Deeper Waters Podcast 10/12/2013 Jeff Harshbarger

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Awhile back, a good evangelical friend of mine recommended that there is one area in apologetics that I do not need to study the other side in. That is in the area of the occult. Why? Because this is a dangerous area and the temptations are great. It is best to not put yourself at risk by studying such things. Instead, leave it to those who have done some study in the occult.

That’s why I am having Jeff Harshbarger of Refuge Ministries come on my show this Saturday to discuss this important topic. Jeff is an ex-satanist who came to Christ decades ago and has written a couple of books on the subject. He has also collected the testimony of several Christians who came out of the occult, including the famous Son of Sam.

Also, Jeff has been a personal friend to Allie and I helping us out in some issues. He is a student working in counseling now and has a heart for people who are still trapped in the occult and wanting to make sure that they get accurate information.

Part of this for Jeff has been outing those in the field who he thinks are “padding their resume” as it were by making up stories about events in the occult that are not accurate. We’ll likely talk about how important it is to get an honest look at the occult and how those of us who are not specialists in this field can learn to examine some claims.

With Halloween being this month, I’m also thankful to have someone like Jeff on who I consider to be very level-headed in this area. I have often made the claim that too often, Christians are seeing demons behind most every bush. Jeff knows about the reality of demons, but he also knows that they are not responsible for everything. I know this especially since he shared an article I wrote on this topic called “Demon-Haunted World.”

What are you to do also when you meet someone in the occult if you yourself have not studied the occult? We’ll talk about that. Generally, my stance has been to try to pass them on to Jeff, but perhaps you might not have a Jeff in your life or it might be a face to face encounter and there’s not someone out there to send them to immediately.

And of course, how should Christians handle the presence of the occult in their own lives? Should we be scared of the possibility of being possessed by a demon? Do we need to fear any powers of those who might be in the occult? Are these powers even real? We’ll talk about all of these!

This is an important topic and I hope that you’ll be listening in to the show to hear what Jeff has to say on the matter. The show time is from 3-5 PM EST. The link can be found here. Call in number with a question is 714-242-5180.

I hope you’ll join us!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Separating Life From Religion

Is there supposed to be a distinction? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote about how I had asked around for a copy of Bill O’Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus.” (Which I never found by the way) My folks had suggested I read it and one of them told me that it wasn’t a religious book. It was supposed to look at Jesus from a historical perspective. This was in reply to my saying O’Reilly just isn’t that good in the area of religion.

My problem with this is you cannot write a book about Jesus that is historical and not have it be religious. Something that scholarship is realizing more and more now, and it’s a wonder that they had to realize it, which shows how far we have had to climb up from the bankruptcy of enlightenment thought on Jesus, is that Jesus was a Jew. You can you don’t think He was God incarnate. You can say you don’t think He was the Messiah. You can say you don’t think He worked miracles. You may not say He was not a Jew.

Jesus lived in the Jewish holy land. He was raised in a Jewish town by a Jewish family. He walked with teachers of the Jewish Scripture and He knew those Scriptures Himself. He lived in a world of Sabbath, dietary laws, and Torah.

If someone wants to write a life of Jesus and have no religion in it, they’re just not going to be able to do it. As I pondered this, there was a much more concerning thought that came to my mind that concerns me greatly about our society today.

Christians today are called to be disciples of Christ and walked as He did. What we have to ask ourselves is that if we had biographies (Of which the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies) of our lives written after we were gone, would the best biographers be able to separate us from our religion?

Christians are often accused of god-of-the-gaps arguments. Sadly, this is sometimes true. If the only purpose of God in your worldview is to fill in gaps in knowledge alone, then you do have a more god-of-the-gaps mentality. This does not mean that nothing is explained by God. On the contrary, it means that everything is.

If you remove God from your worldview and all that changes is your science, then that is all God meant to your worldview. If you remove God from your worldview and your entire life changes, then that means God played a worldview in your entire life. This is what is concerning about people who apostasize from the faith so quickly. One can wonder how much their view meant to them to begin with.

What would be different about your life? Is all that would be different is you’d be sleeping in on Sunday? Would your morality change? Would your whole reason for living change? Would your hobbies change? The degree to which your life would change shows how much God means to you right now.

Sadly, looking at the church today, I’m suspecting God does not mean much to people. He’s someone good to have around when you’re in a jam and provides nice emotional support for people, but to have a strong understanding of how He provides a foundation to one’s worldview and understanding of it is absent. We will not reach that point however without serious study, and this means more than just Bible study, as important as that is. It means learning as much as we can about what we have that passion for and being disciples. This is something I plan to write more on later, but laziness is never a Christian virtue and this includes learning about God.

Today, I would like you to honestly ponder this question sometime today. If that biography was written about your life, how hard would it be for a biographer to separate you from your Christianity?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Why I Read What I Read

Is all reading done out of the same desire? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, I got into a conversation with my family about Bill O’Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus.” Now I’ll be blunt. I wasn’t too impressed with Killing Lincoln. There was some information in there that was historical, but the style of the whole work seemed to be dry. I read it because my mother checked it out from the library and couldn’t get into it so she let me have it for her time. I did read the whole thing, but I just felt I was having to push myself to finish it.

Also, I haven’t been too impressed with Bill O’Reilly lately. On the issue of the marriage debate, he has been notified numerous times that there are more reasons for the traditional position than just “The Bible says so.” As far as I know, he has not corrected that. Also, when he has people come on to debate religion, I just don’t think he’s in his league.

This is not to say Bill O’Reilly is not a Christian or he’s unintelligent. It’s just that there are specialized areas of study and studying in one area does not give you the authority in another area. For those concerned, I try to be consistent with this. I don’t enter debates on science as science. I will talk about the history, such as how it was done in the Middle Ages and what happened with Galileo, but I will not talk about the theories as theories. Do I believe the Earth goes around the sun? Yep. Could I begin to make a case for it? Not at all. It’s the same with questions like evolution. If I was a theistic evolutionist, I could not make a case for it. If I take the other side, I also could not make a case for that. I instead choose to simply grant evolution to the atheist, who will naturally accept it, for the sake of argument.

So to get back to Bill, my folks had been telling me to read O’Reilly’s book first in response to hearing about him debating against Candida Moss. I immediately went on my Facebook and asked if anyone in my area had a copy I’d be willing to borrow. Someone did post and ask along the lines of “Why would you want to read that? There are better sources you could go to.”

This was a non-Christian also who has debated me in the past and I consider it important to answer this question as I think Christians should by and large use the best sources. If that’s the case, am I being a hypocrite for going to what is considered the best source? Well that depends on the reason why one reads a book. Let’s list some.

First, most of us do reads just for fun. For instance, when a new Monk mystery novel comes out, I have it in my hands pretty quickly. I was a big fan of the TV series and I think the books are an excellent way to keep the series going. Usually I finish a book in a couple of days and spend all my time thinking about who did the crime, why, etc. I suspect in our day and age, most reads are reads for fun. I also think those of us who consider ourselves serious academics do still need reads for fun.

Second, another reason we read today will be for schoolwork. Most of us in High School and College read books that we would never ever have read on our own because they were put on the syllabus for us to read and frankly, most of us would never ever read them again as well!

Third, some of us read books as well for our own information. I recently used some Amazon points and ordered my wife a book on Fennec Foxes. That’s an interest of hers. Most books I have in my library here I’d say are along these lines. I read the books because I want to be informed on the subject matter.

Fourth, another reason to read a book is because it’s popular non-fiction. An example of this would be Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus.” I want to read this one because it’s in an area I consider myself an authority on and people are talking about it. If this is what people are interested in, I want to know if they’re really getting good information. When someone comes to me asking “What do you think of X?” and X is the latest popular book going around, I want to be able to answer them.

Fifth, another reason to read a book is because it is an informed position you disagree with. For something like this, I could consider a work like Richard Dawkins’s “The Blind Watchmaker.” To be sure, “The God Delusion” is not an informed book. Dawkins did write about subjects he had not studied and those of us who have studied those subjects wince at how bad he gets them. It would be just as bad as reading something of mine on “How to Fix Your Car” or “How to Play Basketball Like a Pro” or “Evolutionary Biology for Everyone.”

Better examples from my field would be books published by academic publishers of non-Christian scholarship, people like John Dominic Crossan or Gerd Ludemann or Bart Ehrman. It’s important that these books have publishers with high credentials as they only want the best to come through their publishing houses.

Sixth, you could read because it’s not an informed position that you disagree with. This would include works like The God Delusion. These are read because enough people are talking about them and when they’re being talked about, you need to be able to answer them. You can’t tell people what’s wrong in a book without having read it yourself. This is why apologists were reading “The Da Vinci Code” when it came out. (To its credit, I found as a novel the story itself was entertaining. The information was still hideous. Don’t talk to me about the movie. The movie was just terrible.)

Seventh, you could read something fictional to see what people are talking about even though you could enjoy it as well. When I started going through the Harry Potter series, it was so I could have an informed opinion on it for people who asked me. In the end, I turned out to thoroughly enjoy the series and now I own all the movies. I had read the books on audio from the library and have two of them. When the final book came out, I was one of those people waiting at the bookstore at midnight.

Of course, one eighth reason that comes up for Christians often is edification. You read a book to learn how to be more devout in what you believe. For us, Scripture is the central book here, though this can also be read for historical information as well and should be. We could also include great Christian classics such as “Pilgrim’s Progress” or “Knowing God” or “Practicing The Presence of God.” Many Christians read works so they can learn how to be closer to God.

Ninth, one can read just for self-development in an area. For instance, I recommend people read “Telling Yourself The Truth” and learn to practice it, something I’m still working on! Another book I’ve recommended along those lines is David Burns’s “Feeling Good.” Some of us could read books on an area we want to improve on, such as public speaking, overcoming a phobia, learning to cook, or learning the best way to exercise.

A final reason I can think of why I read some books is because I’ve been asked to. Sometimes people ask me to review books and I do so for them. Some of them I like. Some of them I don’t. In either case, I make sure to give a fully honest review. I don’t want to give a book a good review just so the author will feel better. I want to give it an honest review. If someones respects my opinion enough to share a work of theirs with me, I owe it to them to have enough respect to be forthright about it.

I hope also that this writing has helped you look at why you read what you read and take the time to think about it. For those who are interested, I am on Goodreads.com and there’s a link on this blog where you can find me. If you want to send a book for me to review, just ask. Generally, I’ve been just fine with taking the time to do so. That could change when I start Master’s work and move on to PH.D. work, but for now, I’m doing that.

And to everyone, please keep reading period.

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

Deeper Waters 10/5/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: This blog entry is largely a copy of what I had back in August when unfortunately we had to reschedule so if some of you are getting a sense of Deja Vu this time, there’s a reason. The information he has is still just as relevant so please be listening.

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

Deeper Waters Podcast 9/28/2013: Ex-Homosexuals

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast on 9/28/2013? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’ve all heard something about the debate on marriage today and when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, we’ve been told that homosexuality is something immutable. It’s not a choice. It’s something that you’re born with and you just don’t change that! There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual.

Well if that’s the case, then my three guests on this week’s episode don’t exist.

My guests are Greg Quinlan, Douglas McIntyre, and Grace Harley. All three are Christians today and all three were at one time practicing homosexuals. All three have stories of how their change came about and want to speak about the way that people like them are ignored and if not that, in fact persecuted by those on the other side.

If what you hear on Saturday is true, then it is a strong argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable. If there is just one case otherwise, then the claim is shown to be false. This is not to say that the change would not be difficult for some and in fact, it might be the case that some just don’t pull it off, but such is the same if anyone is addicted to anything or has a strong desire towards something. These three say they have done it and that there are several several others out there that you just don’t hear about.

They’ll tell us about what we should be doing in the debate on marriage today. We want to win this battle of course, but there’s a right way to fight and a wrong way to fight. If you want to fight the right way, why not learn from those who have been there?

Also, how does the church treat homosexuals and what can be done? While my guests definitely don’t go in for the Fred Phelps technique at all, they do see problems with the way the church goes about in its normal witness to homosexuals. This includes a stigma that many Christians have against homosexuals. How is it that the church should treat a homosexual man, woman, or even couple that shows up in their presence?

And what about the family situation? How should people respond to questions of homosexuality in their family? Are there steps that a mother and a father can take to instill proper ideas of sexuality within their children?

It is my hope that with a show like this, you listeners and myself as well will better learn how to respond in this debate and know that we are not alone. If anyone asks for evidence that homosexuality is not immutable then, we can just point them to the testimony of my three guests.

I hope you’ll be planning to join in this Saturday from 3-5 PM EST on Blog Talk Radio. The call in number if you want to ask a question of my guests is 714-242-5180. Make sure they’re questions. No angry diatribes wanted.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters