Megan Rapinoe Demonstrates God

Does evil disprove God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So apparently there’s this girl named Megan Rapinoe and she apparently plays some kind of sport or something and thinks we should care. She made the headlines on NotTheBee yesterday for a knock-down argument against the existing of God. Obviously, Aquinas and Augustine are being kicked to the curb here as we now have proof positive there is no God. So what is this argument? Let’s take a look.

Now if you can’t see that, her great argument is because she had a non-contact injury in a game where I suppose she tripped or something and had to leave her last game early, there is no God.

I mean, yeah, I went through a divorce where I lost the love of my life and plenty of people have lost children to diseases and horrible accidents and people are starving in Africa and other countries and we could go on and on.

But now, now we have it settled.

Rapinoe hurts herself and can’t finish her last game so yep, atheism is true.

Already, there has been some humor done in light of this. The Free Beacon had a funny tongue-in-cheek op-ed piece written. Nice to know the Almighty has His say in this. Still, I’d like to instead take a serious look at this as I think it demonstrates a flaw in an atheistic argument.

I think even the staunchest atheist is likely to look at what Rapinoe has said and think “Yeah. That doesn’t work.” There is no doubt for me that she is just a narcissistic whiner. I’m not denying that it would be painful to have happen what she has and it would suck to not get to play in your last game like that, but she has had a successful career already. Many people would be thankful.

Some could say that in some ways, this could read like a parody argument. You take something like this and say in light of all the suffering in the world, this is the dealbreaker. God doesn’t exist.

Okay. So we can all see that saying that you had this injury in your own personal life and therefore God doesn’t exist, is ridiculous. You should really take a look at the evidence pro and con a lot more. We can frame it this way.

If a good God existed, He would not allow Megan Rapinoe to get a non-contact injury in her last soccer game.
Megan Rapinoe got a non-contact injury.
Therefore, God does not exist.

If this is weak, and it is, we have to ask, when does it become strong? What is the point? If Rapinoe suffers more and more in her everyday life such that she becomes a Charlie Brown type character, does it ever get us a good argument? Do we ever get to the point in her individual life that we say, “Okay. God doesn’t exist.”?

If we don’t, then does that every happen on a collective scale? If two people suffer greatly, does that mean God doesn’t exist? Ten? 6,000? 5 million? 2 billion? Is there a number along the way?

This is my problem with the problem of evil. It is way too subjective. The person has to decide at some arbitrary point along the line that yes, this evil is too much and now God doesn’t exist.

Compare that to the Thomistic arguments that I use. These are not based on subjective criteria. These are based on philosophical data and the argument is deductive, not inductive. If the premises are true and there is no flaw in the form, the conclusion is certain.

And if one of these arguments works, the problem of evil automatically doesn’t. You can’t have it that this argument is flawless and proves that God exists and this argument is flawless and proves that God doesn’t exist. One is wrong.

And if one is wrong, I think I will reject the one that is not subjective.

Meanwhile, let’s hope Megan’s self-obsession ends soon. In the past, athletes were supposed to be role models for others. Frankly, we need a lot less people like her.

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

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

What’s going on with this punishment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

An atheist in a Facebook group I’m a part of shared this passage from Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Well, that seems a bit excessive doesn’t it? Isn’t this a woman just trying to defend her husband? Why would you give such a strong punishment for that? I was also told that defending this is like defending acid being thrown in womens’ faces in Muslim countries.

The good thing about being an internet atheist is when you’re in a discussion, you don’t have to actually interact. You can just have righteous indignation. If you find it offensive, well that’s enough. You don’t need to bother to understand another culture.

However, when we want to study a culture, we need to try to see what was going on and why that law was made.

Let’s start with something first off that’s not in the text explicitly, but is part of the cultural context. The ancient laws were didactic. That means that they were not hard and fast rules but general guidelines. A judge would take into consideration all facets and hopefully, make a wise judgment. If this were not the case, why would they even need judges?

Second, this is not really about defending her husband. A swift kick would be a lot better. This woman is wanting to do a lot more than that. She’s wanting to do long-term permanent damage not just to him, but to his future. He’s destroying his ability to reproduce and thus cutting off his entire family line possibly.

Besides this, generally, if you were wanting to repel someone, bending down and grabbing a man by his testicles is not the best route. You are putting yourself in a vulnerable position after all if you miss. and possibly making it be that you are a barrier to your husband’s attempts to engage with the interlocutor.

Also, something we have to remember about stiff penalties, is that they were meant to be a deterrent to crime. In many cases, they’re successful. Remember a few years ago when that kid went to Singapore and vandalized a car and got caned multiple times as a result? I understand he assaulted his father when he got back to America. I guarantee you he won’t try anything if he returns to Singapore one day.

So what about acid throwing? Well, from my reading into Muslim cultures, and I tried to find pro-Muslim material, it really looks like many times, a woman could get acid thrown in her face for anything, be it going to school or even refusing sex with her husband. These are hardly parallels.

Let’s also remember the Law was never meant to give us a key to a perfect society. It was meant to help curtail a wicked society at the time. It was a schoolmaster until the better law of Christ came along.

You can be offended at this passage. You cannot like it. Neither one counts as an argument though.

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

Producing Christian Media

Can we make good material? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently started going through one of the Assassin’s Creed games because I have heard there is a lot of religious symbolism in there, and indeed there is. I was told to start with the Ezio Collection. Turns out it looks like the game is the second one, but that’s okay. I’m still getting what’s going on.

To explain what is making this appealing, it is set in 1474-1499. When you come across a character, you are allowed to push a button and get a brief synopsis about them and their life. Some of these are people I have never heard of, but I am learning that historians have been studying them.

I also understand the layouts of the towns are made to be remarkably just like the towns that they are in. I was looking up some information on that just now and what do I see but places like Ireland are using Assassin’s Creed to attract tourists. Gamers are wanting to go and see these places that they have played games in so much. Yes. We don’t just want to sit on a couch playing games. We want to do things.

Of course, in this game, there’s some physical activity. You encounter townspeople that want to kill you and you get involved in fisticuffs. Your character is incredibly athletic and can run and jump across roofs and climb buildings practically like Spider-Man. That’s cool, but really, for a game, it’s not really the main draw.

What is fascinating is realizing I’m actually getting to interact with historical figures. I’m playing last night and come across Leonardo Da Vinci and I’m thinking, “Wow. I’m going on a mission for Da Vinci.” Not only that, I read in the game that he was born out of wedlock and he was a horrible procrastinator. I look it up online after and lo and behold, that’s right. That is fascinating and that knowledge is very unlikely to leave me any time soon.

That left me wondering, “What if we could do the same thing for the Bible?” Imagine playing a game where you get to be a soldier in the time of David and Saul. Imagine being a peasant in Judah at the time of Jesus. Imagine being a traveler in the Roman Empire at the time of Paul. There are so many scenarios you could do.

Now I have been told there is a company that is working on making Christian video games. I hope it’s an enjoyable one because I have seen non-Christians on videos about Christians video games saying they would play a Christian game if it met one standard. It’s a really simple one.

The game needs to be fun.

Too often when we make media, we make media that we enjoy and don’t consider if anyone else will. Who goes to see many secular movies, hear secular songs, watch secular shows, and play secular games? Christians and non-Christians. Who goes to see Christian movies, hear Christian songs, watch Christian shows, and play Christian games? Christians. Do you know a non-Christian who has a subscription to Pureflix? I’m not saying Christians can’t make things for Christians, but we also need to make materials that non-Christians will want to interact with that can get them interested in Christianity.

If people are playing an Assassin’s Creed game and wanting to visit Ireland as a result, what if they play a similar game and want to study the Bible as a result? What if they get introduced to historical aspects that they never would have known of? The account doesn’t just become words on a page, but something they see and interact with and they get to see what the world of the Bible is like.

Not only this, but I think this is one of the best ways we learn. We learn by doing, and that includes playing. One benefit I have had in apologetics is I have been on the internet and debating these issues so much so where you have to know them immediately and be ready to share them. We could see a parallel in the Karate Kid with behaviors like painting the fence. Daniel didn’t realize he was learning the motions of karate the whole time.

We live in an age of multimedia and we need to use it. Now I do not know enough about programming to do such. I am still looking for a YouTube expert to help me with my videos! I would be glad to provide historical and theological information for a game though as I’m sure many others would.

I look forward to a day when the best material out there is not made by secularists, but made by Christians. Make it real.

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

 

Book Plunge: Pilgrim in the Microworld

What do I think of David Sudnow’s book from Boss Fight Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This could be the first game ever published about what it’s like playing a video game. In this case, the game is called Breakout.

At this, some younger gamers and readers could be thinking “I haven’t heard of that one. Is that about having to rescue someone trapped in an enemy prison and going behind enemy lines to break them out?”

Well, not exactly.

“Okay. So is it a fighting game where you fight one-on-one with an opponent like Street Fighter and have to break out your best moves?”

No. Not really.

Okay. So what is this game I’ve never heard of?

It’s this:

Yep. That’s Breakout.

Seriously? A guy wrote a book on this?

Yes. Yes, he did.

Sudnow’s experience starts at this place in ancient history known as an arcade. There was a time even when people had home consoles when people would meet at arcades and put quarters or tokens that cost a quarter apiece into a machine and used it to play a game. Many people would come and watch and take turns playing these games. Sometimes, people could play games alongside each other or against each other. You could sit inside models of cars for racing games or hold a gun for a shooting game.

Yours truly actually worked at one of these places once.

So Sudnow sees his son playing a game called Missile Command. He finds himself intrigued by the simplicity of it all and yet also by the dedication his son has to this. He thinks that normally we think of war as something awful, and we should, but Missile Command has a rather simple thesis to it that is much more innocent. You have a number of towns and you have to intercept missiles that are being fired at them to preserve those towns.

Sudnow gets this ancient machine that is even pre-Nintendo, (Which is even pre-such systems as the 64 or the Wii) called an Atari. He is told there is another game fans of Missile Command might like called Breakout. Sudnow starts playing this game and while his forte is playing the piano, before long, he finds himself intrigued by this game.

Sudnow wants to beat this game and studies it intensely. At what angle does the ball shoot out? How fast does it go? What changes from shot to shot? He looks at his TV from different angles and puts tape on the bottom in an effort to measure where the paddle goes to hit the ball. I hope Atari was near where he lived at the time because he even goes to Atari to ask them questions about how to play the game well. (Keep in mind kinds, we didn’t have the internet back then and even growing up, many of us had to read Nintendo Power or actually on some rare days, call the hotline for help and sometimes, we could even do this really archaic practice called writing a letter and putting it in the mail and waiting for a response.)

What this shows really is from the beginning, people have an amazing dedication to games. Think it’s just video games. Think again. Exhibit A? Sports. Even if we go back to Greek and Roman times, the Olympic games were a major deal. Cities could even get tax-exemptions for victorious contenders in the games. Today, we have multiple channels dedicated to games on cable as well as I’m sure many streaming services. How much is spent on sporting events every year and how much do we pay athletes for what they do?

Games matter.

Games seem to pull out in people a drive to succeed like nothing else does. Have people game and they want to be the best that they can. People invest so much work in something that often times won’t even benefit them financially.

We as Christians I fear have been too quick to condemn such. This is part of our reality. This is part of who we are as people. Why? What can we learn about ourselves from this? Can we take this drive and use it for the kingdom?

While the reading is fascinating, there is something absent. We don’t really see much of David’s social interactions while he is gaming. Where was his wife? Where was his son? I would have liked to have read about that. Did Paul think it was cool having a Dad who played video games? Did his friends think the same? Was his wife getting annoyed at her husband so intently studying Breakout and just saying “Could you instead clean the dishes sometime?!”

This is reading I did for my planned PhD research and the best walkaway I get from it is a reminder that this is something that really taps into who we are as people. We are a playing people. We don’t just play out of instinct. We purposely play.

Now it’s up to us to figure out why that is.

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

Who is the Good Samaritan?

Who is the neighbor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This morning, I was working through a Gospel Notebook I have to do for a New Testament class where I am pretty much commenting on Scripture. I got to the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is something I have thought about for awhile, but I decided now was a good time to write about it.

Today, we have in some ways lost the impact of the Good Samaritan. The term “Good Samaritan” is actually a compliment to hear. I never cared for the show, but I understand the last episode of Seinfeld was about the breaking of a Good Samaritan Law that said you were supposed to help someone who was in need if you were capable.

If we want to really picture how different it is, what are some ways we could do so?

Here are some I have come up with and I will try to go from position to position.

An evangelical Christian was left for dead and a pastor and a seminary professor passed him by, but an atheist came by and had compassion on him.

A leftist was left for dead and a Marxist professor and a Democrat politician passed him by, but a MAGA supporter came by and had compassion on him.

An Israeli was left for dead and a rabbi and an evangelical Christian passed him by, but a member of Hamas came by and had compassion on him.

A conservative pro-life Christian was left for dead and a conservative politician and a pro-life activist passed him by, but a transgender person came by and had compassion on him.

In every case, we need to think for ourselves about what if we were the person who was beaten and left for dead. Think then about who it is you would expect to stop and help you, and yet they will pass you by. Then think about who you would consider to be your mortal enemy and then realize that if that person came by and had compassion on you, what would you do?

This is also why I included the Israeli and the Hamas member. If it was told today, one would think that the Hamas member would pull out his gun and finish the job. Nope. Instead, he ends up having compassion. You could expect that a fellow Jew could have compassion or an evangelical Christian, especially a dispensational one who talks about the love of Israel, would help him.

It’s a difficult question to think about since you have to really look at yourself and say “Who is it that I would find myself the most opposed to?” Then you have to ask yourself, “Who is it I would find myself most aligned to?” If you can look and realize that that person had compassion on you,

If we do this, we can return to the shock of the parable. We can realize who we disagree with the most and what we can do in how we treat them. It is not saying we should cease to disagree with them, but you can disagree with someone and love them, something our culture seems to forget. It also means that we need to be a neighbor to that person. It doesn’t mean we do everything they want, but it does mean we try to show love the best we can.

Who is your Good Samaritan?

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

 

The Leaked Manifesto

What can we learn about the March shooting? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of us were quite surprised today to hear that some of the manifesto from the Covenant shooting has been leaked. It’s my understanding that this is not the whole, but what has been leaked has been verified. It’s been told that some of this is being taken out of context, though it’s honestly hard to think of what kind of context would make the sayings, especially about hoping to kill a lot of kids, be understandable.

So what are some take aways?

Well, one of the first that stands out to me is the girl saying that she was surprised she had not been caught, and indicated that she could have been in the summer of 2021? What was going on then? What was the FBI doing? It was a few months later that parents were being targeted at school board meetings by the FBI. Was that in the preliminary stages then?

There’s a reason a lot of people have lost trust in the FBI.

What of the police force? We seem to hear this many times. We heard it after the Parkland shooter. There were plenty of warning signs about the guy who did it, and yet despite numerous red flags, nothing was done. Then after the fact, we start talking about gun control, as if we need new laws when we are not enforcing the laws that we have.

Also, just so everyone knows, I am not naming the shooters in any of these. That is fully intentional.

Second, the shooter at Covenant made a check to make sure there was security. What if there had been? We don’t know, but is it possible that these children could have been saved with security? What we have to ask is if our children are worth it. I am quite certain that a group of people you could go to see if they would like to have security jobs at schools are our veterans. I strongly suspect they would love to have the job of protecting our children.

Now let’s also get into some moral categories. We have often been told about creating a dangerous political environment, but yet let’s compare this shooter to the one who shot up the Congressional baseball game. Both of them were told certain things about their opponents on the other side. Both of them then responded. We could also include the man who tried to attack the Family Research Council.

I also want to be clear on this point. I am not saying the people who speak in this sort of way are responsible. If you want to know who is responsible, it is the people who do the activities. I don’t hold Bernie Sanders responsible for what happened at the baseball game.

That being said, if you go around saying all white people are racist and about white privilege and everything else, don’t be surprised if some people believe you. If you want to say you are opposed to racism, you have to be opposed to all racism. If you are not, then you are really just practicing a reverse form of racism.

Also, as someone on the spectrum, sometimes, what we hear about is mental illness in all of these things. If someone was willing to do that kind of evil, then they must be mentally ill. They could be, but I don’t think it’s best to say mental illness every time. If we do, we miss one key point.

People are evil.

If it weren’t for the grace of God, any of us could do that kind of evil. The reason you haven’t is not because you’re just that incredibly good. It’s because you’ve submitted to some degree to reality be it the moral order you believe exists in the universe somehow or from a Christian perspective, God.

It’s easy to look back today and say, “If we had lived back then, we would not have participated in slavery.” The reality is, a lot of people living today would. That includes the people who say they wouldn’t. Many of us can look back on our own lives and say “I can’t believe I did XYZ” back then. Yes. You did. I did. We all have done things. Hindsight is 20/20 and instead of saying “I wouldn’t have done that!” we need to ask “What can I do to make sure I’m not the kind of person who does that?”

I remember years ago a friend told me something that has stuck with me. We often say that if we were the only one, Jesus would have died for us. He told me also that if we were the only one, we would have killed Him.

It’s easy to look back and say “I wouldn’t be like the Pharisees!” However, as soon as we say that, aren’t we being just like the Pharisees? Aren’t we considering ourselves morally superior? We would love to look back and think we are the heroes in the story of the Gospels. Maybe, just maybe, we could have actually been the villains.

There is a duty to be aware of evil from the other side, but never overlook what could be evil in your own side, more importantly, even in your own heart. People do evil sometimes because of mental illness, yes, but sometimes people do evil because people are just evil. It is a myth to think that if we could just get chemical imbalances all worked out, people would live pristine and pure lives.

That requires the grace of God and 100% sanctification which we will not reach in this life.

What we have of the manifesto should remind us that evil is real and we need to combat it. However, the main place we all need to combat it is ourselves. There but for the grace of God go I.

If you need that grace, it’s always available.

And of course, pray for the families of the victims. While this could be a step of closure for them, it’s also certainly a painful day.

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

Book Plunge: The Greatest Stories Ever Played

What do I think of Dustin Hansen’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

People love stories. Whatever the medium is, you will find a story behind it. I suspect a lot of cave drawings are rudimentary tellings of stories. Whether we are reading Genesis or Gilgamesh from the ancient world, whatever you think of these accounts, they are at least stories. Now in the case of Genesis, I naturally think it’s true, but we can all agree that it is still telling a story.

Then the Greeks come along with their plays and lo and behold, stories. While my philosophy is Aristotlean-Thomistic, I have to say the way Plato taught his philosophy, wrong though it be, is more entertaining. They were dialogues, aka, stories.

We move to more modern times and what do we see but films and television and lo and behold, we tell stories. Comic books give a new form of writing that tells stories. This time, you had pictures and words both and the page would turn at opportune times so that you couldn’t just easily look and see what would happen next.

Now we have video games and we have radically changed stories. We’re not just passive in stories. We are active in them. Pick up the Lord of the Rings and if you read it all the way to the end, Sauron is going to be defeated and the ring will be destroyed in Mt. Doom every time. If you play a game based on that, it might not happen. You might die along the way.

Having you make the choices also gets you caught up in the lives of your characters. Hansen writes about how he played Red Dead Redemption for instance, and ended up talking like a cowboy. Many people today can tell you where they were when they heard about the JFK assassination, Challenger exploding, or 9-11. While certainly not on the same level, many a gamer can tell you about their first memory of Sephiroth killing Aerith.

Hansen goes through a number of games, with spoiler warning of course, and tells about the stories and how the stories work. Some of them are really in-depth looks at the games. Some of them are short snippets known as book reports. Issues are discussed related to morality and how you make decisions in games. You’ll find classics covered here like Final Fantasy VII, Chronotrigger, Bioshock, and Psychonauts. Sometimes, I was tempted to look up games on the Switch Eshop library and see about getting them. I gave in and some are now on my wish list, and I will get notifications if the prices drop.

Gaming is the most interactive medium I suspect for telling stories. In it, players have the option to make real choices and can step aside from the story, if they do so desire, and go on side quests in a number of games. They can return to the story and do things they never had before and find new aspects. As I write this, we are awaiting the remake of Super Mario RPG which came out around 25 years ago and yet even still people are finding new things about the game. Now they’ll get to start all anew with that.

If you’re someone who enjoys stories, you should read this book to see how stories work in a new medium. If you’re someone who enjoys video games, you should read this book to learn to better experience games as stories. If you’re someone who enjoys both, you will be very happy indeed.

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

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus. Paul vs. Judaism

Did the beliefs of Paul go against Judaism’s central beliefs? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it’s hard to come back to this book because while these claims need to be answered, it can get tiresome to see the same kinds of things show up. Granted, Campbell is not as much a fundamentalist as many others are, he still is one in his approach. Nevertheless, let’s leap back into the matter. This time, we’ll see if Paul went against core beliefs of Judaism.

Obviously, the Christians would disagree with some beliefs of Judaism of their day, such as the role of the Law and if the Messiah had come, but there would be a lot of overlap. Christians use the same Old Testament that Jews see as their Scriptures today. Despite what many non-Christians would tell you, Christianity, which includes belief in the Trinity, is monotheistic. We do believe a good God created all things as well.

Campbell tells us that the Tanakh says repeatedly that God will not take human form. He gives four references. Let’s look at them. The first is Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
    Does he promise and not fulfill?

Next is Exodus 33:20

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Followed by 1 Samuel 15:29:

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

And last is 1 Kings 8:27

“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

Now maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see anywhere in those God saying “I will never dwell in human form among you.” It’s apparent that Campbell didn’t bother looking up any Christian scholarship on this. I don’t say that because Christian scholarship is unbiased, but if you’re going to say the Christian position can’t handle these verses, you need to at least look and see what they say about it.

With the Numbers reference:

God is different and separate from mankind, transcendent beyond the realm of humanity with all of its tendencies toward falsehood, deceit, misfortune, and calamity. Therefore he has no need to repent of any moral or ethical turpitude or misdeed. God is immutable, and his word bespeaks his incomparable integrity. On the other hand, Balaam and Balak were the antithesis of God, men of banal character. Concerning this pagan prophet Allen remarks, “He is himself the prime example of the distinction between God and man.” Balaam’s words were ineffective before God, for as the prophet often explained, “I can speak only what Yahweh speaks to me!” On the other hand, God’s word is entirely efficacious; what he says he will do, what he speaks he will accomplish.” His word is never uttered into the void and never fails to produce what he intends (Isa 55:11).
The word for God used here for the first of three times in this oracle is ʾēl, which derives from the basic word for deity in Semitic languages. Most often in the Hebrew Bible the term occurs in the plural form Elohim, denoting the power or majesty of the One True God (though occasionally of the multiple gods of the nations), or ʾēlîm, the plural form often used in reference to the plethora of gods and goddesses of the nations. The short form ʾēl often occurs in epithets that highlight some aspect of the relationship between God and his people, such as ʾēl-šadday (“God Almighty,” Gen 17:1), ʾēl-ʾĕmet (“God of Truth,” Ps 31:6). The present form ʾēl occurs by itself most often in the poetic materials of the wisdom, hymnic, and prophetic literature such as the Books of Job, Psalms, and Isaiah.

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (vol. 3B; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 411.

The point in Numbers is about the behavior of God. Men lie and cheat and change their minds. God does not do that. His behavior is not like that of a man. It does not mean that God cannot take on the nature of a man. Man is not essentially a fallen creature. Man is fallen by virtue of Adam’s fall.

For Exodus:

God will only partially fulfill Moses’ request; he will let his goodness pass before him (v. 19) for no man can see God’s face and live. God further says that when his goodness passes before Moses, the name Yahweh will be proclaimed as part of the theophany. The proclamation of the divine name might hint that something of God’s eternal qualities are revealed to Moses. But even in this manifestation Moses has to be protected (vv. 21–22). God’s glory is to be more fully revealed in Jesus Christ: “we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father” (John 1:14).

James K. Hoffmeier, “Exodus,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (vol. 3; Baker reference library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 361.

God’s glory always comes veiled. There are theophanies in the Old Testament as well where people are said to see God. In the incarnation, there was a veil as well. 1 Samuel 15:29 is much akin to Numbers 23 so there’s no need to expand there further. The difference that is worthwhile is that this is a judgment God has made and God is not going to change His mind in it.

And for 1 Kings:

A crucial theological issue emerges before Solomon begins his specific petitions. If God is unique “in heaven above or on earth below” (8:23), and if “even the highest heaven cannot contain” the Lord, then Solomon correctly exclaims, “How much less this temple I have built!” Though Moses was a man “whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10), he was not allowed to see all God’s glory (Exod 33:7–23). God’s magnitude would simply overwhelm a human’s capacity to grasp it. Tokens of the Lord’s presence, such as clouds and pillars of fire (Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:10–11), appear, of course, and people cannot stay near them. On what basis, then, can Solomon hope that God will dwell on earth, in this temple? How will the Lord “live among the Israelites and … not abandon” (1 Kgs 6:13) them?
Solomon’s confidence in God’s willingness to condescend to human level must ultimately emerge from four principles. First, he knows God has revealed himself in the past, particularly in the lives of Moses, Joshua, and David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:21–26). Thus, Solomon does not pray for a brand new occurrence. Second, the king understands that the covenant described in written Scripture, in the Pentateuch, teaches that God desires a relationship with Israel as a nation and with individual Israelites (cf. Deut 7:7–9; 1 Kgs 8:23). He can approach God in prayer because he is the Lord’s “servant” and because Israel is the Lord’s people (8:30). Such assurance comes from the covenant itself.
Third, Solomon can expect God to fulfill the promise made in Deut 12:4–11 to “put his Name” (Deut 12:5) in a central worship site. Fourth, he can hope for God’s presence because of what he knows about God’s character. Since God is loving (1 Kgs 8:23), faithful (8:24), consistent (8:25), and relational (8:30), it is reasonable to assume that he will continue to meet human beings where they live. God is lofty, holy, and mysterious, yet approachable and personal at the same time. The temple will serve as the physical symbol of these divine realities. Here the unapproachable Lord becomes approachable and ready to help those who worship, sacrifice, and pray.

Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 143–144.

The point here is Solomon knows God will dwell with man, but he can’t believe it will happen. How can it be? This God who cannot be contained by the heavens will dwell with men? Solomon’s mind would be blown by the revelation in Christ.

Let’s give one final quote from Campbell.

Paul considers his authority from the visionary Christ so great that Paul can even contradict Moses. In Romans, Paul states that Moses was wrong when writing “the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by that righteousness.” Rom. 10:5-13. The passages Paul references, Lev. 18:1-5 and Deut. 6:24-25, clearly state that if a man keeps God’s laws he shall be righteous. But Paul vehemently disagreed. Paul even claimed the teaching of Moses brought death by leading people away from “the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:7-18. Because Moses is, according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy , speaking on God’s behalf, Paul is saying that God was wrong too, and that Paul’s authority is greater than that of God. Not surprisingly, Paul’s message was poorly received by the Jews of his day.

Let’s just say this. If you are interpreting this passage and you think you have interpreted it right so that Paul is not only saying Moses was wrong, but God is wrong, you need to recheck your interpretation.

We shall continue next time.

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

 

Thoughts On Reformation Day

Is Reformation Day a day to celebrate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it seems odd to me to celebrate Reformation Day. Don’t get me wrong on this. I’m happy to be a Protestant Christian. I do have points I disagree with with both the Catholic and the Orthodox branches. At the same time, I see them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. My ex-wife used to attend an Orthodox Church and I’m sure if I went back to Georgia and visited them, they would recognize me and welcome me with open arms. I was always a friendly face at the Bible studies and other things that would take place.

On the other side, I have several Catholic friends I more regularly get to interact with because we have a Zoom meeting every Thursday night. It’s a group to discuss especially Thomas Aquinas. I’m one of the token Protestants in the group who does know Aquinas well and my running joke is I am there to make sure everyone gets their doctrine and their Bible correct, especially when I answer a question many seem stumped on or have to explain a point of Thomism. Last Thursday, I even commented on Luke 1:35 and how I would exegete it, certainly not a contentious verse between us.

I am a member of a debate group on Facebook for all three branches, but when I see something, rarely do I say how one group is wrong in their doctrine. I have no interest in that. Instead, I comment when one group is I think misrepresenting another group. I would hope that over the years, people would know I want to make sure any position is represented accurately and that even my Catholic and Orthodox friends who disagree with me will say I am still fair with them and don’t have a chip on my shoulder against them.

Now I do appreciate that the Reformation took place. At the same time, it’s a sad state of human affairs that we couldn’t have everything worked out. As is the case in most any human affair, I suspect there were bad moves played on both sides. I’m not about to claim Martin Luther is the holiest man who ever lived, nor am I to say he’s a total villain.

I also am sure everyone can agree there were problems in the Catholic Church at the time. Even if one doesn’t agree with all that happened, it can be said that Luther did raise up some valid concerns that needed to be addressed. If he hadn’t, then why was there ever a Counter-Reformation?

I do think there was good that came out as we had a renewed look at exploring the traditions that the Catholic Church held to to see which were likely to be true and which were not. Naturally, there are some I disagree with or else I would be Catholic today. There was a renewed interest in Bible study and a push to let everyone have access to the Bible.

These are good, though I won’t deny there are some downsides, like again any human endeavor, as when great minds who have great respect for the Bible and its culture read it, we get some great insights. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who are convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them stuff that’s absolutely nonsense and no need to study. Consider it like the internet. Put great information in the hands of the populace and a lot of people will misuse it.

One of the greatest areas of sadness with this to me is the Lord’s Supper. (Which the way we do it is hardly a supper anyway and I think the majority of churches just giving out a piece of bread or a cracker and a drink of wine or juice are doing it wrong anyway then) This was meant to be a time of unity where we were all to gather together and celebrate. Instead, it’s now a reminder of disunity. I am remembering going up in the Orthodox Church and I could get a blessing from Father B who led it, but he could never give me a piece of the bread. (Although I did come up afterwards when extra were handed out and it was okay.) I wonder if there were times he wanted to give me some of the bread as well anyway.

I celebrate many of the doctrines that came out of the Reformation, but I don’t celebrate the disunity. I look forward to celebrating at the throne one day with all my Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I suspect we won’t spend eternity going on and on about who was right. (Some of you better hope not because you know me and if it’s me, I will never let it go!)

So yes, I did celebrate in some sense, but I will celebrate even more when we can all worship together.

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

 

 

Our Need For Stories

What in us drives us to create stories? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have my own section at TheologyWeb.com and I invite you to check it out. A few days ago, I made a post about the problem of good vampires. What I am finding amazing about this is that there is a real discussion going on. Sometimes, it’s incredible to see what people comment on.

Just now I was watching The Big Bang Theory with one character asking about zombies. What happens if they don’t get human flesh to eat? They can’t starve to death because they’re already dead. I’m also going through Smallville again. This is my favorite series and started with two guys saying “Let’s tell an origins story of Superman.”

Comic books are well-known for creating massive universes as well and how many times have we had movies about the origin of Batman? These stories have so many installments to them that fans debate amongst themselves for each franchise what is and isn’t canon. You can have contradictory things happen in the stories so much so that DC created the Multiverse which led to several of its own problems.

In the gaming world, I am listening to the audiobook The Greatest Stories Every Played. Talk to some of my fellow gamers and what do we remember about a lot of our favorite games? The story behind them. Would that I could have my memory wiped and go through Final Fantasy IV again for the first time.

Why do we do this? Why do we debate about things that we all know don’t exist? People debating the Legend of Zelda franchise or Marvel comics or vampires aren’t doing so because they believe these exist. Despite that, they debate them and the debates can get awfully heated. Philosophy papers can easily be written on these topics. Indeed, if you want to see some of this, just go to Amazon and type in Pop Culture and Philosophy and see all the books that come up.

As far as I am aware, we are the only species that creates stories. Do we really do that for survival? Doubtful. It is possible to survive without stories, though most of us would consider that an impoverished life. You don’t need to read fiction, but many of us spend our time investing in a world of fiction. How many people can tell you every facet of The Lord of the Rings, for instance?

Lord of the Rings also led to popular role-playing games, including Dungeons and Dragons. Why do we play these? Because we like to use our imaginations and tell stories, but not only that, we want to be in on the story ourselves sometimes. We want to think about what we would do if we were in that situation. It’s easy to watch a movie or TV show or read a book and say to the character from the comfort of our homes, “Don’t go there! Don’t open that door! Don’t trust that guy!” Role-playing games can sometimes be the closest we get to making the choice ourselves and in the case of a game like D&D, if we’re playing with friends and not an electronic version, we can’t think of what we did the last time we played the game. Every time is new.

Today, I was telling another student about my research into video games and Christianity and how I think I am going to focus on stories and quests. Most people who are gamers like myself, we enjoy our hobby, but we also want more. We want real-life adventures more. I suspect this is why men watch the movies we do. We want to be the Avengers or we want to be James Bond.

Here’s another reason I suspect we make stories, which have been going on as long as we know of. Deep down, I think we all know that there is more than just this world. We do make some stories to explain reality, like the Just So stories, but we also make stories to tell for a longing that we have that reality is greater than what we see. A materialistic world is boring. We want a world of life.

I wonder if this could be behind the end-times hysteria many people have. Could it be we so much want to be a part of a greater story that we are convinced we are living in the last generation, even though numerous generations before us said that? Surely we must play a part in this? Could it also be why the belief is so prevalent that God speaks to us individually regularly? Surely I must play a part in all of this! Surely God has something for me and I need to find out what it is.

We can say social media contributes to this by making so many of us narcissists, but social media doesn’t create the idea. It just gives it a place to shine more prevalently. Social media too often just reveals who we really already are. Why do many of us do and say things that we wouldn’t do in person? Because on social media, it’s easy to put on a mask.

Everyone already has a story. I have said before that I think you could make a major motion picture of anyone’s life, and if you have a good director and cast, it would be a major hit. It’s incredible to think how much we are spending every year making games and movies and TV shows all because people love stories!

So I will be watching the debate on vampires and the discussion back and forth and enjoying it. I will continue playing some great new stories waiting to see what happens. However, I hope to continue living out my story and remembering that the story is not about me. It’s really His story. I just play a small part in His story, but I hope it’s a contribution that will make it better.

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