Wave Comes Crashing Down Part 1

Is this wave heading for a crash? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s a certain loud-mouthed atheist who has a tendency to make up claims about himself and make it seem as if he’s refuted a number of great minds in the field of apologetics. This one is constantly going around to apologetics forums, a number of which have banned him because of his problematic behavior. He considers himself the “New Wave” of atheist debaters, to which if he is the new wave, then Christianity is in good hands! Seeing as he has such a tremendous ego and a fulfillment of view that the ignorance of a new atheist on a topic they pontificate on is in direct proportion to their hubris, he’d probably like me to tell you his name.

So now let’s move on then to the first of seven irrefutable claims he says he has!

First claim:

100% FACT: we don’t know who wrote the gospels (guess all you want but at the end of the day we don’t know who wrote them because no one signed their name to them) …RED FLAG!!!!

Since there’s no signature, does that mean we don’t know who wrote them?

Well, no.

Does that mean there aren’t disputes? Not at all. Of course there are, but we can say most authors did not personally sign their works. In fact, this doesn’t happen in modern times. Usually, the author of a work is identified at the beginning of a work in the ancient world, but even then that is not enough.

The physician Galen once walked by a store to see a book that he had supposedly written being sold. He did not remember writing that book so he went home and wrote on how to recognize books that he wrote. Forgery was a problem in the ancient world.

Now in NT studies, there are a number of works of Paul that are universally accepted as Pauline. These are Romans, Galatians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Other books are in dispute, some more than others. Here’s something they all have in common.

They all claim to be by Paul.

What does that tell us? It tells us that for NT scholarship, because a book says it is by Paul, it does not mean ipso facto that it is by Paul. Does that mean it should be disregarded? No. The internal evidence should play some role.

On the same note, it is not denied that Tacitus wrote Tacitus, but if your only reason for thinking such was because it says it’s by Tacitus at the start, then someone could just as easily say “the Pastorals say they’re by Paul, therefore they’re by Paul.” Now I hold that they are by Paul, but I know that’s not enough to seal the deal.

In reality, a number of works in the ancient world did not have a name by them. Does our atheist have a way of identifying then who wrote the lives attributed Plutarch? How about who wrote the Annals of Tacitus? How about who wrote the works attributed to Thucydides?

We do not find any argumentation from him stating how it is that one determines authorship of a work. We do not find interaction with the scholars on both sides of the issue giving reasons why we should think one person wrote a text and another another.

And in my experience, if someone does not give a reason for believing a claim besides their own incredulity and makes a case that has not been argued from the leading scholarship in a field, then that is a case that is not to be taken seriously.

If it’s not to be taken seriously, then why write posts about it?

Because unfortunately, too many people do, and these canards are the usual types that are thrown out there by internet skeptics that are a dime-a-dozen.

It’s also worth noting that this atheist constantly wants audio debates to get an audience, but he has repeatedly turned down a chance to have a written debate at TheologyWeb.com. That link can be found here.

My ministry partner’s write-up on this first point can also be found here.

The new wave is already crashing, but it never really got off the ground to begin with.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Genesis One: The Lost World

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

How old is the Earth? Is it 6-10,000 years old, or is it 4.5 billion years old? Most of us have decided the place to go to is Genesis 1 and this has been the battleground for the topic. Each side has been ready to cast out the other and charges of heresy fly around. (For all concerned, I am an OEC who has a ministry partner that is YEC and a wife that is YEC)

The underlying assumption for each side has been that this is what Genesis One is talking about. This Saturday, I will be interviewing a guest that says “No. Both sides have it wrong. Genesis One is not talking about that at all.” My guest is John Walton of Wheaton who wrote the book “The Lost World of Genesis One.”

Walton says that in our scientific mindset due to the enlightenment, we have had an emphasis on the material aspects of creation, but Walton says the ancients didn’t think that way. For them, something wasn’t truly said to exist until it was given a function, and thus the account of creation as we call it is not about the material creation, but the functional creation of the universe.

And what is the whole purpose of all of this? Walton tells us that the main goal of creation was to make a temple for which God would dwell in. The deity’s idol would often sit in the temple as well, which would be that which bore the deity’s image. This means that we are an integral part of the creation. We were made to serve in a temple that reflects the glory of God.

This thesis I find extremely fascinating. It fits in so well with the NT and the writings of N.T. Wright on God wanting to dwell with His people and on eventually the new heaven coming down to Earth. It also has the advantage of doing what I’ve said should be done for some time, getting to the way the ancients would have read the Bible and trying to move away from our modern presuppositions.

Yet this view is not without its critics. There are two especially we will be discussing. One is William Lane Craig who has made a number of statements with regards to Aristotlean philosophy. Has Walton committed a grave blunder in his reasoning? We will be asking him.

Another is Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe. I do wish to state upfront that I do respect both Ross and Craig. I am a member of the local chapters of Reasons To Believe and Reasonable Faith, but I am of course allowed to disagree. Ross comes from another perspective.

Ross does believe the Bible contains scientific information in the account and defends a more concordist position. Ross is concerned about removing a scientific witness to the world from the Bible and what it means to tell modern man the Bible says nothing in regards to science. There are also concerns about Inerrancy that have come up. (Not that we’re unfamiliar with the code word of Inerrancy being used to drum up suspicion)

Chances are, you might have your own questions as well for Dr. Walton. If you do, I welcome them. The show time will be from 3-5 EST on June 22, 2013. Our call in number is 714-242-5180. I hope you’ll be listening in for an enjoyable episode of the Deeper Waters podcast.

The link to the show is available here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Silence of God

Does He have to say something? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote some opening thoughts on God’s silence. I wish to continue that today by looking at the problem from a different perspective. Our complaints about God with Him being silent usually go like this.

If God really cared, He would not be silent now.
God is silent now.
So God doesn’t really care.

I highly question the first premise. Yesterday, I noted that I think the Bible is lacking in the number of times it has direct interaction between God and man. Usually, this interaction was also done through intermediaries, such as prophets, or even angelic messengers. Of course, this means that God was communicating with some people, but it also means that there were a huge majority that did not get direct communication.

In fact, a number of times, people in the greatest suffering did not get it. The Psalms are replete with this. The Psalmists are usually quite brutely honest about the way they think that God is treating them. I really have no problem with this! If you think God is not being fair with you, if you think He is not being faithful with you, etc., well I think you’re wrong, but I understand why you’re thinking that and one of the best things I think you can do is to go to Him with your concern and express it honestly. There’s no sense in hiding it. He knows all about it after all! The person who truly trusts God is the one that can present all of them to Him, even when it isn’t the best.

There are other times. Jesus on the cross in fact asked God why He had been forsaken. John the Baptist in prison was left there and had to go send word to Jesus in order to get a message that would bring him hope. Christ Himself promised us suffering.

What if we started then at the beginning and thought “Maybe the paradigm we have is wrong and this is not normative for the Christian life.” If God does not owe us personal communication, then He is not being wrong in not giving it to us.

If this becomes a cause for doubt, then this is where I think good apologetics does come in. Now this is not a post meant to argue with the atheist or make the case for Christianity, but it is one to say where the case must lie. If we want to know if Christianity is true, we must look to the person of Jesus. Is He who He said He was? Did He rise from the dead?

If that is the case, then Christianity is true. We must deal with that. If we want to be rational people, we have to go with what is true regardless, even if at particular times we don’t like the idea that Christianity is true, and honestly, for all of us there will be times that we don’t like the claims of Christianity.

If we turn the paradigm around then, we find that God has not been silent. He came Himself in the person of the Son. How is that being silent? Is God doing something in our lives? He doesn’t owe us that He has to do anything, but again, the question is not what is He doing with us, but what are we doing in His life?

Could it be it is not so much that God is silent and hidden, but rather instead the case that we too often are not looking and closing our ears? (No. I don’t mean closing our ears to an actual voice, but closing our ears to His truth that has already been revealed in such places as the Scriptures.)

If you think God doesn’t owe you anything, then that could seem like a scary thought. Actually, it’s a most awesome and liberating thought! It is a thought that once I think you really grasp it, you will see much more of the goodness of God in your life.

Readers know my wife and I are financially strapped right now. So back in February, a friend of ours had a fundraiser selling jewelry with 25% of the sales going to Deeper Waters. We were getting ready to do the podcast and I needed a headset I could use. What was the result of this event? We had two sets of customers come by all night and we raised $75. My reply?

Thanks be to God.

God is in charge. He did not owe me a lot to come in. He was not obligated to give me so much. As it is, we got enough for me to get a headset and it has been a blessing to us ever since then. It has allowed me to do the podcast. Would I have liked more? Yes. Yet God was not obligated to give me anything. That means that every penny I got that night from Him was a gift. If I had gone in there saying “God owes me this much” and not got that much, I would have had indignation towards God for not giving what He never promised and did not owe me.

It is from this kind of perspective that we should start to look at our lives differently. Look at every good thing that you have around you. You are not owed it. It is a gift. It is grace. Your job is not perfect? You have one. The income is a gift. Your spouse has characteristics you don’t like? My wife can say the same about me definitely, and yet we are gifts to one another. (Readers of this blog after all know that I have a constant penchant for giving thanks for Allie.) Your house isn’t the best? You have a roof over your head and a bed you can sleep in.

Every good and gracious gift comes from God above….

With this kind of attitude, come to God then. Give thanks. Learn to study the Scriptures and find out what He has said in them. Our tendency when we think we are hurt by someone is to want to block ourselves away from that someone. That only increases the divide. The best way is to put your foot forward. In our relationships, we usually wait for the other person to make the first move. Let us not do that. Let us do what is right just because it is right. (Since being married, I have often made it a point when I wrong someone to go to them as soon as I can and talk it out with them. Yes. That can also include Allie.)

Perhaps when we return to God, we will find how much He is active in our lives. Does that mean He is “speaking” to us. Not necessarily in the modern sense. It does mean we realize He has spoken and instead of looking for something new, perhaps we should pay attention to what has already been said. After all, if we ignore what He has already said, why should He bother giving us any more?

Could it be again, the problem lies more with us?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Opening Thoughts On The Silence Of God

“Why do I not hear from God?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A reader yesterday suggested one cause of emotional doubt is the silence of God. Indeed, I had been planning on getting to that topic, but since it has been brought up, I might as well get to it. However, this is going to take more than one post. Therefore, consider this just a start to the topic and in fact, one I’m planning on writing a whole lot more on elsewhere.

To begin with, the reason this is such a large problem I suspect is because of a misnomer in the church. In our individualistic society, we have made it so that God is all about us rather than the point that we are to be all about God. It is the question of what God is doing in my life. It is not the question of what I am doing in His.

After all, when we look at the Bible, God is active everywhere! God speaks all throughout it! Miracles are taking place abundantly! Conversations between God and His followers are always happening and shouldn’t we expect the same today?

This is wrong on both counts.

Let’s consider someone like Abraham. Abraham was the friend of God. If anyone was to be having a regular conversation with God, surely it would be the friend of God. And yet at one point in the narrative of Genesis, we find that God is silent for thirteen years.

Thirteen years.

Can you imagine being a good friend with someone, someone you’d base your whole life around, and not speaking to them for thirteen years?

Abraham did.

There’s nothing in the text that indicates that this was unusual for Abraham. There’s nothing about him crying out that God is being silent. One can imagine how God’s regular guidance would have helped Abraham so much. He might have avoided that little situation with Hagar.

The reason the Bible records these times in fact are because they are not the norm. They are unusual. If you’re writing a biography of someone like Abraham Lincoln, you will not say “On such and such day at such and such time, Lincoln sneezed.” No one cares about that. You will record the highlights of his life such as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, his handling of the Civil War, his freeing of the slaves, and his assassination. (Not a highlight in the positive sense, but certainly an aspect of his life worth noting.)

This is the same with miracles. The Bible records these times when miracles happen because they are the exceptional times, and yet the times where they are abundant is rare. There are three such times. One is the Exodus. The next is the appearance of Elisha and Elijah which starts the age of the prophets. The final is the start of the apostolic age. Each of these centers around the new revelation that is coming. (I do of course hold that there are miracles going on today, and this is far more common in the third world and the cause of a number of churches. See Craig Keener’s “Miracles.”)

So I’d like to say at the start that God’s “abundant activity” and “constant speaking” is not really that. Over a period of around 2,000 years from Abraham to Jesus, there is not much if you averaged it out.

Second, why should we expect God would treat us the same way? This is usually part of our own pride in modern times. We are not Abraham. We are not David. We are not Paul. For most of us, the problem is that we think too much of ourselves. It could often be that God speaking to us would cause us to do so more.

Also, if our faith relies on God constantly giving us experiences, then we will never grow as Christians. We need to return more and more to the foundation of our faith, the resurrected Christ. We spend so much time waiting on God to act for us that we don’t often bother to act for Him. I suspect that when people in this position start acting for God more and more, they will find that He is much more of a reality in their lives.

To speak from my perspective, I can think of not one time in my life I have heard God speak. I know people who have and I think those will say it is exceptionally rare. I do not take people seriously who have a “Buddy Jesus” concept where God speaks to them on a regular basis that is practically casual. Too many people justify their own desires by saying “God told me” at the start. Personally, it won’t hurt you to have some skepticism over a message given to you that starts with “God told me.” Why should it? We are told to test prophecy after all!

Yet despite not hearing God speak, God has become more and more a reality in my life over the years. The more I have learned about Him, the more I have seen the great value He is to have in my life and the more I am aware of how much I don’t give Him that value too often. When push comes to shove, it is no surprise that my first thought is to think about what my God means to me. Sometimes it disappoints me that my mind can think about so many other things instead of Him. Take away God from my worldview and everything falls apart. (To which, if you remove God from your worldview and your world doesn’t change, you need to ask how much God mattered for you to begin with.)

Now I realize some of you are still saying that there is a problem. What are we to do when God is silent? Why is this happening? Does God not care? I hear those questions, and I will be getting to them, but that is for another day. For now, I have given some opening thoughts just to put my answers in better perspective. I hope it will help you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

So Great Sin

“How can I be a Christian when I have so much sin in my life?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Some friends of Deeper Waters in my last blog commented on how many Christians question their salvation because of sin in their lives. They’re entirely correct. Now we know we all have sin in our lives, which is an important point to keep in mind, but what about the person who struggles repeatedly with a sin and goes to bed at night saying “Tomorrow, I’ll do better” and then wakes up saying “Today, I will do better” and yet before too long, what are they doing? They’re on the computer watching porn again or opening up the fridge for that snack they shouldn’t have, or find themselves yelling at their kids yet again with a crying spouse.

The first part to keep in mind is this is the reality that we all have sin in our lives. We all have struggles that we need to confess to the Father. If you know of no such struggle in your life, then you have a far greater one than you realize.

But we all know of passages about people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God and also about the end of Matthew 7 with Jesus saying “I never knew you.” The last one is kind of odd. People who do great works are said to have never been known by Christ, and what’s the solution for the person who’s doubting his salvation then? Do more works to show I’m a Christian! Doesn’t look like that’s the problem in Matthew 7.

Again, a Calvinist and Arminian could agree here. The Arminian could say that the people in the passage never made a real commitment to Jesus. The Calvinist could say it was a said faith instead of a real faith and they were never part of the Elect. I have no intention of entering that debate. Eternal Security will bring no comfort to the doubter who doubts they have ever been secure.

The answer to the dilemma overall is grace.

Yes. You must realize the grace of God in your life. I’d start by really looking at your sin. Don’t look at what it means for you. Don’t think about your salvation if you can help it. Instead, just look at what it means to God. What every sin is ultimately is choosing your way over that of God. No matter how big or small, it’s doing just that. If you think your way is better than God’s, you are claiming to know better than He. You are claiming to have more knowledge than He. You are wanting the right to rule instead of him. You are guilty of divine treason.

This might not sound like help right now. I think it is. I want you to see how serious the charge is.

Now in light of that, realize this. God over and over in the Bible delights in forgiving. Take Manasseh for instance, a wicked king who sacrificed his own children to false gods, and yet in 2 Chronicles 33, we read about his forgiveness.

Over and over, if people will repent, God will forgive.

As long as you’re still seeking to move towards God, realize you’re going the right way regardless of how often you stumble. Do you thin you tire God out with your confession? He is the one who said that you are to forgive 70 times 7 times and still more.

Do you really think God would rather judge you than forgive you? If so, then you need to take your view of God under consideration. Go through the Bible and red about the grace of god over and over.

“But how can I be forgiven when I keep falling?”

Your wanting to please God shows that you are one of His. Your fear of being apart from Him shows how much you want to be with Him. It shows a broken and contrite heart, the kind that He will not despise.

You are not required to be perfect. Christ is perfect for you. To think that you have to live without sinning after repentance is a Mormon belief, not a Christian one.

This doesn’t mean that you don’t try to get past your sin, and for that, I offer some suggestions.

First off, have an accountability partner. I’ve told a number of my friends in regards to my marriage that if they see me stepping out of line, that they have all right to call me out on it. I have a good friend who’s a spiritual mentor for me who I email every night after saying prayers. Even if you’re not struggling with salvation doubt, I think everyone should do that.

Second, get to the root of the issue. If you have a struggle with porn, for instance, it can help to put up a block on the computer, but you need to look at the real issue. How is it that you view the opposite sex? How is it that you view sex itself? What do you consider such a good in life that you are repeating this sin to get so regularly?

Third, get professional counseling if need be. There are some problems that could be an addiction and you could need some help getting past that is more professional. In some cases, you might need medication. This is not a lack of faith! This is part of good mental health!

Fourth, do invest yourself in learning some good theology. Your doctrine of God needs to be based on more than your feelings, as does your salvation. The Bible never says anything about what it is like to “feel forgiven.” It talks about thankfulness for forgiveness, but not the internal feelings. If forgiveness depended on your feelings, our status of forgiveness would change constantly.

A final advice is to live as if you were saved and just watch what happens. Feelings tend to follow actions. Not the other way around.

Dear Christian. Know you serve a God who abounds in grace, and you are not an exception to the rule.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Salvation Doubt

Did you pray the right prayer? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One of the worst kinds of emotional doubt a Christian can go through is the doubt over their salvation. Many a Christian has gone through this and are relieved to find that it is a common doubt in fact. (Yes. Even I have gone through this kind of doubt and in fact am glad I did since it ultimately got me into apologetics.)

Gary Habermas has said he’s collected statistics from people on how many times they’ve prayed the prayer. Top place goes to a lady who prayed for her salvation over 5,000 times. Second place went to a police officer who prayed over 3,000 times. As said, this is common and while maybe not that severe for some people, it is still a troubling doubt.

Much of the problem with this doubt is that the person who is doubting doesn’t “feel saved.” Of course, the Bible never tells us what it’s like to feel saved, so it is a wonder how someone could know what it is supposed to feel like. Also, this is based often on the silence of God, yet it is not realized that the Bible rarely has God communicating with people. These people are a select few and the speaking is clear and rare both. The concept we have is a modern concept foreign to the Bible.

Yet this doesn’t answer the question. What is a Christian to do who is doubtful that they prayed the prayer right and is worried that if they died in their sleep or in some accident or something, that they’d be in Hell forever?

Here are my suggestions.

First off, keep in mind that the fact that you are even concerned about this is a sure sign of your salvation. People who do not care about the things of Christ do not worry about if they are saved or not. If you are worried you are not right with God and did not do things right, consider it evidence about how much God means to you, which is again, evidence of salvation.

Second, if you still have any doubt about certain behaviors, just take care of them. For instance, in the Restoration churches, it is held that baptism is essential for salvation. I do not agree. What do I agree with? Baptism is a command of Christ, so go ahead and do it anyway! (By the way, for all interested, I am hydrophobic with a steel rod on my spine. Getting baptized was quite frightening for me, but I did it anyway)

If you are concerned that you did not pray right, then just pray. Aren’t you supposed to be praying regularly anyway? If you are concerned about a sin in your life, then work on giving it up! Aren’t you supposed to be doing that anyway?

Third, realize that God cares more about salvation than you do. He’s the one who initiated the whole thing, and that’s something Calvinists and Arminians both can agree on. We do love because He first loved us and apart from His act through the work of the cross and the empty tomb, no one would be saved. God is the initiator.

If God is doing the work to make sure salvation is available, then realize it matters to Him. God is not looking for reasons to send people to Hell. He’s looking for reasons to get them into His manifest presence. That includes you. God is not one who gets sheer delight out of the thought of condemning someone but wishes to bring them to salvation.

Fourth, look at what you believe. Ask yourself these questions. Do you believe Jesus is fully deity? Do you believe He died for your sins? Do you believe He rose from the dead? Do you believe that He is Lord? Sounds good to me. Now if you have doubts over questions such as the resurrection and the deity of Christ, this is the time for apologetics. This is the time to go to your library and get the books and do the reading to answer those questions.

Fifth, there are many debates that ask if we can lose salvation or not. That debate is useless to this question. After all, if you think like an Arminian you can say “I lost it.” If you think like a Calvinist you can say “Never had it and not one of the elect.” Instead, take a stance that both sides will say is essential for salvation. Just ask yourself if you’re trusting in Christ. As long as you keep trusting in Christ in fact, the whole debate really won’t matter in the long run.

Sixth, go and listen to what others are telling you in this case. Chances are, you would not ever tell someone who is in doubt over their salvation like this that they do not have it. In fact, it’s not just being nice. You wouldn’t say it because you don’t believe it. (Which it usually is good to try to think through doubt as if you were a third party listening in.)

Doubt like this is usually just a way to shut you down and keep you from living with the joy of salvation. For those skeptical, this is not just for you, but what I had to do with my own doubts. You might think I might not be taking your salvation as seriously, but I am definitely taking mine seriously, and I would not give you advice I do not think would work in my case. (This is said simply for the person who is ultra-skeptical. My real reason in writing this is of course great concern for those who do suffer with this, having been there before.)

Next time, we’ll look at more emotional concerns.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

What if?

What is a sign of emotional doubt? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Imagine you’re a Christian with some background in apologetics. Now you have someone who is coming to you who’s also a Christian and is doubting and you present a case to them and make it clear throughout that this is where the overwhelming evidence leads. The person you’re trying to help agrees that all that evidence is extremely strong, but ah, here comes the objection.

“But what if?”

This person isn’t disputing all the evidence you’ve brought forward. They have no argument against it. There’s just this little thing in the back of their mind that says “Yeah, but what if all of that is wrong?” When this happens, you can be sure that you are dealing with an emotional doubter.

It has been said that emotional doubt is the most common kind of doubt. Based on my experience, I agree with it. Men and women can both be emotional doubters. For women, they have the advantage that they usually know that. Men are more stubborn and wanting to say “It’s not my emotions. It’s not my emotions.” I have encountered a number of men telling me their doubts are intellectual and I’m listening to them and hearing all the warning signs with my mind telling me “Emotional doubter. Emotional doubter. Emotional doubter.”

For instance, my former roommate and I once regularly met with someone who was agnostic and tried to answer his questions, to which I think we did successfully. At one point, we were out having lunch with him and his Christian wife when he said “I know in the end you two are just going to fall back on your feelings and experiences to confirm Christianity,” to which both of us immediately went “NO!” It is a kind of approach we both couldn’t stand and still can’t. He was quite surprised at that not knowing how to handle it.

So what is to be done with this kind of doubt?

First off, it can happen to anyone. Being an atheist does not make you less emotional. Being a Christian does not make you more emotional. There are emotional atheists and unemotional Christians. There are Christians who believe for emotional reasons. There are atheists who disbelieve for emotional reasons. To be clear, I consider it wrong to believe or disbelieve for those reasons.

Second, when one is in a state of high emotion, it’s not the time to be making decisions that are major, including choosing to follow a religion or abandon it. Around our house, when one of us is in a state where we know the emotions are taking the lead, it’s important to let the other person be the surrogate frontal lobe as it were. Let the person whose mind is not clouded at the time speak and help the other. Of course, this is still resisted to a degree, but it is an important step. If you can’t trust your thinking at one time due to emotion, then talk to people you do trust. At times, this could be a wise professional counselor as well.

Third, realize that this does not mean emotions are bad things. We should be thankful we have them. I do have a friend who is actually a sociopath. Not in the sense that he’s a vicious murderer or anything, but in the sense that he really feels no emotion. When he has lost loved ones in the past, he has not felt anything about the event. I am quite thankful I am not like that. I have a friend who is in ministry who has said that the relationship I have with my wife is unusual on the spectrum and says I should thank God every day that I am a lover. Sometimes I forget, but I try to give thanks every day. It’s a good thing!

Fourth, remember the parable in Luke 14 of building a tower and the king going to war. The choice for Christ is best not to be made as a sudden decision, although growing up in the church many of us did that. One should really consider what one is getting into (Or in the case of apostasy getting out of) before one decides.

Fifth, trying reason might not work. That is, arguing against yourself. It can often be best to realize this is a season and it will pass. Let your emotions die down. You don’t stay on edge forever. Until you’re not on edge, you can always rely on others.

Next time, we’ll look at more about emotional doubt and dealing with it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Who Was Jesus?

Is Wright right and Spong wrong? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I am an avid fan of N.T. Wright and try to read absolutely anything that he writes. My latest read of his came from reading “Fabricating Jesus” where Evans dispenses with people like Barbara Thiering yet says N.T. Wright has written a response to her in “Who Was Jesus?”

That’s enough to get me looking for that on my next library visit!

Thiering is not Wright’s only target. Wright has other chapters on A.N. Wilson and John Shelby Spong.

It’s hard to read this book without thinking that seeing N.T. Wright go after these guys is like watching a tank be used to squish an ant.

Wright’s book starts off with a brief summary of Jesus studies to this point, largely by looking at what Schweitzer did. He goes on from there to say where the studies have led us and then brings out Thiering, Wilson, and Spong as examples of how not to do these kinds of studies, all the while still commending some good points that can be found in them.

Reading Thiering, it’s a wonder how such a work as hers got published. Thiering’s idea is that practically everything in the gospels is code and the way to understand the code is by looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls. As Wright points out, Thiering is quick to dispense with her idea of a code whenever it is convenient for her to do so. Based on her reading, Thiering has dates on when Jesus escaped death, married Mary Magdalene, later left her and married Lydia of Philippi, (Seriously. I’m not kidding), and eventually died.

Yes. Wright takes the time to dispense with such a bizarre theory as this. One cannot help but imagine the reaction these three authors might have had knowing who was critiquing their work.

A.N. Wilson comes from another angle. For Wilson, Jesus was a Galilean holy man, but Paul came along and messed everything up! Wilson does have more right than Thiering (Granted, not much of an accomplishment), but there is still too much that is wrong. Wilson does not interact with the latest of scholarship on the issue and gives the impression of being stuck in works from the 1960’s. Amazingly, some parts of his writing are quite accurate and had I not known they were from him, I would have thought they were from a conservative Christian.

One of Wilson’s great weaknesses is his idea about seeking unbiased sources. As Wright points out, they don’t exist. Everyone wrote with a motive. No one is neutral on the Jesus question and it is a mistake to think anyone is. Yet as Wright has said elsewhere, even if the sportscaster has a bias for which team he thinks is the best and wants to win, that doesn’t mean you must doubt the score he reports.

Furthermore, if we wanted an unbiased work, it would not be Wilson who makes it clear he has a hammer to use against anything that is religious. As usual, it is the ones who are claiming the most to have no bias who in fact do have the most bias.

Finally, we come to Spong, who has a hang-up over the virgin birth. Wright is just perplexed, as am I, over the idea that Spong has that we today know better. As Wright points out, they might not have known as many details about sex as we do, but they certainly knew what it took to make a baby. That’s why Joseph sought to divorce Mary at first. He knew what it took to make a baby, and he knew he hadn’t done it.

Spong also has a vendetta against literalism, which I can understand, but yet praises the Reformation and goes against the ECF. Yet it was the ECF who were more pron to going with an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures and the Reformers who wanted to return more to a literal interpretation.

Spong also includes a comment about what Midrash is, an account that Wright thinks is nonsense, and that scholars of Midrash would disagree with. Like the other writers, Spong can sound impressive on paper and the notes and bibliography of the books Wright comments on can make them seem scholarly, but it is only a veneer. The real heart of the works is anything but.

As with any Wright work, I do recommend this one. Wright gives an excellent example of how to deal with so much misinformation in the popular culture. It is a shame more people will read Thiering, Wilson, and Spong, but never get around to Wright. I am thankful for Wright and thankful indeed that Wright is right and Spong is wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Atheist Delusions

What’s my review of David Bentley Hart’s “Atheist Delusions?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Psalm 11:3 “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Indeed. What can the righteous do? When picking up Hart’s book, one might expect a lengthy reply to various new atheist arguments and criticisms of their approach. One will certainly find that, but not where one would expect. It will be in the first section of the book and the last section. The majority of the book does not even mention them at all. Do not come here if you are expecting a critique of Dawkins’s bogus 747 argument for instance.

Yet Hart does not hide his opinion of modern writing. The first chapter, “The Gospel of Unbelief”, has a number of great statements. The Da Vinci Code on page 4 is described as the most lucrative novel ever written by a borderline illiterate. On the same page, we are told Christopher Hitchens’s “talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic.” There’s Richard Dawkins who “despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning–never fails to entrance his eager readers with his rhetorical recklessness.” Describing Sam Harris’s “The End of Faith” on page 8, Hart says “It is little more than a concatenation of shrill, petulant assertions, a few of which are true, but none of which betrays any great degree of philosophical or historical sophistication. In his remarks on Christian belief, Harris displays an abysmal ignorance of almost every topic he addresses.”

Yes. Hart does not hold back and he gives more of the same in the end, but there is no need for Hart to waste time on those of the new atheists who have just as much faith if nor more than the fundamentalist preachers and believers that they are so quick to condemn. There is a sharp dichotomy with them. No goodness can be attributed to religion and no evil can be attributed to non-religion. If something works religiously, it has a “scientific basis.” If something goes wrong with a system of non-belief, that is because the part that went wrong has a “religious basis.”

What Hart wants to deal with is the foundations. These beliefs are being removed by the new atheists from their position of faith. It is a system of materialism that cannot allow anything contrary to its unproven presuppositions. If something seems outside of the material universe, it’s either just wrong or we’ll find an explanation for it someday.

It is a position that upholds the value of science but then takes that and turns it into a deity. Science is the new priesthood with its own standards of canonicity (No religious belief allowed) and its own statement of faith (No gods allowed) and built on a number of creedal statements (Religion poisons everything. Faith is believing something without evidence) and bad evangelistic slogans. (I just believe in one less god than you do.)

Keep in mind the very term “There is no God”, while it could be true for the sake of argument, cannot be determined by science, any more than the claim “Love is the highest virtue” cannot be proven by science. This is not because science is wrong. It is because science is the wrong tool. It is no more an insult to science to say this than it is an insult to hammers to say they are not recommended for treating a toothache.

While it might be said that a Christian will hide from a scientific discovery, and no doubt many do, it is just as true that the modern atheist tends to hide from anything that indicates any truth of a religious claim. Such can be found in how many even make it a mantra that Jesus never even existed. What is accepted as thoroughly proven amongst NT scholars and ancient historians and is practically a universal consensus, is disregarded, while the new atheists mock the Christians who do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, held even by some Christians. Once again, which conclusion should be accepted depends on the presupposition. All of science is good and all of religion is wrong and biased.

Hart goes to great lengths to show that the problem is not really with science or religion. Men have a great proclivity to do evil and will accept any reason to do so. That reason can be religious or scientific. We must simply ask which one has had a greater power to curtail that evil within human beings. His argument is that Christianity has had that power.

To show this, he deals largely with myths of history and shows how Christianity changed the world through the building up of moral character based on the example of Christ. Hart contends that today, we accept many moral truths, but would we have accepted them if Christianity never came into the world? Probably not, except for perhaps Jewish people. Just look at the Greco-Roman world. Men and women weren’t equal. Some were by nature slaves. Unwanted children were to be left in the wild to die at the hands of wild animals. People watched other real human beings fight and die in the Coliseum for entertainment purposes. Did Christianity erase all of this immediately? No. But Christianity did set the seeds in place that eventually did so.

What happens then when these ideas that are rooted in Christian beliefs lose their Christian foundations? Will the belief itself live on? It could be a nice dream to think that it would, but where is the evidence? The 20th century has been the most secular century of all, and at the same time the most bloody century of all. If we are people to go by the evidence, then the evidence is in. At this point, when Christianity is removed, people have a greater propensity to return to their base desires.

Consider for instance the idea of what to do with the least of ours. The Romans and Greeks would leave their children to die in the wild if they weren’t wanted. Are we that barbaric? It could be, we’re worse. Peter Singer and others argue today that we should have the right to kill our own disabled children up to a certain time. As someone who is an Aspie, as is my wife, I take this claim quite seriously. Christianity, on the other hand, would hold that this one that is said to be useless in the sight of the world and holding us back from genetic success, fully bears the image of God and is worth more than the entire universe. Indeed, one could argue that in their weakness, many disabled people reveal the nature of God, the God who in Christianity took on human weakness in the incarnation, than many of us “healthy” ones do.

Hart does not hold out much hope for our society as he does not see how such a revival can take place. Perhaps it is just for me that hope springs eternal, but I think it is possible. I think we are on the verge of a golden age in apologetics. If the apostles could change the Greco-Roman empire, why not think that we all today can do the same in our own world? The question is not the ability. We have the means to reach the world. The question is not the knowledge. We have the information that we need to do so. The question is the will. Are we willing?

Ultimately then, it comes down to a question of obedience. Christ has given us our marching orders in the Great Commission. There is no plan B. We have been told what to do. The question could then be said to be “How much do we believe in Christ? How much are we truly Christian?”

If we claim Christ is Lord of all and He has the power to change the culture, then let us go out there and do so. If we do not do so, it could be because parts of us don’t really believe that the Christ can do so through the proclamation of His message. This would be, as I’ve argued before, due to a lack of instilling of the importance of having a total Christian worldview to our churches rather than just teaching that we should be good people. Christians are to be good people, but we are to be not just good people. We are to be Christian people.

If I had a criticism of Hart’s work, it would be I would like to have seen more claims properly noted. There are many notes, but there are many claims I would have liked to have seen more noted. I also disagree with him that both Arians and Trinitarians could make a case from the Scriptures. They speak with one voice and they say “Trinity.”

Despite this, I do overall highly recommend the work to deal with a number of atheist statements of faith. The style is witty and engaging, yet it is certainly not simplistic, and one will learn plenty from reading a volume like this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 6/8 2013, Lighting Up Dark Ages Science

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

We had hoped to get Mike Licona to join us, but he is with his mother who is in the final stages of brain cancer. We ask for your prayers for her and the rest of our family in this time.

Instead, it looks like our guest is going to be James Hannam. James Hannam is the author of the book “God’s Philosophers”, also known as “The Genesis of Science.” In this book, Hannam takes a look at the period of time known as the Dark Ages where the church led the world and as a result, science and education languished while people dwelt in superstition, until finally came Galileo along to renew an interest in science.

That’s the popular belief, and as is often the case with many such beliefs today, it is entirely false. Hannam goes to great lengths in this book to demonstrate that the Christian church not only encouraged science, but carried it forward so that people like Galileo were just standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.

We will hopefully be talking about people such as Andrew Dickson White who kept going the myth that in this time there was a warfare between science and religion. This could include also discussing how modern disciples of ignorance, such as the new atheists, keep these claims going.

We will find that certainly not everything the medievals believed about science and nature was accurate, but it wasn’t because they were blinded by religion. If anything, it was because they did not have the best information available, yet for what means that they did have to obtain knowledge, they made several excellent observations that we still hold today.

We will be looking at the way Scripture did play a role in this. Did it hinder the learning that took place or did it encourage it? Was it a rule that the Scriptures had to be interpreted “literally” or did the church allow for a variety of ways in which a passage could be translated? Were there any real conflicts going on between science and religion?

Were those who were doing science supported by the church or where they doing their work in isolation? If you had a sickness, could it have actually been better for you to go to your local priest rather than to the actual medical doctor? Were cadavers allowed to be used for the study of the body?

And of course, some time will have to be spent on Galileo. Was he really the victim of persecution from the church trying to put a stop to his science, or was there something more going on?

In the end, I suspect you will be surprised to find that the so-called dark ages were not really dark at all. If anything is actually in the dark today, it is the idea that is spread perpetually by those who wish to paint the time period as a time of great ignorance.

Please join in from 3-5 EST this Saturday to listen to the podcast here

In Christ,
Nick Peters