Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: Nobility Among Us

Is Nobility Among Us fiction worth reading? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I heard news from my friend Ben Zwycky that he had a book that was out. This came as a shock to me as I honestly did not recall hearing anything about him even writing a book. I saw the story as good news for him, but I read plenty of academic books and funds were low so maybe someday I could read his.

Until he contacted me and wanted to send me a copy so I could review it. Seeing as he was a friend, I figured I could.

And I am so thankful that I did!

Zwycky writes a book from a Christian worldview, yet the book is not at any point explicit in it. You will not find Jesus or Christ mentioned one time in the whole book. The story is lively and engaging and it is Christian fiction the way it is meant to be.

The story also has an interesting mix as it starts with a son helping his family hook up a video recorder and then starts talking about behavior at the castle and the nobility. I found this an interesting combination. The time was obviously modern, but the setting had a more medieval feel to it.

In fact, being a gamer, as I was going through the book, I could picture what it would be like to have a Final Fantasy type game based on the book. Were such a game to come out, I would be one wanting to play it. I have hopes along those lines that this book would be picked up by a filmmaker sometime and turned into a movie. I also see that this book could have an excellent prequel and probably a sequel depending on if the author wishes to bless us or not with it.

The main thrust of the story involves the viscount of a kingdom named Marcus who is a follower of the forbidden book. In an effort to change his kingdom, he actually makes a dangerous ruling where he sides against a member of the nobility in favor of one of the lowly citizens. This sets in motion a range of events that goes all throughout the book.

What will happen to the kingdom? What will happen to Marcus and his family? Will justice ever be met? The reader is taken through all the twists and turns in great detail and introduced to characters that are likable and understandable, aside from the villains of course who are understandable but certainly not liked! There are times where the technical jargon describing the equipment can get confusing and the reader can get lost, but this is something that a good reader can tolerate in getting the main thrust of the story.

I do not read much fiction as I have said, but I am thankful that I took the time to read the book of my friend Ben Zwycky. I did not know he had such a great novel in him, and I am most thankful that he got it out of him to share it with the world. Please go to Amazon and order your copy of this great book today!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Hitler’s Christianity

Can we say Hitler was a Christian? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My ministry partner, J.P. Holding, sent me this book he wrote for my own review of it. While he has long held that Hitler wasn’t a Christian (And for that matter, wasn’t an atheist either), this book marked some in-depth research done on the topic of Christianity, since while Hitler wasn’t a Christian, he did make claims to be one.

As it turns out, the Nazi movement instead had a teaching called Positive Christianity. This would be a cult of Christianity that went so much against the Jewishness that existed in the Bible that even Marcion would not recognize the Bible.

Deeply revealing in the book is the idea of the way the German church was at the time of the rise of Hitler. Critical scholarship had been undermining the text, there was not a major emphasis on doctrine and most churches were not well-informed on doctrine, and charismatic speakers could easily win the day.

Also, there was the strong emphasis on nationalism as the German people saw themselves in a unique position. I find this a timely warning since I myself am a strong conservative who holds to conservative political viewpoints as well and who does love my country, but we should not equate conservatism in politics with orthodoxy in Christianity. I know several Christians who are political liberals. I disagree with them on that issue, but I do not deny that they are true Christians.

Holding in the book takes a deep look at what Positive Christianity believed and also at some of the most important figures in the Nazi movement. He also warns against sources that are not reliable that often try to paint out Hitler to be an occultist. While there were people in the Nazi party who had an interest in the occult, Hitler was not one of them.

Also, Holding covers issues that could be raised in objection such as the idea that the Nazis had emblems that said “God with us.” He also answers the question about why it is that the Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler.

Furthermore, there’s a section in there on the NT and asking if it is anti-semitical. Holding takes the works of leading scholars on the passages most often used by those who want to say the NT is an anti-semitical document and shows that these positions do not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s important for us to take a look at Hitler in his time and context in history and not read our ideas into what he said. Also, we must realize that as a politician as well, Hitler could say things that were politically advantageous without having them really be accurate.

If there was one area I would like to have seen addressed, it would have been the charge that much of what Hitler got came from Martin Luther supposedly. That is the only aspect that I did not see covered that I would have liked to have seen something on. On the other hand, many atheists should be surprised and hopefully pleased to realize that Holding does not base the holocaust on evolutionary theory as well, as I think there’s only one section where it really says anything about Darwinism.

In conclusion, I recommend this book. It will be necessary reading for any who engage atheists on the topic of if Hitler was a Christian or not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Demon-Haunted World

What do I think of this work of the man who brought us Cosmos? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Carl Sagan is famous for saying “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” While as a Christian I disagree with this sentiment, there is a debt of gratitude owed to Sagan as Sagan was one of those people wanting to popularize science for a non-scientific audience and open them up to scientific thinking.

I read Sagan’s book after an atheist recommended I read it in response to my suggesting he read Keener’s “Miracles.” I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw in Sagan’s work. While Sagan is definitely an atheist, one does not find the usual vitriol one has come to find in the works of the new atheists. I often had the impression that Sagan would have been the kind of atheist I could sit down and reasonably chat with concerning why I hold the position that I do.

In fact, much of what is in this book should be amenable to Christians easily and if some of it is not, that could point to a great insecurity that exists in the mind of the Christian who has that fear. Why should we who think God revealed Himself in Jesus in this world think that further study in this world will somehow disprove that truth? (And besides, if it did, we should be thankful. Who wants to go through life believing what is untrue?)

We should be applauding the work of Sagan to get science into the mainstream and support scientific research. I also wholly agree with him that our young people are not thinking enough, though that does not just extend to science, and need to have a greater education rather than just being entertained all day. I would support entirely seeing shows on TV that would grab the interest of young people so they could learn about areas such as science.

When I was in school, for instance, we would watch 3-2-1-Contact. I know several others who grew up watching people like Bill Nye, the Science Guy. While I am against just purely entertaining our children, I think there are ways we can do education that are attractive to students and make them want to learn. I know today a number of adults that still remember rules of grammar and math by thinking of old episodes of Schoolhouse Rock.

Yet there are some concerns. I think too often Sagan puts all the eggs in the science basket. Science is an important piece of the puzzle, but it can too often be made the whole deal. This could be understandable however since science was the passion of Sagan and it’s easy to see everything in light of that passion and think it is the most important.

Sagan is certainly right to go after the gullibility in our culture with pseudoscience, as he should, but when it comes to him stepping out of his field, he is too quick to also buy into gullibility. We must all check ourselves for bias and it’s too easy to think a story or claim meshes with our worldview and is therefore reliable. i will not thus comment on Sagan’s science. I am not an authority there. But there are areas I do consider myself an authority in that I think Sagan gets wrong. It is a warning to all of us.

For instance, on page 37, Sagan sees metaphysics as philosophy or as he says “Truths you could recognize just by thinking about them.” This is not an accurate description. Metaphysics is really the study of being as being. It is true to say that metaphysics has no laboratory while physics does, but this is the problem of saying that a branch of knowledge is not as valid because it does not go about the same way another one does. History has no laboratory. Mathematics has no laboratory. Literature has no laboratory, yet we would not say that those are less valid branches of knowledge. It is a mistake to see the way that science does what it does and think every other way is insufficient.

Also, Sagan makes the claim that Deuteronomy was a forgery found in the time of Josiah. Considering works have been written on Deuteronomy showing that it fits in perfectly as a Suzerain treaty which dates to the time it is traditionally thought to have been written in, this is problematic. In fact, one could hardly say it agrees with Josiah. Why would Josiah write a document that would put his kingship thus far in a bad light by showing how far he had failed?

I also think Sagan should be taken with a huge grain of salt when talking about the medieval period, especially since his main source seems to be Gibbon. (Another problematic area comes in when one would like to check Sagan’s sources. He does say what books he uses, but no page numbers are cited so one cannot know where the claims are found.) This is especially with regards to Witch Trials and the Inquisition. More modern readers would be benefited by seeing a work like Kamen’s on the Spanish Inquisition or seeing the research of James Hannam on the medieval period.

There are other areas where Sagan just gets facts wrong such as thinking the transmission of the biblical accounts would be like a telephone game (page 357) or that the Bible teaches a flat Earth (300) or claims of genocide in the Bible. (290)

Also, on page 278, Sagan thinks an infinite universe would be a problem for Christian theism. I do not see why this is. It would mean changing one’s interpretation of Genesis perhaps (Though I hold to Walton’s view so that would not be much of a problem) but from a Thomistic perspective, an eternal universe still depends on God.

Commendable in all of this also is the fact that Sagan does not deny the failures of science. Science has brought us cures for diseases, but it has also brought us weapons of mass destruction. The solution to this is not to teach more science, but rather to teach more morality. Science can be just as badly used as religion can be. One can say science works by pointing to launching a man to the moon, but one could also say it works by pointing at a missile hitting a city. A difference with religion of course is that the man who launches a missile on innocents is not violating any principles of science, but a Christian who murders an innocent man is violating a principle of Christianity.

Despite all this, I found myself rather pleased ultimately by Sagan’s work. While I do think he puts too much in the science basket, it is understandable and one would hope that today’s new atheists would learn to be a bit more like Sagan. I can thus commend this work to others in understanding the importance of science for our society.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Lost World of Scripture

What do I think of this volume by Brent Sandy and John Walton? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One of the perks of being in the business of having a radio show on apologetics and getting great scholars on is that you can get to read advance books. Some of you reading this will want to go straight to Amazon and get this book. Unfortunately, as of this writing, it’s not out yet. It’s due out on December 1st. Yet if this is what you were wanting to do, then I tell you this in the strongest terms. Put this on your wish list immediately! If I could, I would give the book 6 stars on Amazon.

If you want to be keeping up with biblical studies at all and have a thorough knowledge of what is going on in the Bible, this book is required reading. This is the kind of book I think every skeptic should have to read before they go on about how many errors are in the Bible or ask questions like “Why didn’t anyone write it down immediately?”

As I started reading this book, after just finishing two chapters I knew I was reading one of the most important books in biblical studies that I would ever read. The information was also presented in an easy to approach format and even though I have read books in this field for years, much of the information was new even to me.

LWS (Lost World of Scripture) seeks to bring us back into touch with the historical background that the Bible was written in. The name is familiar to some since John Walton, a co-author, wrote The Lost World of Genesis One. I have high hopes that the viewpoints of people like Walton and his co-author, Brent Sandy, will soon became the norm in the world of biblical studies and maybe we’ll actually begin reading the Bible the way it was meant to be read instead of treating it like it was a modern book sent to us, a fax or email from Heaven as it were.

The largest emphasis I see in this book is on the orality of Scripture. We live in a world after what the authors have called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Want to get information out there? Write it down! (This blog post is just such an example!) In the ancient world, the rule was “Want to get information out there? Start talking!” The oral word was seen as more valuable than the written word. If you could go read a book by someone or else hear someone talk about what they said, the spoken word would be seen as more valuable. (And much more accessible as fewer people could read.)

This might sound odd to us, but it shouldn’t be. Many of us can know what it is like to get to read a book by someone and learn from it, but better still is it to get to sit down and talk with those people and learn from them. I do not doubt I have learned much from this book, but I also realize it could be possible to learn even more when talking with the authors (Which such a chance granted does not usually come in our world) and really get to discuss it with them.

When we treat the Bible as if it was meant to be read more than heard, then we will have problems in our society. Of course we should read the Bible, but the original recipients of the gospel would hear it. Even with the written words, they would still hear it as most could not read and would rely on a reader telling them what the written text says.

Also important is what this all says for Inerrancy. The authors make statements that will no doubt be seen as controversial for Inerrancy, but I think they are certainly true. We really need to examine what it is that we mean by Inerrancy. As each generation often needs to say what the truth is they uphold, so do we. We have uncovered more information than was had at meetings like the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Even saying “The Bible is true in all that it affirms” might not be enough, because there are times that we have to ask what is being affirmed. Proverbs are not iron-clad rules, for instance. They are generalities. Are we then saying Proverbs are generally inerrant?

Walton and Sandy do not have an answer to this that is definitive, nor should they. This is not a statement for just two people to make. This is something that would require the evangelical community as a whole coming together. This would require as many scholars as willing in the relevant fields to come together in light of new information and say that we today still want to uphold the truth of Scripture and give it the high place it deserves. How shall we go about doing this?

After finishing this book, I definitely conclude it is one of the most important ones I have read and so much of what I see online from atheists could be dismantled if they would be willing to engage with this book. So many Christians would have a deeper appreciation and understanding of Scripture if they would read what is in this book. If you care at all about biblical studies, you must go straight to Amazon now and put this in your wish list!

It is time to find the world that has been lost to us.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Reading the Christian Spiritual Classics

Is there a proper way for evangelicals to engage the spiritual classics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Reading The Christian Spiritual Classics is a work edited by James Goggin and Kyle Strobel. If the last name sounds familiar, it’s not a coincidence. That is Lee Strobel’s son and this has been his area of study. Lee is a friend of mine who got me a copy because frankly, a book on spiritual classics is quite frankly something I would not have picked up on my own.

In the area of apologetics after all, we’re trying to keep up as much as we can. There are so many new books that we need to read and then there’s all the research and we at the same time are family men who need our own time as well and then there’s still time that we have to spend with prayer, Bible study, etc.

People don’t often realize how big a job ministry is and in ministry, one often thinks they carry the burden of others around them. To an extent, of course we do, but we are not alone and part of the essential process of a Christian is sanctification. This is why I’ve surrounded myself as well with mentors, including a mentor I email every night to make sure I have been keeping up with prayer, an area I need to improve on, and seek advice for problems in my life.

I say all this because this review could sound negative at the start, but it really isn’t. When I started reading, I felt like I was having to push myself through. That is not because this book is a problem. Not at all! It is because I know that this is not what I am used to reading.

This is not to say I never read anything dealing with sanctification, but it is not something that I think we commonly read, much like an apologist I interacted with recently said apologists need to spend more time reading fiction. We should have our place in the academy of course, but we are not to be just in the academy. The best apologists I know are the ones that can also be real people. If I can laugh and joke with someone in my field, I know they’re real. It’s also why I make sure to take time for non-academic interests, such as the Mrs. and I watching our favorite shows most every night.

Reading a book about spiritual classics then is stretching someone in the field, but we need to be stretched. Part of Christian sanctification is being made uncomfortable unfortunately. It’s about doing things that we normally wouldn’t do. I would in fact encourage someone who just reads spiritual classics that they need to pick up books like Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” Every bit of sanctification we have must be grounded in truth. All that we do must be grounded in truth.

The book in its work tells why they should be read but also gives a warning in our day and age and one that applies greatly to apologists. This book is for evangelicals and so it assumes evangelical positions and tells us we could be reading a spiritual classic and it will talk about the veneration of Mary, for instance, and some of us who might be staunchly against the Catholic position could raise our defenses up and unfortunately, miss all the good stuff that is there.

And yes, this book recommends reading the Catholic classics. It also recommends reading the Orthodox classics. I do not doubt that people in both of those camps would also recommend reading works by people in the other branches just as much. Wisdom can be found in all manner of places in the Christian tradition.

Reading this book gave me a challenge to consider these kinds of areas more seriously and even had me looking on my Kindle to see from time to time if I could find any of these books that were talked about for download.

Christians are called to be holy people and of course, people of truth. It is easy to miss out on any one side. In our church today, we can often reflect on holiness and our experience, without remembering that these have to be grounded in truth. In more apologetic circles, we forget that truth that has no impact on us is just what is going to puff us up. If we believe something is true, we should act accordingly. If we believe in the Lordship of Christ and the advance of His kingdom, we should act accordingly.

It is because of that then that while I read the book as dry at first, I saw myself becoming more receptive over time, and realized the dryness said nothing about the book but about myself. If I went through again, I still think it would be difficult, but I think I would be still getting more out of it. I recommend this book then knowing that it will be a challenge, but a way that we need to be challenged.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Legend of Zelda and Theology

Is this book worth the price of the rupees? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I grew up a gamer. I’ve always loved games. My wife and I still have several gaming systems here. One series that I grew attached to early on in my life was the Legend of Zelda. I got that and Super Mario Brothers 2 for Christmas one year and ended up playing Zelda first, even though Mario was the harder to find.

Before too long, I wanted everything of Link’s. I wanted to get a boomerang because, well, Link had one. I had a fascination with swords because that was the weapon Link used. I even went to a barber once with a Nintendo Power magazine saying I wanted my hair cut like that. Unfortunately, I didn’t have side burns yet, so no deal.

When I found out about this book, I was pleased to have a gift certificate from my sister for my birthday and promptly ordered it. We’ve seen several books in the pop culture and philosophy series, but this is the first one that I’d seen with pop culture and theology and frankly, I want to see more!

I found this to be an excellent work looking at the games in a way that I never had before and asking good questions. This isn’t just a passing glance at the games. The people who write these articles are both serious gamers and serious thinkers about theology. I happen to admire that. I try to be serious in whatever I do. When I write, I take my work seriously. When I play a game, I also take that seriously. I seek to give my best in every area.

They also make a defense of gaming in general, while of course pointing out that like many good things, it can be done to an extreme. I found it amusing to read about the creator of Zelda signing autographs and having a message telling children that on sunny days, they need to go outside.

Playing Zelda in many ways is like exploring in ways you don’t get to in real life. That is why gaming is seen as an extension of one’s own self. There does seem to be a bond between you and the character and you can feel the joy of adventure and the passion of good overcoming evil and doing something heroic. Hopefully, this would extend over into the real world and people will seek to make a difference there.

There will always be a gamer side to me and I’m happy to accept that. After a day of debating online and answering questions left and right, when it comes time to unwind, I’m glad that there are series like the Legend of Zelda there to give me that time. As I’ve said, I hope that there are others that come along in this series. I would especially be interested in seeing a work such as “Final Fantasy and Theology.” My thanks to the people who put together a work that helps me see some of my favorite games in a whole new light!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Hardwired

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

Hardwired was for me a mixed bag. I agree with much of what was said, but the methodology didn’t seem to strike me right. I do agree that mankind is hardwired for God, designed if you will, to find His purpose in God alone. Yet I disagree with the approach that Miller takes.

Those who read me regularly know I come from a more classical/evidentialist approach to apologetics. I have my arguments for God’s existence and then I have my arguments for the resurrection of Jesus and I leave it at that. I also have had my own major concerns with a presuppositionalist approach.

That’s what struck me the most about Miller’s approach. He does not come out as a presuppositionalist, but that is where I saw him leaning the most. This was particularly evident when he said approaches taken like those in “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel are not going to work.

Now this I disagree with entirely. Miller has a problem with the idea that we need to become scholars in the field to understand Scripture. For a basic understanding of Scripture, you don’t need to be a scholar. The central message anyone can pick up. For an informed understanding, well you simply need to be more informed. While you don’t have to be a scholar yourself, you certainly need to learn from them.

It struck me as odd in fact for Miller to state something against this kind of approach when throughout the book he uses evidences and apologists from a perspective he would not agree with such as William Lane Craig.

I venture that the problem is not the approach. It is not the information. The problem is the people. The people just don’t care enough and while Miller does point to how things are known through an internal understanding, I wish to suggest that that could in fact be part of the problem. People are making decisions based on internal subjective views rather than the objective evidences.

For instance, what is the basis for marrying someone? It is how you feel supposedly. What happens when the day comes that you don’t feel any love? Well you move on with a divorce. Why are you to give in the church? Because you “feel led.” (Terminology not in Scripture at all!) If anything, our culture is too feelings oriented. (Consider also how often we say “feel” when we really mean “think.”)

The normal verse, Romans 1:20, used in this idea, in fact works best with an empirical approach much like my own. How does it say we know God? It is not by the things that are within, but it is by the things that are seen! We know God exists based on the evidences.

It was problematic as well to have Miller be so opposed to the idea of the blank slate. This is the belief that man is born without knowing anything. There is no a priori knowledge. On page 48, this is called a relatively new idea. What is the new idea is in fact epistemology. There have always been ideas on how we know what we know, but there being a branch called epistemology is rather new. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas all talked about knowledge of course, but they did not have formal theories in a category called epistemology.

Miller writes about how we have an internal GPS, a God Positioning System. For Miller, this is opposed to the blank slate. Yet a Thomist like myself who believes in a blank slate has no problem with the idea of a GPS like that in us. The two work hand in hand. In classical Thomism, all that one seeks after is the good. Some don’t make it to the ultimate good, but they all want that which is good.

This can include our hardwiring in fact. There is nothing contradictory in the idea. The problem I was having then was seeing this either/or paradigm being put out where you either believe in a blank slate or you believe in a GPS. One can have a GPS and still have an empiricist approach that rejects a priori ideas. If Miller wants us to choose between the two, this will hurt his approach.

For Miller, the hardwiring is evidence we already know God exists. For my position, we’ve been presented with enough evidence that there’s no basis for the denial to begin with. Miller on page 33 says some won’t come to God still because of pride and having to confess sins and matters of that sort.

Yet isn’t that a problem with any approach? There is no silver bullet in evangelism after all! There is no argument that will convince everyone because everyone is different and some people have hardened their wills. There are all manner of doubts that can occur. Miller gives the impression that other apologetic methods only interact with the head and not with the heart. As he says on page 153 “Traditional apologists think they can satisfy the mind without engaging the soul.” I wonder how this can be said since an evidentialist like Gary Habermas spends so much time talking about emotional doubt and how the emotions affect how we view the evidence.

That having been said, I do think Miller offers many good arguments that seem rather evidentialist. I also think he has some excellent questions which I think would be good for small groups wanting to discuss this.

My main concern is still that I would really like Miller to realize that this is a rather both/and. It’s a mixture of the head and heart both and that can come through internal experiences to be sure, but also through outward evidences. The problem in the church is not the methodology so much but rather the mindset of the church.

Now as for much of the material in the book, otherwise, it is excellent. I did not find much I disagreed with, but yet I found it odd that all this evidence was amassed when an evidentialist approach was disagreed with at the beginning, an approach might I add, I see the apostles themselves using with their claims to eyewitness testimony.

If you want a good experiential argument for why one should be a theist, I think you’ve got an excellent idea. I would just hope in further works that if Millers want to go against the blank slate idea, that he does deal with it in a more rigorous fashion. I, a Thomistic empiricist, have no problem with man being hardwired and having a blank slate both.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: How To Think About God On A Plane

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

Benjamin Wiker has been a favorite author of mine ever since my best man years ago on my birthday gave me a copy of “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World And Five Others That Didn’t Help.” Wiker’s latest work is an incredibly short one, but don’t confuse size with lack of power. This is an excellent work that serves its purpose.

The whole idea of this book is to be part of a series that is meant to be read while on a plane and while getting ready to board and leave a plane. (Okay. To be fair, it’d probably need a 1,000 pages in today’s system to be able to encompass all that time.) Wiker wants to see you reading something meaty on the flight and who knows, maybe something the person next to you will want to talk about.

Now if you’re a Grammar Nazi looking at the title of this book, you’re internally going berserk thinking about a dangling modifier. You will be amused to know that this is where Wiker because this is where the book begins. Are we on the plane thinking about God, or are we thinking about the possibility of God being on a plane, or is it both?

Wiker goes from there to the different ways religions view God including how the Christian can think about God being on a plane and not in the sense of omniscience! It’s a truly fascinating look! The work goes on at that point in more of a kind of stream-of-consciousness thinking.

There won’t be interaction with much Scripture in here. Wiker’s book is largely about simple reasoning and not doing a full examination of the Bible or the Koran or Book of Mormon or any other work that a religious group deems sacred. It’s more natural revelation, although it does include general ideas about major world religions.

Within the book, there is also interaction with the ideas of atheism and for such a short work, Wiker does make a very strong argument. Quite amusing to readers should be his sections on the interaction between science and religion, including a look at the astounding hypothesis of Francis Crick.

The read is definitely a short read so it could feasibly be read on a plane ride. I had finished the book within one-two hours of reading time. The steady stream will engage the reader in a conversation with Wiker and is easily accessible to any reader out there.

I conclude that this is definitely a good book that would be worth having with you on a plane ride. This is the kind of meat that people should be spending more time reading and it could be that something like this could in fact be a great conversation starter. After all, when you talk about God on a plane with someone next to you, it’s not like they have much option on where else to go. Not only that, the book has some excellent humor thrown in that will keep the reader amused.

If you have a flight to go on soon, get a copy of this book. You won’t be disappointed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: How To Talk To A Skeptic

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

A couple of months ago, Don Johnson contacted me about a book that at the time of contact and at the time of my writing this piece, had not yet been released called “How To Talk To A Skeptic.” I was more than happy to agree to read it for him and review it.

Now generally, I’ve reached the point where straight apologetics books don’t really interest me as much. It’s hard to read without thinking “Been there. Done that. Got the T-Shirt.” I then came to the book thinking that I could very well get more of the same.

I pleasantly found out that I was wrong.

Now I don’t consider Johnson’s book an apologetics book per se. If you want to know a book that will give you the straight forward answers, this isn’t it. It is a book more in line with a work like Tactics by Greg Koukl.

The very start is excellent in that Johnson points out that too many people treat religion as if it was an ice cream flavor. What we do is go to the skeptic then and relate our great experiences we’ve had of the Christian faith and get the answer back “I’m fine you found something that works for you and I’m happy for you, but it’s just not for me.”

Johnson is entirely correct in thinking that if you go to the skeptic with that and they answer as stated above, you’re stuck. There’s nothing more you can say. The goal then is not to treat religion as a preference, but treat it as a worldview, a truth claim. Do a Joe Friday and go for “Just The Facts.”

Johnson is also correct to point out that too many times, the skeptic is just highly ignorant of what he writes about. There is hardly a better illustration of this than the internet meme. Most memes made to argue against Christianity are so simplistic nowadays that I don’t even bother with them.

Another fine instance of this is in the listing of “Bible Contradictions.” Now to be fair, there are some supposed contradictions that do require real scholarship and interaction to figure out, but there are some that are just simplistic and made by people who haven’t really bothered to study the text. Most of these types think that they’ve found hidden gold without realizing that if they had done any fact-checking, they have quite likely not come across anything some Christian in the past has not addressed already.

Of course, Johnson is also correct that it’s true that many Christians don’t produce a valid response to the criticisms of atheists and in fact perpetuate the stereotype of blind believers. Yet such is the case of atheist fundamentalism. There are blind believers of pro-Christian arguments and there are blind believers of anti-Christian arguments.

Johnson’s approach is to clear away all the misbeliefs about Christianity before discussing the true beliefs about Christianity. This I consider highly important in our age of the internet where fewer and fewer people actually think but rather just read Wikipedia articles or a web site by just anyone who hasn’t really actually done any research.

The next section gets into thinking about God and much of this information is highly important. The question of Hell is answered as well as the question of if Heaven is a boring place. There is also material in here about how to think about the Bible, including getting past the idea that it’s just a fax from God.

The final section does get into some of the data including the idea that Christianity came from pagan myths, something that leads me to suspect that Johnson has an audience one will find on the internet more in mind. Then there are moral issues as well, such as the fact that sex is something that keeps people from the Kingdom. Johnson gives a more powerful viewpoint on the topic and why it is that sex matters so much.

Having said all that, there are ways I would improve.

I would have liked to have seen more on such ideas as the problem of evil and the resurrection of Jesus. There is some of that throughout, but I would have liked to have seen more. The former since it is the greatest obstacle I think to Christianity today, and the latter because it is the greatest argument for Christianity today. (And in fact, properly understood, an answer to the former question.)

I did find the chapter on personal experiences to not be as convincing. If you’re talking about miracles, those are much more objective, but much anything else tends to get into subjectivity and leads to a way that the atheist can discount everything being said.

There were also times that Johnson recommended other books. That’s fine and good, but at some of those times, I was left wishing that more could have been said on his point in the argument. Give me a little sample of why I should go to those other books.

Still, the negatives do not distract from the positive. This is a highly readable and engaging book that starts a conversation with the reader on how to talk about issues of faith. Johnson’s work is an excellent look at this important topic and as one who does apologetics debates regularly, I am glad to commend it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Love Still Wins

Do I think Tony Watts has a case against Rob Bell. Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I was sent an advanced copy of the book “Love Still Wins” for a review. In preparation for debate as I told the author, it would have to wait. I had one other book before it and then I was able to get started on this one.

It was a topic I take very seriously. My wife had been a great admirer of Rob Bell for some time and I’d heard some of his videos which I thought had excellent points. I had also read Love Wins and while there were some valuable ideas in there, overall, the theme was dangerous. The biggest problem I had was I don’t know where Bell stands. If he’s a universalist, could he just come out and say it? He never does. Of course, I find it even more problematic that he’s not come out in support of redefining marriage.

I appreciate that Tony Watts, the author of Love Still Wins, has written a response to Rob Bell. Watts and I reach the same conclusion in that Bell’s teaching is wrong. I’m not sure if I’d go as far as Watts to say heresy. I have seen the debate several times as to whether or not universalism is a heresy. This has even been among conservative Christians who don’t hold to universalism.

Despite our agreement on the conclusion, I did think there were some matters that were lacking in the book. First off, I do think the style that Watts writes in is not going to be one that reaches people who are followers of Bell. Watts writes in a more “preachy” manner than anything else using biblical terminology. You see terms throughout such as referring to the regenerate and unregenerate. I know what that’s talking about, but I wonder how many readers who aren’t as skilled theologically will catch on. It is terminology one doesn’t often hear used today and terminology that I think will be a turn off.

Second, I find some of Watts’s language to be ambiguous. Watts writes on page 19 about popular culture and I was a bit puzzled at this. Popular culture was never defined. For instance, if a message is made that is geared towards sports fans, is that using popular culture? Is it wrong? How about books that have come out about the Gospel According To X, where a pop culture series is looked at for Christian themes. Would Watts have a problem with this? I don’t know.

Third, some of Watts’s case itself in hermeneutics I found to be troubling. Watts tells us that we need a plain or literal interpretation that would be according to the ordinary sense. But plain and ordinary for who? A 21st century American? A 19th century Englishman? A 17th century Japanese man? A 12th century Frenchman? A 5th century German? A 1st century Jew? All of these will have a different idea about what the “plain meaning” of the text is. (It’s also worth pointing out that the term literal really means “According to the intent of the author”.)

In fact, this gets us into the other big problem I had with this part. Watts says an important part of a sound hermeneutic is to have a distinction between Israel and the Church. As an orthodox Preterist, the reasons I found given to make that distinction were incredibly lacking. Most any Preterist would be able to explain these easily. In fact, I find the dispensationalist hermeneutic to be one incredibly damaging. Consider how many people are said to be “prophecy experts” today and yet when they speak about Middle Eastern events, they always turn out to be wrong. How many people have come and gone that were “The Antichrist”? Yet at the same time, these same people will go after the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and rightfully so, and use as one of their arguments that their prophecies are always wrong. Of course, I believe all prophecies of Scripture are true, but I don’t agree all interpretations are true. Because of this idea being put in there, which I find completely pointless to the overall scheme of defending the doctrine of Hell, I found myself unable to appreciate much thinking that I did not really trust Watts’s hermeneutic and wondered that if these passages were being misapplied, how many others were?

In fact, some statements he put up of Bell’s along these lines I found myself agreeing with. He claims that Bell thinks any view that claims objectivity is warped and toxic, with this quote especially. “The assumption is that there is a way to read the Bible that is agenda- and perspective- free…. When you hear people say that they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true, they are telling you what they think it means.”

Now the only part I disagree with is that they could be telling you what the Bible means. Some interpretations are right after all! Yet if Bell’s point is that we all come to the text with prior agendas and perspectives, he is absolutely right! I as a Preterist am tempted to read passages that way and interpret them according to that prior framework. The same for a dispensationalist. It also applies for a Calvinist or an Arminian and for a Young-Earth Creationist and an Old-Earth Creationist. We will never learn from Scripture if we come to it always presupposing our interpretation is correct. One part of good objective Bible Study is to try to see past your own culture. (That includes seeing past your idea of what the plain and normal sense is.)

Another passage he gives where I agree with Bell is when he says that Bell writes that “To think that I can just read the Bible without reading any of my own culture or background or issues into it and come out with a ‘pure’ or ‘exact’ meaning is not only untrue, but it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy.”

I agree with this. The Bible was written in a high-context society. When Paul writes his epistles, there is already an oral tradition going around that did not need to be repeated. The Bible is written assuming you understand much of the culture, language, figures of speech, geography, etc. Consider the book of Revelation. Revelation rarely rarely quotes an OT Scripture, but it has been said that about 2/3 of the book is alluding to various OT passages and if you do not understand the genre of apocalyptic literature, you will horribly misinterpret Revelation, especially if you go by what the “plain sense” of it is.

This doesn’t mean that objectivity is not possible. It means that if we want to be objective, we must work at it. We must seek to understand the culture of the Bible even better. (Something most critics also fail to do.) When I learn about the world Jesus lived in even more, I will better understand the NT.

I find this in contrast to Watt’s view where he writes about Sola Scriptura on pages 20-21. I hold to this view if it’s properly understood. If by Sola Scriptura, you mean the Bible is the final authority, which Watts does say, and that nothing that we hold in Christianity to be true can contradict it, no problem. If you mean though that the Bible is sufficient in itself for understanding, I disagree. Reading the Bible in a cultural vacuum will get messages out of it that the authors never intended.

Fourth, I found that it seemed to me like Watts was often saying “It just is” in response to a question of “How is it right for God to send people to Hell?” On page 137 we read “God has spoken on the matter of hell, and despite our inability to reconcile it with what we might call ‘love’ does not matter.”

Well actually, I think it does matter a great deal. This kind of reply I think is just a silencer saying “Even if we can’t reconcile it, He’s God and He’s love and He can do what He wants.” I happen to think the charge is real and one that is worth answering. I wrote in the side of the book at this point “How does love win?” Does love win just because we say it does and wins by definition then? Why can’t Bell say the same thing? He’s right by definition. He can say “Love does not do this. Therefore, love wins.”

I wonder what kind of view Watts has. For instance, he says on page 123 that more will be lost than saved. This is based on Matthew 7. Yet what about Revelation 7? Revelation presents us with a great multitude no man can number. I consider Matthew 7 to be based on an immediately reply to Jesus’s ministry and not to the long term. Note that even in the next chapter Jesus talked about many coming from all directions to the feast of God. With Watts having a multitude going to Hell, I found myself wondering “How does love win?” Add in that this is especially so that this is because of the “divine decree.” Does that mean for Watts, God has decreed that more would be lost than saved. Why?

I also found myself unsure about Watts’s stance on those who’ve never heard. My position is simply that the judge of all the Earth will do right. Watts rightly emphasized the importance of preaching and pointed to Romans 10 with “How can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Yet a verse Paul quotes there is this one:

“Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”

This is from Psalm 19. What is the voice in that passage? That voice is the voice of general revelation. I find pointing to a passage like Acts 4:12 to be problematic. No one can be saved apart from the authority of Jesus Christ, which is what is meant by the name. Does that mean they have to know the name entirely? I’m honestly not sure. I keep these facts in mind.

The Bible tells us we are to do the Great Commission. There is no justification for not doing it so we can’t use the idea that God can get a message out another way as an excuse.

The Bible also says that the judge of all the Earth will do right.

What about those who’ve never heard? Get them the gospel as soon as you can, but at the same time, realize that if there was no way we could have done it, He has His own ways. (This has been seen in dreams and revelations in other places.) In the end, no one on the last day will be able to say to God “It was not fair.” I conclude ultimately God will rightly judge based on the light each person had.

A final concern is that I would have liked to have seen more scholarly interaction. For instance, some references in the book were based on class notes. Surely one could have gone out and found an academic book with the same idea that would present the case just as well? Watts says he studied under Gary Habermas on the historicity of the the resurrection at Southern Evangelical Seminary. If that’s the case, why not read some of Habermas’s material on this and use it, such as in “Beyond Death”? There are other great books on this such as “Hell Under Fire”. Why were not any of these kinds of works consulted to get a more evangelical position on Hell? (For instance, I got the impression on page 135 that Watts believes Hell is really a place of actual fire) I would have much more appreciated seeing scholarly interaction to critique Rob Bell.

In the end, I do appreciate Watts’s desire to deal with what Bell has said, but I think that the ways that I’ve given would be important steps to consider in making the ideas more marketable for people who are in agreement with Bell.

In Christ,
Nick Peters