolished.

Third, we keep having a fear of paganism over and over. Excuse me, but isn’t the church supposed to be spreading the Kingdom of God? Why are we afraid of the enemy? I have been told, as an example, that wedding rings are pagan. If I found out this was true, you know what I’d do? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because I don’t wear a ring to honor a pagan deity. I wear it to honor my wife and show my covenant with her to the world. The God who set about to redeem the world and redeem fallen sinners can just as much redeem pagan customs and such that we still use today. (Anyone stopped saying Wednesday because the days of the week come from paganism?)

Finally, enough Christians struggle with guilt trips from self-righteous types. Why take one of the most joyous times of the year and use it as an excuse to bring about another guilt trip? If someone does not want to celebrate Christmas, fine, but they need to give a good reason why I shouldn’t as well, and so far they haven’t.

I highly recommend this book then in preparation for the Christmas season in dealing with the “Christmas is pagan!” crowd.

In Christ,
Nick Peters