Prayer in the Kingdom

Why do we even pray? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In order to be fully expressive of my own tendencies here, I will say that prayer is not something I am good at. I find I am so busy throughout the day I often don’t get around to prayer and when I do, it can be difficult to focus. If a reader thinks I’m one of those people who prays an hour a day, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Fortunately, I have recently taken to remedy this in my life, especially realizing how much my Mrs.’s well-being could depend on my prayers. I have people now holding me accountable and someone I email every day to let him know how I’m doing.

So I write this as one who needs to teach myself.

I’ve been writing much on the idea of Jesus as king. What does this mean for us when we pray? Why do we pray? That is the starting question.

While we can think the reason we pray is to get forgiveness or give glory to God or to make requests, let’s remember the first reason we pray is that we are told to. In fact, we are told how to pray and to be persistent and to even ask for things that we want when we pray. We’re told to not stop asking.

Yet how are we to do this? We are to boldly approach the throne of grace, but do we just walk into the throne room and start making requests? Not at all. In the ancient world, such would have been thought to be absurd.

Imagine you’re a first century peasant and you get a chance to have an audience with Caesar and speak with him. How are you going to do it? Are you going to go into his throne room and say “I’d like to make a list of things that I want you to do for me.”?

Such an idea is ludicrous. Instead, you will come in with the best attitude that you can. You will thank the Caesar for his rule and leadership in the empire. You will admit your own status. You are just a servant. You will tell him all the ways that you do not deserve to be in his presence. You will thank him that he has agreed to see you. Only then would you begin to start making a case for a request.

What happens when you come to God?

There are differences of course. God is all-knowing. You also don’t really need to fear that God will smite you if you make a wrong request. Yet if you realize that Jesus is king, don’t you think you ought to treat Him far better than you would be treating Caesar?

Are we coming to Christ the King and honoring Him as King? Do we dare go to the throne room and start immediately making requests of the sovereign of the universe without giving Him proper honor? Do we go in without confessing our sins to make sure that we are cleansed to speak to Him? (I do realize we are forgiven already, but we still confess anyway)

Do we take the time to thank the king for all that He has done? It is easy to overlook all the blessings of everyday and ingratitude is something that can hinder our walk with Christ. Yes. Things aren’t perfect, and they never will be until we reach eternity, but there is much to be thankful for.

What happens when you make the request and you don’t get what you want? You realize that that is the right of the king. He is under no obligation to give you anything that you ask for. He is not obligated to let your life on Earth keep going for one second longer. Every single good thing you have in your life is a gift from Him.

Recently we had a fundraiser for Deeper Waters. We didn’t raise as much as I’d like, but we raised something. What was my response? To give thanks for it. We got something and that was good. We did get enough to get a new headset for the ministry, which means hopefully before too long, maybe even this Saturday, you will hear the Deeper Waters podcast. (We have been picked up by Grok Talk Radio to be syndicated on the internet)

My king did not owe me anything. I was thankful for what He did give. Of course I hope it will be more next time, but it was enough for what we need. That is what we are told. We are to pray for our daily bread. We are told to seek first the Kingdom and His righteousness and all else will be added to us. Here’s some questions to consider. Did Jesus mean what He said? If so, was He right? How will you as a Christian answer?

Another reason to pray is to remind us that we are to trust YHWH for everything. Asking YHWH for what we desire reminds us that what we desire comes from Him. It reminds us of our complete dependence on Him in order to make it in this world, something we tend to lose in our modern age where we can go to a supermarket and get food without sweat and toil, turn on a light to see, have numerous books and entertainment tools around us, drive or fly anywhere we wish, etc.

Our world is modernized, but it is still our Father’s world.

And let us remember something else. The very Messiah walking on this Earth prayed regularly, which is something I find greatly convicting. If the very Son of God needed prayer to fully serve His Father, then it is simply arrogance on our part to think that we do not need to pray.

In conclusion, let’s all make prayer a greater priority and realize we are addressing the king. When you are praying, please pray for Deeper Waters too. Pray for our success in serving Christ in reaching the world and pray for me personally that I will learn even more the importance of prayer and follow through with it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Stone At Sloan

Is the attack aimed at Robert Sloan hitting the mark? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’d like to begin this post by asking everyone to open their Bibles and please turn to the book of ICBI.

“There is no such book as ICBI.”

Now I find this surprising because lately, I’m finding it quoted so much by “true defenders of Inerrancy” that I would think it’s right up there with Scripture. The club of ICBI has lately found a new target and that’s in Robert Sloan, president of Houston Baptist University (HBU) that hired Dr. Mike Licona as a professor there. HBU has been putting together a crack apologetics team and I suspect will soon be an apologetics hub in the world.

Yet for some people, it doesn’t matter as long as you don’t play their song and dance.

So what is being said in the latest rant?

“Despite the fact that Mike Licona lost his positions at the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and at Liberty University subsequent to the public criticism of his views on inerrancy by Southern Baptist leaders like Al Mohler and Page Patterson and others, Houston Baptist hired Licona and placed its blessing on his views.”

By the way, right at the start, that’s “Paige Patterson.” One might think I’m nitpicking, but it isn’t the first time that this mistake is made in this writing. Unfortunately, none of these people are NT scholars and there’s no reason why I should give Mohler or Patterson that level of confidence. One would hope Geisler would be above fallacious appeals to authority, but alas, he is not. If the goal is to ruin Licona, then all is justified, including bad logic.

The article goes on with Sloan’s words.

“Dr. Michael Licona is a very fine Christian. We trust completely his commitment to Scripture. There are those who disagree with his comments on what is a very difficult passage (Matthew 27:45-53, especially verses 52-53), but Mike Licona’s devotion to the Lord Jesus, his magisterial defense of the resurrection, his publicly and solemnly declared affirmation of the complete trustworthiness of Scripture and his worldwide efforts to win others to Christ give us full confidence in his work as a teacher, colleague and faculty member of Houston Baptist University (reported in the Baptist Press [BP] 2/6/2013).”

To which, we salute Sloan for this and the evangelical world ought to. One hopes that Sloan is not the type to respond to bullying from people like Geisler and Mohler. It will not be a surprise to see HBU moving fowards while Geisler’s own VES gets nothing. By the way, I also suspect that within a few years, provided Geisler is still around, there will be a controversy at VES and Geisler will be at the heart of it doing the same thing to someone else.

We continue:

“Besides the fact that Sloan notably makes no claim that Licona believes in inerrancy, there are several serious problems with this approval of Licona’s aberrant views on Scripture:…”

Yes. Sloan said that Licona believes in the completely trustworthiness of Scripture, yet somehow that’s supposed to mean he thinks the Bible has errors. If Sloan had said “Licona affirms Inerrancy” would it have even mattered? Licona put together the list of scholars who said his views did not go against Inerrancy. Licona himself has said he believes in Inerrancy. Still, it is not enough. Instead, we are given the impression that this is lip service. So, if Sloan does not say it, it’s suspect. If he did say it, we would be told why it’s wrong. You can’t win if the opponent keeps changing the evidence to fit their claims.

“First, Licona has not repudiated his claim that there is a contradiction in the Gospels about which day Jesus was crucified on. In a debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary (Spring, 2009) Licona declared, “I think that John probably altered the day [of Jesus’ crucifixion] in order for a theological—to make a theological point there. But that does not mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified” (emphasis added). In short, John contradicts the other Gospels on which day Jesus was crucified. This is a flat denial of inerrancy for at least one of them has to be an error. But if the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then how can it err on this matter?”

Okay. I don’t really agree with Licona’s thinking on this, but here’s the question I have in return.

Which temptation came first? Was it the temptation to worship the devil or the temptation to jump from the temple mount? Matthew has one order. Luke has another. Which is it?

Or do we go with something like “The Jesus Crisis” and maybe say the devil tempted Jesus six times and just used the same temptation twice? If not, then either Matthew changed the order or Luke did. If so, then wouldn’t this be by Geisler’s standard a denial of Inerrancy since one of them would have to be in error?

Or could it be it is an error by a modern post-enlightenment standard, but not by an ancient Jewish standard. To say the Bible must be read according to our standard is to get us into reader-response criticism, part of postmodernism. I’m sure Geisler doesn’t want to do that, but if the meaning of error-free in the text is determined by the culture of the reader, it looks like that’s where we’re going.

Onward.

“Second, believing there are contradictions in the Bible is emphatically rejected by the Statements of International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). Licona has claimed to agree with the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) which accepted the ICBI statements as a guide to understanding its view on inerrancy (in 2003). But the ICBI Statements contradict his claim, saying: ‘We affirm the unity and internal consistency of scripture” (Article XIV). And “We deny that later revelations…ever correct or contradict” other revelations (Article V). As for the alleged compatibility of Licona’s view with the ICBI statements, the co-founder of ICBI and the original framer of its inerrancy Statements, R. C. Sproul said flatly, “As the former and only president of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Mr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the united Statements of ICBI’ (Letter May 22, 2012).”

Ah yes. ICBI has spoken. The case is closed. All hail the papacy of evangelicalism. Here’s the reality. Licona does not believe there are contradictions in Scripture. When Licona says that clearly, it is disregarded. Who cares what he says? And this from the same group that says we can’t know authorial intent. R.C. Sproul might have said this, but what jurisdiction does he have to comment on Licona’s work since he is not a NT scholar?

By the way, what is happening is really not good for Geisler because when a new authority comes up like Sproul the response is “Wow. I guess I can’t respect Sproul any more.”

“President Al Mohler of Southern Seminary adds correctly, ‘The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy clearly and rightly affirms ‘the unity and internal consistency of Scripture’ and denies that any argument for contradictions within the Bible is compatible with inerrancy.’ An actual contradiction is an error’ (BP article 2/6/2013, emphasis added).”

Yep. So does Licona. Still, it is not what he says that matters. It is what is perceived by his opponents. It is certainly for them to try to stand up on Sinai and pass down a new tradition and put it on par with what has been revealed.

As I say this, I am thinking about a comic strip from Peanuts I put on my Facebook recently with Charlie Brown telling Snoopy he hears he’s writing a book on theology and hopes he has a good title. Snoopy says he has the perfect title and as we see him typing, we see the title is “Has It Ever Occurred To You That You Might Be Wrong?”

If we get a copy of that, can we please pass it on to Geisler and Mohler?

“Third, Licona still embraces the view that it is compatible with inerrancy to accept the Greco-Roman view that there are legends in the Gospels. Licona claims this Greco-Roman view is a “flexible genre,” and “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 34). Indeed, he adds, “Bios offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…and they often included legends” (ibid., emphasis added).”

Did Licona say there are legends in the Bible? Nope. He was first determining what the genre was of the gospels. The best work to read on this would be Burridge’s book “What Are The Gospels?” Licona is writing a scholarly book for other scholars and stating at the start what the genre is and the rules of it. He is not stating that since many contain legends, therefore the gospels do. Geisler is taking out of context a saying of Licona’s and making it mean something it doesn’t.

Be careful. In some places, that’s called “false witness.” I would think if someone wants to take the text seriously, they should consider what the text says about that.

“In a YouTube video (11/23/2012) taken at the 2012 Evangelical Theological Society meeting (http://youtu.be/TJ8rZukh_Bc), Licona affirmed the following: “So um this didn’t really bother me in terms of if there were contradictions in the Gospels…. So um it didn’t really bother me a whole lot even if some contradictions existed. But it did bother a lot of Christians.” However, Licona consoles himself, saying, “I mean there are only maybe a handful of things between Gospels that are potential contradictions and only one or two that I found that are really stubborn for me at this point and they are all in the peripherals again.” However, this is no consolation for an inerrantist since even one error in the Bible would mean it is not the Word of God because God cannot error in even one thing that He affirms. After all, how many mistakes can an omniscient Being make? Zip , zero, zilch! None!”

Reply: Here’s why this doesn’t bother Licona? The case can be made that Jesus rose from the dead still. Is Geisler really going to tell us that if the Bible is not Inerrant, then we cannot make the case that Jesus rose from the dead? Has it come to that? Is it the case for Geisler that if the Bible is not Inerrant, then that means that Christianity is false? If so, then I really feel sorry for his faith position.

One would be hard-pressed to memorize every detail to deal with what look like contradictions in the Bible. Even for those who affirm Inerrancy, they can still understand that some places in the Bible do look like they contradict. If not, why would a whole book be written like “When Critics Ask”? If your whole faith depended on giving a defense for everyone of those consistently, what a burden it would be!

Geisler may not think Licona’s view is a great consolation for an Inerrantist. Who is it a great consolation for though? A Christian. Why? Because a Christian can know that you can take a Bible that could be less than perfect and still get the truth that Jesus rose from the dead and thus Christianity is still true.

Besides, how far will Geisler’s idea of an omniscient being making no mistakes go? Now I agree that God does not make mistakes, but does Geisler not know about internet atheists? Does he not know about people who will say that an omniscient and omnipotent God could do a better job of preserving His Word? Would Geisler maybe like to side with the KJV onlyists who say that He did, but only in the KJV? Could one not ask Geisler “If God can write a perfect book, why can He not preserve one?”

Many of us think God did preserve His Word. We just realize it requires work on our part. It is not a fax from Heaven or something like golden tablets. The writing and copying was still a very much human process. Errors in copying, which no one should deny exist, do not equal errors on God’s part. They equal errors on our part. A view like Geisler’s will instead set up Christians to have their faith shattered by having to have everything perfect.

“Fourth, Licona believes the Greco-Roman Genre used by the Gospels allows for errors. He claims this is a “flexible genre,” and “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (The Resurrection of Jesus [RJ], 34). So, “as I started to note some of these liberties that he took I immediately started to recognize that these are the same liberties that I noticed the Evangelists did, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” (ibid., emphasis added). So, “these most commonly cited differences in the Gospels that skeptics like Ehrman like to refer to as contractions aren’t contradictions after all. They are just the standard biographical liberties that ancient biographers of that day took.”

Yes. The quote on page 34 just in case you missed the fact that it was quoted not too long ago.

Oh, by the way, that part about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? That’s not on page 34 of the book. It comes from the Baptist Press article. Geisler doesn’t even tell you who the “he” is in the passage. It’s Plutarch and this was a project begun after the book was released. In fact, note what Licona has done. He’s done this to show that what Ehrman says are contradictions aren’t. You can argue that Licona is wrong, but the reason he’s doing this is to show there aren’t contradictions. These are just liberties, and having liberty in writing does not mean that one will necessarily have contradictions.

You’d think someone who cares about Inerrancy so much would welcome this.

“However, the ICBI statements clearly reject this conclusion, insisting that: “WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ICBI Hermeneutics Article XX). The Bible does use different genres of literature (history, poetry, parable, etc.). But these are known from inside the Bible by use of the traditional “grammatico-historical exegesis” which the ICBI framers embraced (Inerrancy Article XVIII). Indeed, the framers said emphatically, “WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual. WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact. WE DENY that any such event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).”

Alas. It does not matter. ICBI has spoken. The case is closed. I wonder at this point if I opened up Geisler’s Bible if I’d find ICBI in the back of it. Geisler is still getting it wrong in that you can’t dehistoricize an account that is not historical to begin with. Note also that Licona does not say Matthew is “inventing” an event.

“Unlike Licona, the genre categories into which the Bible is said to fit are not determined by data outside the Bible. The Gospels, for example, may be their own unique genre, as many biblical scholars believe. As the ICBI statement puts it, “Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (Chicago Statement, Article XVIII). Indeed, the ICBI Commentary on Hermeneutics Article XVIII declares: “The second principle of the affirmation is that we are to take account of the literary forms and devices that are found within the Scriptures themselves” (emphasis added). The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible, not Greek legends.”

Really? Which biblical scholars are these? The article doesn’t tell us. We also need to know why they think this. Even if that is given, the other side needs to be shown to be wrong. Without that, it just becomes “We have people who take our side, therefore we are right” and truth can come to just a head count.

Also, if Geisler is so scared of extra-biblical information, then what is he doing with Genesis 1, which he thinks ought to be seen as teaching an old Earth in light of modern science. Note that that modern science is NOT something the ancients had access to. They did have access to the kind of material Licona uses. Could not someone come to Geisler and say “You deny Inerrancy for you use extrabiblical material to make the Bible say the Earth is old when the text itself says it isn’t, and the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible.”

Geisler could come up with a defense, but his opponents can just say “Oh sure. You affirm Inerrancy, but you’re changing the meaning of the text with extra-biblical material.” The sword cuts both ways.

If Geisler wants to dispute the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies, no scholars will have a problem with it, provided he makes an actual argument. He can read Burridge’s book. An actual response will deal with Burridge’s data and show why it’s wrong. An actual response will not be “ICBI says otherwise!”

As for the “Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible” this is just a cliche saying. The Bible cannot interpret itself. It does not have a mind like that. It is the great holy book of our faith, but it is still a book. I’d like to use an example of why this is problematic. I read 2 Timothy last night. Can Geisler tell me who Jannes and Jambres were?

Remember. No extra-biblical literature is allowed.

You see, these two are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3. It does not tell who they are? Tradition says they were the magicians who opposed Moses, but all we know from the text is that they opposed Moses. The magicians certainly did, but many times so did the Israelites.

Can Geisler give me a definitive word on who these two are without referring to extra-biblical material? Answer. Nope.

If you want to know the layout of the land of Israel to know where Jesus walked, or the layout of the Roman Empire to know where Paul went on his journeys, you must use extra-biblical material. Does Geisler want to rip the maps out of the back of his Bible since they’re extra-biblical? (It could give him more room to include the ICBI statements in there after all.) Geisler makes the mistake of treating the Bible as if it was written in a vacuum. It wasn’t. It is in a high-context society that assumes you’re familiar with the background material. We’re not since we’re not part of that society. Hence, we need the scholarly work. Even knowing the society is knowing something “extra-biblical.”

Let’s deal with the next parts together.

“Fifth, in direct contradiction to the ICBI statements on inerrancy, Licona dehistoricizes part of the Gospels. Licona and even some reviewers tend to focus on only one issue in Licona’s writings, namely, the non-historical status of the resurrected saints in Matthew 27. But the ICBI statements on inerrancy condemn “dihistoricizing” the Gospel record. Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on inerrancy reads: “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship” (emphasis added). The ICBI commentary on this reads: “To turn narrative history into poetry, or poetry into narrative history would be to violate the intended meaning of the text” (Commentary on Inerrancy Article XVIII). Again, “WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact. WE DENY that any such event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated” (Hermeneutics Article XIV). The official commentary adds, “While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.”

“Licona’s claim that he is not “dehistoricizing” is bogus since it is based on the false assumption that the Gospels are not making a claim to be historical (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). But the ICBI fathers clearly reject this, insisting that: “WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article VIII).”

Looking at the first part, note that it says that to turn narrative into poetry or anything of the like would deny the intended meaning of the text.

I thought we couldn’t know the intended meaning….

Next we have the same canard that Licona’s view is bogus since it assumes the gospels are not making a claim to be historical. This is just more question-begging on Geisler’s part. It is amusing that he refers to the ICBI fathers. Do we have a magisterium going on here?

“This is particularly true of the Matthew 27 text about the resurrection of the saints which presents itself as historical in many ways, including the following: (1) It occurs in a book that present itself as historical (cf. Mt. 1:1,18); (2) Numerous events in this book have been confirmed as historical (e.g., the birth, life, deeds, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ); (3) It is presented in the immediate context of other historical events, namely, the death and resurrection of Christ; (4) The resurrection of these saints is also presented as an event occurring as a result of the literal death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Mt. 27:52-53); (5) Its lineage with the preceding historical events is indicated by a series of conjunctions (and…and…and, etc.); (6) It is introduced by the attention getting “Behold” (v. 51) which focuses on its reality;[1] (7) It has all the same essential earmarks of the literal resurrection of Christ, including: (a) empty tombs, (b) dead bodies coming to life, and (c) these resurrected bodies appearing to many witnesses; (8) It lacks any literary embellishment common to myths, being a short, simple, and straightforward account; (9) It contains elements that are confirmed as historical by other Gospels, such as (a) the veil of the temple being split (Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), and (b) the reaction of the Centurion (Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47). If these events are historical, then there is no reason to reject the other events, such as, the earthquake and the resurrection of the saints.”

Hate to tell you this Geisler, but apocalyptic and even fictional accounts have those too. In fact, by this argument, how can Geisler deny the copycat thesis to be false since it has the exact same characteristics often. Is Geisler going to say they are false because they are not biblical? If so, then again, he is begging the question. If he can say they can have these types of things in them and still not be historical, then he has refuted his own argument. He can’t have it both ways. Note also there has not been a response to Licona’s own arguments, such as what he said in “When The Saints Go Marching In.”

“Further, Both Licona and even some reviewers make the mistake of assuming that Matthew 27 is the only problem that Licona has on the inerrancy issue. In fact, there are numerous places where Licona deviates from the traditional ICBI view on inerrancy which even ETS adopted as a guide for understanding inerrancy. Consider the following:”

Just a side note. Geisler never deals with “these reviewers” which include myself, J.P. Holding, Max Andrews, and others. Those challenges are still floating out there. Holding has challenged Geisler to debate that the gospels are not Greco-Roman biographies. That challenge was deleted from Geisler’s Facebook page and the person who put it up banned. If Geisler is so sure of his view, then how about dealing with these reviewers and accepting the challenge, or is it Geisler knows he can’t win that debate and would prefer to rant and rave from where he is?

“(1) Licona denied the historicity of the resurrected saints in Matthew 27. He wrote in his book on The Resurrection of Jesus (RJ) that the resurrection of the saints narrative was “a weird residual fragment” (RJ, 527) and a “strange report” (RJ, 530, 548, 556, emphasis added in these citations).[2] He called it “poetical,” a “legend,” an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects” (see RJ, 306, 548, 552, 553, emphasis added in all these citations). He adds, “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes (see RJ, 185-186, emphasis added in all these citations). While Licona later moderated his certainty of this denial, he never retracted it, nor has he retracted his belief that it is compatible with inerrancy, even the ICBI view, to hold that this section is a legend.”

Let’s see. Who else holds this view? William Lane Craig does. Do we hear about Geisler going after Craig? Nope. Someone else is Craig Evans who says in “The Textual Reliability of the New Testament” on pages 166-167 (I am unsure exactly as I read it on the Kindle) that the story of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is chronologically clumsy and does not reflect the literary skill of the Matthean evangelist and “Should we someday recover a second century Greek manuscript that preserves the latter part of Matthew 27, I shall not be surprised if vv. 52-53 are not present.”

Let loose the hounds of heresy!

Note also the way Licona says about the data with Jesus that “it could be mixed with legend.” Licona is writing to scholars and when you do that, you don’t assume Inerrancy, you state what could be at the start, but the rest of the work is to show that it is not. This is again fearmongering.

“(2) Licona also affirmed that one of the Gospels claims that Jesus was crucified on the wrong day. This he said in a debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Spring, 2009 (which is cited above). This is a serious breach of inerrancy.

(3, 4, 5, 6) Licona also casts doubt on the existence of the angels at the tomb after the resurrection in all four Gospels). He declared: “We may also be reading poetic language of legend at certain points, such as …the angels at the tomb (Mk 16:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13)” (RJ, 185-186).”

We had to have the changed date mentioned again. It’s kind of like the way it was the day Michael Jackson died. You have to have it repeated umpteen times just in case anyone missed it by now. As for the part about angels, this is just the same thing. Licona is trying to do a historical investigation without assuming Inerrancy. That’s how it’s done. You have to be open to being wrong.

Something Geisler is not.

“(7) He also suggested that the mob falling backward at Jesus claim in John 18:4-6 may not be historical but could be a legendary embellishment. He called it: “A possible candidate for embellishment is Jn 18:4-6” (RJ, 306, n. 114).”

Despite the fact that on the Theopologetics podcast, Licona said he does not believe there are embellishements. Why is he saying what is said above then? Again, this is the way scholars write. One piece some think is an embellishment is the one cited.

“Licona affirms that the Gospels sometimes embellished Jesus’ words. He wrote, “For this reason, we get a sense that the canonical Gospels are reading authentic reports of Jesus’ arrest and death…even if some embellishments are present” (RJ, 306). This is contrary to Luke 1:1-4 which affirms that the Gospels are based on the accounts of “eyewitness.”

No. There is no affirmation of that. It is saying even if there were embellishments, the accounts would still be accurate. Also, if there were, how does that contradict the account being based on eyewitness testimony. Is Geisler saying an eyewitness could never embellish anything at all? I’m sure some police officers and journalists would be fascinated to hear that one!

“(9) Licona believes that the Gospel of Matthew does not come from the apostle Matthew or from another apostolic source, but it has been redacted by a later writer. For he affirmed that “This strange report in Matthew 27:52-53 attempts to retain the corporate harrowing of hell and the individual preascension appearances. However, “the magnificent harrowing of hell is already lost in that fragment’s present redaction” (RJ, 530). ”

Does anyone in there see any argument saying Matthew did not write Matthew? I don’t. By the way, I’ve talked to Licona personally about this, seeing as he is my father-in-law, concerning how Ehrman is too quick to dismiss church father testimony on who wrote the gospels. I think I know his view well enough. Geisler has it wrong. Also, perhaps we should address redaction criticism. Mark Goodacre at his blog on the topic defines it this way:

“Redaction Criticism is the study of the way in which the evangelists (= “redactors”) moulded their source material, with a view to discovering their literary and theological agendas”

What does this say about who wrote it? Zip. It just says what they did. To say the writer redacted his material is not to say that Matthew did not write it. I recently took my wife to see a dentist and met a Jehovah’s Witness there. When I told different family members and friends about it, I would regularly take the material I had from my own memory and change it some, not by adding, but by summarizing or leaving parts out or what have you. Within a few minutes of the event, I was redacting it, but that does not mean that I was giving errors in what I was saying.

Edited to add: The case gets worse. If you go to Licona’s book, and I urge anyone skeptical to do so, you will find the quote from Geisler is actually Licona quoting John Dominic Crossan. It has a footnote right after it. I would very much like to hear Geisler explain how it is he thinks that this is Licona’s view since it has a footnote right after it. Is this the kind of methodology that Geisler will employ or allow to go after Licona?

“(10, 11, 12, etc.) Licona also admits that there are an unnumbered “handful” of possible errors in the Gospels. He wrote: “I mean there are only maybe a handful of things between Gospels that are potential contradictions and only one or two that I found that are really stubborn for me at this point and they are all in the peripherals again.” However, he takes comfort that they are all in “peripheral” areas. But here again, how many errors can an omniscient Mind make in so-called peripheral areas? None! Further, some of the errors are not so “peripheral,” such as the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 after Jesus’ resurrection. After all, their resurrection was seen as a result of Jesus resurrection and was even taken to be a proof of it by the context and by many early Fathers of the Church (see “The Early Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27,” http://tinyurl.com/bdu23gg), including an apostolic Father (Ignatius) who was a contemporary of the apostle John and Irenaeus who knew Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John.”

Licona is being an honest scholar here. He is looking at the material and dealing with it, something Geisler needs to do, especially with the material of his opponents. Licona is also not calling Matthew 27 an error. As for the article on the church fathers (By the way, the church fathers are extra-biblical. Why are we allowed to use them to interpret the text? I thought the Bible was its own interpreter), there is a reply in the works. Unlike Geisler, I’m seeking an expert in the church fathers to make sure I get my claims correct. I can say Geisler does not deal with Licona’s objections in “When The Saints Go Marching In.”

” Conclusion

Even Licona admits that “… You may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels, but you still have the truth of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, and I think that’s the most important point we can make” (BP, Feb 6, 2013, emphasis added). Indeed, one would lose some form of inerrancy, if Licona is right—the form that has been held by Christians down though the centuries (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church, 1984) including Southern Baptist (see Russ Bush and Tom Nettles, Baptist and the Bible, 1980), was confessed by the framers of the ETS, and was codified by the ICBI framers. In view of this, it is incredible to hear Licona say, as he did (BP Feb. 5, 2012), that “he has not claimed there are contradictions in the Gospels.” He clearly did say there was a contradiction in the Gospels in his debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary (cited above). He also admitted in his YouTube interview (cited above) there were or could be contradictions in the Bible. In fact, if words still have meaning, one wonders what form of inerrancy can there be that admits the Bible is errant? As President Al Mohler said, “It would be nonsense to affirm real contradictions in the Bible and then to affirm inerrancy” (BP 2/6/2013). ”

Little problem. Licona never affirmed contradictions. This is just putting words in his mouth as part of fearmongering. Note that Geisler does not even say anything about the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is the most important point we can make. Geisler has often spoke about the fundamental of fundamentals. It is not the Bible or Inerrancy. It is what Licona defends instead, the resurrection.

I have a book here in my library that on page 63 in talking about the Bible says the following in discussing the significance of the internal harmony of Scripture:

“This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.”

I do not doubt many people would agree with this. Do you want to know where it is?

It’s in a book called “Reasoning from the Scriptures.”

If you do not know, that is one of the main books of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Witnesses affirm Inerrancy, and they’re right! You know what they get wrong? What the Inerrant teaching is. That includes the resurrection. They do not see it as a physical resurrction.

You see, someone can be right about the Bible being Inerrant, and still not be a Christian. Yet could someone have the right view that Jesus rose from the dead and still think the Bible has errors (Which Licona and I don’t.)? Answer. Absolutely! I would rather someone come to the right Jesus and have the wrong view of the Bible, than come to the right view of the Bible and with the wrong Jesus.

Geisler goes on.

” Licona’s good friend Gary Habermas of Liberty University offers a lame excuse for his former pupil’s aberrant views when he claimed that people should remember that Licona’s approach is an apologetic strategy. “Thus, it is not a prescription for how a given text should be approached in the original languages and translated, or how a systematic theology is developed…. So it should never be concluded that the use of such methods in an apologetic context indicate a lack of trust in Scripture as a whole, or, say, the Gospels in particular” (cited in BP 2/13/2013). If this is taken to mean that Licona does not agree with his own words in his own book (RJ) and lectures when he denies the inerrancy of the Gospels, then it is ludicrous. For, as any reasonably intelligent reader can tell, Licona is making and defending the statements of his book as his own and not simply as an “apologetic strategy.” Nowhere in the 718 pages of his book (RJ) does he claim that it is merely an “apologetic strategy.” The only apologetic strategy is the one employed by Habermas to defend his wayward student.”

Note this. A “lame” excuse. Wasn’t this from the side telling us we need a respectful dialogue? Apparently, this is like the people who cry out for tolerance but don’t think they need to show it. Sorry Geisler, but Habermas is right on this. It is an apologetic strategy. All he is wanting to affirm is that the minimal facts approach is not a sidestep of Scripture. It is not about Licona. Geisler is reading something into the text. For Geisler, it has to be spelled out specifically, except for when it disagrees with him. Licona specifically says he does not believe in embellishments in the Bible, but that is not enough. The rules keep changing.

Also, Licona does not deny Inerrancy. Do we really have to keep repeating this?

“Licona told the Baptist Press, “I suppose that if one were to claim that it’s unorthodox to read the Gospels and attempt to understand them according to the genre in which they were written rather than impose Dr. Geisler’s modern idea of precision upon them, then I’m guilty as charged” (emphasis added). However, this begs the whole question for it assumes, contrary to fact, that they are written in a Greco-Roman genre which Licona claims is a “flexible genre,” and “it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins. He added, “Bios offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches…and they often included legends” (RJ, 34, emphasis added). The truth of the matter is that ICBI framers are not imposing a “modern idea” of precision on the Bible, certainly not in claiming Gospel record of the resurrection of the saints is historical. This is purely a “straw man” fallacy. The ICBI frames clearly said, “We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as lack of modern technical precision, … the use of hyperbole and round numbers” (Article XII, emphasis added). What is more, it is not inerrantists but Licona who is imposing a foreign, extra-biblical Greco-Roman genre on the Bible which leads to “dehistoricizing” the Scripture and undermining the doctrine of inerrancy.”

No. Licona does not “assume” that the gospels are Greco-Roman bios. He argues for it. Geisler says this is contrary to fact. Can he say so? Is he willing to step into the debate ring with Holding on this one? Until he does so, I say there is no reason to listen to him on this. If he thinks his case is correct, he can demonstrate it in a debate. If not, then it’s time to get off of Mount Sinai.

Finally, Geisler ends with this:

“Furthermore, it is not a question of “precision” that inerrantists insist upon when they disallow Licona’s allegations of contradictions in the Bible. As Dr. Page Patterson, President of Southwest Baptist theological Seminary, aptly put it: “Let’s be clear. A story, an affirmation, is either true or false, but not both true and false in the same way at the same time. That is a long accepted law of logic, and no amount of fudging can make it change. While I have no reason to question the sincerity of the author and while only God can judge his heart, Southern Baptists paid far too great a price to insist on the truthfulness of God’s Word to now be lured by a fresh emergence of the priesthood of the philosopher, especially when a philosopher raises a question about the truthfulness of Scripture” (1/9/2012).”

Note that Patterson’s name is spelled wrong again. Yet does Patterson really think Licona is denying the Law of non-contradiction? What is this of the priesthood of the philosopher as well? Licona is not a philosopher! If we want to talk about the priesthood of the philosopher, let’s do some checking.

Patterson – “After graduating from Hardin-Simmons University, Patterson completed the Master of Theology (Th.M.) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.”

http://www.paigepatterson.info/about.cfm

Al Mohler – “A native of Lakeland, Fla., Dr. Mohler was a Faculty Scholar at Florida Atlantic University before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Samford University in Birmingham, Ala. He holds a master of divinity degree and the doctor of philosophy (in systematic and historical theology) from Southern Seminary. He has pursued additional study at the St. Meinrad School of Theology and has done research at University of Oxford (England).”

http://www.albertmohler.com/about/

Norman Geisler – ”

William Tyndale College, 1950-55 (diploma)
University of Detroit, 1956-57
Wheaton College, 1958 (B.A. in philosophy)
Wheaton Graduate School, 1960 (M.A. in theology)
William Tyndale College, 1964 (Th.B.)
Wayne State University Graduate School, 1964 (work in philosophy)
University of Detroit Graduate School, 1965-66 (work on M.A. in philosophy)
Northwestern University, Evanston, 1968 (work in philosophy)
Loyola University, Chicago, 1967-70 (Ph.D. in philosophy) ”

http://www.normgeisler.com/about/default.htm

Mark Hanna, Geisler supporter – “Mark M. Hanna is a full time writer and was for many years the Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and World Religions at Talbot School of Theology and California State University. He also taught at the University of Southern California, where he earned M.A. degrees in philosophy and world religions and a Ph.D. in philosophy.”

http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Licona/DrMarkMHannaAgainstTheologicalErosion.htm

Christopher Cone, Geisler supporter – “Ph.D. / Philosophy, University of North Texas, 2011

Dissertation: Redacted Dominionism: An Evangelical and Environmentally Sympathetic Reading of the Early Genesis Narrative

Ph.D. / Theology, Trinity School of Theology, Kerala, India 2008

Dissertation: Prolegomena: A Survey and Introduction to Method in Theology, Beginning with Presuppositional Epistemology and Resulting in Normative Dispensational Theology

M.Ed. / Leadership & Administration, Regent University, 2005

Th.D. / Theology, Scofield Graduate School, 2005

Dissertation: The Promises of God: A Synthetic Bible Survey

M.B.S / Biblical Studies, Scofield Graduate School, 1997

B.B.S. / Biblical Studies, Tyndale Biblical Institute, 1996

Undergraduate Studies, Moody Bible Institute, 1992-94”

J.I. Packer – “Born in Gloucester, England, Packer won a scholarship to Oxford University. He was educated at Corpus Christi College, obtaining the degrees of Bachelor of Arts (1948), Master of Arts (1952), and Doctor of Philosophy (1955). ”

http://christian-quotes.ochristian.com/J.I.-Packer-Quotes/

R.C. Sproul – ”

Education:
B.A. (PHILOSOPHY), WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, 1961; B.D. PITTSBURGH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 1964; Drs. (DOCTORANDUS DOGMATIK), FREE UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM, 1969; Litt D GENEVA COLLEGE, 1976; LHD GROVE CITY COLLEGE, 1993; Ph.D. WHITEFIELD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 2001 ”

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/rcsproul.html

If we want to end the priesthood of the philosopher, then let us be consistent. Anyone with a Ph.D. in philosophy will no longer determine the path of the studies.

But alas, the rules will be different.

The sad reality is Geisler is not helping Inerrancy. If you read the blogosphere, and I do, people are being driven from it. Geisler is destroying the legacy, nay, has destroyed, the legacy he spent a lifetime building. If anyone is responsible for the decline in affirming Inerrancy today, it is not Licona. It is Geisler himself.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Geisler’s article can be found here: http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/Licona/HoustonBaptistDefenseOfLicona.htm (Because we do believe in responding to critics and making sure we get their views correct.)

Mark Goodacare on Redaction Criticism can be found here: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-redaction-mps-and-nt.html

Book Plunge: Faith on Trial

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

The following is from Hope’s Reason’s Apologetics Journal. Thanks for publishing this to Stephen Bedard. The link to the journal can be found here. I also recommend the writing of Chris Winchester in this issue, a very good friend of mine who was a groomsman at our wedding.

Books that have gained popularity in Christian circles on apologetics tend to have a theme. It is not enough to just write about the resurrection or the historical Jesus or the problem of evil. You need some context that all the information fits in to reach the culture. Lee Strobel did this excellently with his “Case for” series. When the writing is set in a dialogue, it makes it much easier to follow. J. Warner Wallace has done this with “Cold-Case Christianity” which I contend will be the “Case for Christ” of this generation, by setting everything in the setting of a homocide detective. I believe that Pamela Binnings Ewen’s book “Faith on Trial” is meant to follow that same line with the case being seen as a legal proceeding and Ewen presenting the evidence to the jury.
This book is a mixed bag. I think right at the start that the information on hearsay is enough to devastate a number of atheistic arguments that are part of the common parlance of the atheistic movement today. Ewen starts this off on page 19 saying “ To begin with, under the general rule, if such out-of-court statements are offered as truth of the facts they assert, they would ordinarily be excluded as hearsay evidence.” Note the word ordinarily. Not too much later on the same page, Ewen says “Nevertheless, an exception is permitted under the law for statements contained in an “ancient document,” and the Gospel manuscripts fall within that exception.”
It’s safe to say that she spends the rest of the chapter, around fifteen pages, defeating the hearsay objection and allowing the gospels to be examined like any other ancient documents and to be admissible in a court of law. Readers who debate atheists online will find this to be extremely helpful. Considering the work Ewen has done here it would be good to see a whole book on this just dealing with this objection.
Unfortunately, I found the rest of the book just didn’t keep up with that level of excitement. For instance, in her look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, she refers to the work of Thiede in saying a fragment of Mark is found amongst the DSS. Thiede’s hypothesis is highly challenged and not just by liberal scholars. A conservative scholar as strong as Daniel Wallace has challenged it. That can be found here.
I found myself too often in the book wishing that Ewen would interact more with those who disagree with her views. One can regularly find Christian authorities cited, but I would have liked to have seen interaction with people like Crossan or Ehrman or those who are not friendly to the idea of the NT giving an accurate reading of what happened and why they were skeptical. I also wish more had been said about the textual criticism of the text as an Ehrman would quickly delight in pointing out to Ewen information about our earliest copies.
With regards to the works she does cite, a number of them can be popular apologetics works. I would have liked to have seen more interaction with some of our latest works. For instance, Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” contains invaluable information that would be useful to this book and greatly improve it. Another great help would have been Craig Keener’s “Miracles.” Of course, that would have been a lengthy read and the book could have been off to the presses by then, but it would have been helpful to see Ewen’s expertise in examining miracle claims from a legal perspective.
I also think there should have been more on the resurrection. There was little time devoted to dealing with the objections that come to belief in the resurrection. I did not see an emphasis on ideas like the minimal facts approach of Habermas and Licona. It could have been said that the testimony of the evangelists was reliable, but even if it’s generally reliable, some people will require even more for a great event like the resurrection.
The issues on science were interesting, but I thought too heavily focused on. Readers who were critical would say that Ewen did not interact with the critics of Behe, for instance. It was good to see that she brought in non-Christian testimony here, but it seemed like too much to make a point on miracles and could too easily be interpreted as a God-of-the-Gaps.
It’s my conclusion that this book will be good for the hearsay aspect and that the evidences in many cases are good enough to start making a case, but I suspect too much of it could be seen as going with what is not the most reliable and making it to be a centerpiece in a case. This is a decent read on the topic, but I cannot at this point endorse wholeheartedly. I think the author has a brilliant start, but it just needs some refining. If that is done, I do not doubt we could have an excellent work on our hands.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Who Gets The Kingdom?

Who’s welcome into the Kingdom? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I post my blog entries up on TheologyWeb.com, and if you’re not a member there and like discussing theology and apologetics, you need to come. I post under the name of ApologiaPhoenix there. Anyway, I had a commenter who did say that he thinks forgiveness is an important theme in the gospels. I had not intended to downplay forgiveness in yesterday’s post. I just emphasized another point because it is my fear that we make the gospels be something they’re not and then miss what they are.

Of course, forgiveness does show up in the gospels and I’d like to tie that in to the idea of Jesus as a king in the gospels. As a king, Jesus is in a position to grant forgiveness to those who He believes have violated His rule. In fact, to come to Jesus and seek forgiveness for sin tells plenty about how Jesus was seen to the people. That He accepted it tells us more about how He saw Himself.

If you have sinned, then in a covenant sense, you have fallen out of favor with God. You are no longer in right relation to Him and owe Him a debt. Biblically, we know that we can never repay a debt that we owe to God. To forgive on anyone’s part is to say that the debt is no longer held against us. We are free to go as if we do not owe anything, which is a quite rich gesture on the part of God. Those who think God judges sin too seriously, such as Hell and the Canaanite conquest, need to realize God is just as serious with forgiving sins and gives that to anyone who sincerely asks.

So Jesus is going through Israel and is He is making a campaign to be the Messiah of Israel. What role does forgiveness play? Let us consider what is being talked about. Jesus is talking about the Kingdom. Something that every kingdom has is citizens. People living in the Roman Empire would know the great value of being a citizen of Rome. What greater value would there be in being a citizen of the Kingdom of God?

Jesus in forgiving sinners and in associating with prostitutes and tax collectors is saying “These are the people I deem worthy of being citizens of the kingdom of God.” Now to be sure, He is not approving their behavior. What He is approving is that they are cognizant of their need for Him and for the forgiveness of God. It is their turning to recognize Him as king that makes them allowed to be in the Kingdom. There is no place in the Kingdom for those who do not accept the King.

Fortunately, this is a thing of the past. As we are today, we don’t have anybody who thinks that certain people ought not to be forgiven and that Jesus just would not associate with some people. We are past all of this silly class distinction and it never enters the church.

I sure hope you don’t buy that.

I am a strong Republican, but I am sure many of my fellow Republicans would not like to think about liberals and Democrats inheriting the Kingdom of God, but there will be such people there provided they have accepted Christ as King. Many Democrats need to realize as well that we evil conservatives and Republicans will be in the Kingdom as well, but also on only the same standard. Is Christ king?

Some people from a high-church climate need to realize that those people who don’t dress as nicely will also be a part of the Kingdom. Meanwhile, those poor who think the high-class types are just snobs also need to realize that some of them will be in the Kingdom as well. The requirement again is the same.

Think about how many communities are looked down on by some. Those goth kids down at the mall? If they have Christ as King, they will be in the Kingdom. That teenager who listens to that loud music? If Christ is King, he will be in the Kingdom. Those people at church that talk your ear off or the ones that seem quite silent? If Christ is King, they will be in the Kingdom.

People of every race, tribe, and language will be in the Kingdom. If you have a problem with a certain trace, tribe, or language, it’s best to deal with it now, because chances are you’ll spend eternity with someone from that group.

And let’s consider two of the hardest people to love that will be in the Kingdom eternally if this is correct.

First is your neighbor. We all know that family can be some of the toughest people to love and so can close friends, but they will be in the Kingdom as well. Your spouse might have some little idiosyncracies that drive you crazy. (I can assure you I have so many that Allie probably wants to go berserk at times. She thinks she’s married to Sheldon Cooper. I’m sorry. “Dr. Sheldon Cooper.”) Love them into Christlikeness, but realize you spend eternity with them, so learn to love them now.

We live next door to my parents in my grandmother’s old house. It can be a mixed blessing. Overall, it’s good as they can help us out with so many things that we can use the help on. Of course, we have to spend some time making boundaries that are proper. There are times we do things to them they don’t understand and frustrate them. There are times they do the same to us. We have to learn to love though. We’re in the Kingdom forever.

And the last person so hard to love is yourself. It is important for us to realize that we have been chosen for the Kingdom. It is not something about being worthy. In fact, the admittance into the Kingdom is based upon realizing you are not worthy. Our whole problem today is we make getting into the Kingdom to be something about worthy, as if one earns a position at the table.

In the OT, David wanted to show honor to Jonathan’s family and so he sought out a relative of Saul’s. He found Mephibosheth, a young man who was crippled in both feet. The account is found in 2 Samuel 9 and states a number of times that Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table. It wants us to make sure we notice this. This person with nothing to offer was given the honor of eating at the table of the King. It was not about worth. It was about grace, that is, the favor of the King, and if it was earned, it would not be grace.

Unfortunately, in the time of Jesus, several did not think these types should be in the Kingdom. It eventually led to the crucifixion, yet as I said yesterday, the Father overruled that with the resurrection of the Son of God.

Apparently, He thinks such people should be in the Kingdom.

And for that, we should be living lives of gratitude devoted to the service of the one who has granted us to be citizens of the Kingdom. We are but servants doing what we have been told.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

What Are The Gospels?

Do the gospels tell the gospel? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

With the Inerrancy debate going on, a lot of people are getting introduced to the idea that the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. I have no desire to challenge that idea. I even agree with it. I’d like to come from a different perspective. Are the gospels really meant to teach us the gospel?

If you mean the idea that we have today that you need to believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and turn to him, then I would actually say no. That is not the point of the gospels. A possible exception could be at the end of John of course, but I’d like to suggest a different purpose that could include that and yet goes beyond it.

In Mark 1, right off the start, we have Jesus after his baptism and temptation saying the the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news. If good news there means “gospel” as we often take it to mean, then this is strange because there is nothing in there about turning to Jesus for forgiveness or believing in Him as God and Messiah.

The same happens in Matthew 4:17. In neither of these cases, Jesus has not preached a sermon yet. We have no idea what His message could be, but I’d like to suggest a different approach.

N.T. Wright wrote about how in Josephus there is a reference to someone telling someone else to repent in the meaning of “Come over to my side.” I find this to be a fascinating consideration. Jesus is telling Israel to repent, Israel that already believed they had forgiveness.

In fact, Jesus doesn’t really speak out against the system of forgiveness. He speaks against its misuse. He tells the people what God really desires more is mercy and faith, but He never goes against the system as a whole, which is interesting since Jesus was very quick to point out other areas that he thought the Jewish system was deficient.

Let’s suppose this isn’t about forgiveness per se. What could it be about? The connection with both texts is the Kingdom. Jesus is telling people that the Kingdom is here. In Matthew, we have more clues. Matthew starts off with Jesus being seen as “God with us.” Matthew has prophecy being fulfilled left and right and John the Baptist showing up marks this as a time of high eschatological fulfillment. God is doing something and He is doing it in Jesus.

When Jesus is doing His ministry, it is not just a ministry but a political statement as it were. Let us compare it to modern campaigns. There were several Messiahs running around town. Jesus was another claimant and Jesus had to show He was the real deal. Not only was He showing who He was, He was also showing what the Kingdom was like. What is the Sermon on the Mount? It is a message about what people under His reign are to be like. What are the miracles? They are showing what the Earth will be like when Jesus is fully in charge.

We have just gone through an election cycle. We should know what this is like. Each candidate goes out to the masses and presents Himself. Jesus is presenting Himself to the people as the person that they should “elect” as their Messiah and in saying repent, He is saying “Identify with me and recognize me as your Messiah.”

This is also why He tells his disciples to go to only the lost sheep of Israel. It doesn’t make any sense to go anywhere else to proclaim yourself as Messiah. What good would it be to go to a place like Greece and say “The Messiah has come!”? The people would wonder what exactly that meant. It only makes sense in Israel. Israel gets the first vote as to whether or not Jesus is the Messiah.

Unfortunately, Israel votes no.

What is the resurrection? God votes yes. Note the resurrection does not mean Jesus is the Messiah because He rose again. He is the Messiah because He claimed to be and the resurrection is God’s stamp of approval on His ministry. It is God saying “Yes. I support Jesus as Messiah.”

And the one vote of God counts as a majority.

It is after the resurrection then that all authority is given. Israel may have decided they did not want to participate in the reign of Jesus, but He still reigns and now the Christians are to go out with a new message. Jesus is the king of the world. Jesus is the ruler of all. It’s no shock the Romans weren’t happy with this message.

What does this have to do with forgiveness of sins? For those who are concerned about it, as I’ve said elsewhere not everyone was, forgiveness is found by recognizing Jesus as king. If you recognize Him as the one to trust in, you get the favor in that He forgives your crimes against Him. This trust is what we call “faith.”

The good news does include forgiveness, but not just that. The good news is that Jesus is the king right now and we are to prepare ourselves for His total reign one day. When you are evangelizing, you are campaigning for people to recognize Jesus as king. Make a good case.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus

Can the gospels stand up to scrutiny? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One of the great benefits of having a Kindle is that one can read old books for free. Included in that would be a book such as “Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus” (TWRJ) by Thomas Sherlock. The book was written in 1729 in response to the deist Thomas Woolston. Sherlock presents the case in a court room setting with the gospels being tried. Woolston takes one position and Sherlock another before a judge. Sherlock disposes of Woolston’s arguments as well as giving the positive evidence.

The reader could be surprised to see that some modern controversies are still showing up and even answered beforehand. For instance, this book was published nineteen years before Hume’s “Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding” and yet already, Hume’s argument is dealt with. If we are to judge everything by our own experience, what of someone who lives in a tropical culture and is told about such a thing as water freezing and becoming solid? It will be outside of their experience and they have no basis to accept it other than the personal testimony of someone who says otherwise. (Note also these cultures would not have access to television or internet)

Also, it is my opinion that back then, Christians faced off against better arguments. Their opponents were far more informed. This is different from today where one can just be stunned at the ignorance of people like the new atheists in the areas of philosophy, theology, and biblical studies.

Sherlock’s presentation in this work is quite strong fortunately which leads to the next conclusion. The opponents had better arguments, but fortunately, so did the Christians. Sherlock shows that for Woolston, explaining the Christian account of reality is quite difficult, and this even without much of our modern understanding of how the biblical world was an honor-shame culture. It is a wonder to think about what Sherlock would have said if he had been around today and imbibed himself of some of what we’ve learned since his time.

Some arguments back then were seen as bizarre ipso facto. Would that they still were. Consider this on page 33. “…if the argument be good at all, it will be good to prove, that there never was such a man as Jesus in the world. Perhaps the gentleman may think that this is a little too much to prove: and if he does, I hope he will quit the argument in one case as well as in the other; for difference there is none.”

Yes. The idea that Jesus never existed was seen as ludicrous. If only such thinking was around today, but unfortunately internet atheists regularly buy into this idea. Some will say that they think that He did exist, but it’s possible to build a convincing case that He didn’t. Oh wait. It’s not just internet atheists any more. Dawkins on page 122 of “The God Delusion” says it’s possible to build a serious though not widely supported case that Jesus never even existed. On page 127 of “The New Atheism”, Victor Stenger says that we know Joseph Smith existed, but we cannot be so sure in the case of Muhammad or Jesus. In “The Portable Atheist”, starting on page 430, Ibn Warraq, an ex-Muslim, starts an argument for the case that Jesus never even existed.

Tell any of these guys that ID is serious science (A case I’m not arguing for here.) and you’ll be laughed to no end. Yet here these non-specialists come out and make the case that the Jesus myth is serious history. Perhaps the advice on page 4 of TWRJ would help. “He is but a poor council who studies on one side of the question only.”

Ultimately, the case will come down to Sherlock’s greatest proclamation in my opinion in the book. On page 15 he gives the challenge to Woolston. “There is therefore here no medium: you must either admit the miracle or prove the fraud.”

And today, the challenge still stands. Someone must admit the miracle or prove the fraud, and it looks like the fraud side is lacking even more today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sherlock’s book can be downloaded for free on your Kindle here

On Political Correctness

Is there a problem with being nice? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A follower of the blog commented recently wanting to get my thoughts in a blog on political correctness. I mainly want to look at the ways it affects us as Christians. Is there a danger in playing along with the whole song and dance of our culture and what does it say about our culture?

I have been of the opinion for a long time that we are making ourselves into a nation of victims. This is not to say that victimization never happens. It does. The problem with this victim culture is that we hold everyone else responsible for our own personal decisions. We also hold them responsible for our feelings.

Thus, if someone writes something criticizing Muhammad and Muslims get upset, it is not the fault of the Muslims. It is the fault of the person who did the criticism. Now does this mean that some forms of criticism are not crossing a line? No. It does mean that all criticism is not ipso facto wrong. To say they are is to get us closer to the thought police.

From a Christian perspective, I see insulting remarks to Jesus on a regular basis. There are actions we can all take when things like this happen. One can boycott an industry if they want to. That’s fine. One can give support to opposing industries or ones that support one’s own belief. That’s fine. The method we have now more often is to accuse the people who insult instead of the worst crime someone can be guilty of. “Intolerance!”

Tolerance has become a code word to identify the greatest virtue of all supposedly. It no longer just means something along the traditional meaning, such as that everyone has a right to their own opinion. It means that you are not allowed to disagree with anyone else’s opinion. If you dare say the Muslim is wrong, you are intolerant. If you say a woman should not get an abortion, you are intolerant. If you question the homosexual lifestyle, you are intolerant. If you dare say Jesus is the only way to Heaven, you are intolerant.

When this happens, something is lost sight of. That would be the argument. Suppose someone thinks that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. I don’t think he’s intolerant for saying that. He could be in how he presents it and how he deals with opposition, but that is his view. He has all right to hold it. It is also up to him to give the reasons why he holds that view and I am then allowed to look at that view and critique those reasons.

When the tolerance card is played, we get away from objective discussions, such as the facts of the matter, and move towards subjective ideas, such as how someone feels. I am not responsible for how someone else feels. I am a happily married man, but I cannot control how my wife feels. After all, wouldn’t a lot of my fellow men live differently if we could control how our wives feel? Wouldn’t a lot of women live differently if they could do the same with their husbands?

There is only one person responsible for how you feel.

If you want to know who that is, go look in the mirror.

Now other people can be catalysts in getting you to think a certain way producing a feeling, but the feeling is dependent on you. You can get control of your mind. You can get control of your emotions. Is this an easy skill? No. I wouldn’t even claim to have it mastered in my own life. It’s better than being a victim.

After all, how many of us want to live our lives in surrender to what other people think? How many of us would want our feelings to be dependent on the surrounding culture? Alas, this is exactly what we have. We are not allowed to do or say anything that might offend someone since that could “hurt their feelings.”

Note also, the only exception to this is evangelical Christians. You can do whatever you want to them.

Believe it or not, there are worse things than being offended. Believe it or not, you can actually bounce back from offenses done to you by others. The more you live your life as a victim, the more you are giving them power. That’s something that concerns me about bullying groups. We should stop bullying, but the way to do this is to focus on having the actions of bullies be of no effect since people know who they are.

As it stands, there can be no dialogue in the public square as long as we are constantly worried about offending someone. It’s even nowadays seen as a refutation of an argument to say “That offends me.” How many times have I read someone say that the idea of people going to Hell is offensive. Okay. So what? That doesn’t make it false. Truth does not have to and rarely will line up with your personal tastes. The first question to ask about a claim is not “Does it offend me?” but “Is it true?” If it’s not true, so what if it offends you? If it’s true, then so what again? You have to deal with it.

I don’t know how many times in the debate on marriage I’ve been just told “You’re a bigot!” over and over. It seems unthinkable to people that there could be reasons that are actually worth discussing. Fortunately, I know some people on the other side who can have discussions. Instead, I’m too often told I’m a homophobic bigot and see the arguments that are given don’t even touch my reasoning.

For Christians, my advice is to stop being doormats. First off, don’t be living in fear of offending someone. If Christ had lived a nice and friendly life, chances are he wouldn’t have been crucified. Jesus was an offense. Paul was an offense. Christianity itself is an offense. Expect to offend people. That doesn’t mean everything is fair game, but it does mean that you will offend people. Deal with it.

Next, if you want people to cease being victims, cease being them yourselves. Too often, we have played the persecution card all too easily. If we want to see real persecution, we need to go to China and Sudan and see what happens to Christians over there. We’ve got it good here. We consider it persecution when someone makes fun of us. That’s bothersome, yes, but nowhere near the level of real persecution.

To do this, we must not look at ourselves and how we are, but look to Christ and who He is. We must place our whole identity in Him, something we will spend the rest of our lives learning. It is also an example of why knowledge is so essential. We MUST know who Jesus is and this goes beyond saying “He’s Lord and God and Messiah.” We must know Him as He has revealed Himself. We must know His personality and learn to walk in like manner.

We cannot force the world to be anyway, but we can influence. They cannot force us either. Just because they play the tune, we are not obligated to dance to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Future of Biblical Scholarship

What is in store for the future of biblical scholarship? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I do a lot of debating and the idea amongst atheists is that Christians don’t do real research. They want to defend their pet doctrines. They presuppose everything beforehand and never really examine the case. All that matters is “God said it” and then we’re done.

The controversy involving what happened with Mike Licona back in 2011 was a great example of this and a huge embarrassment to the Christian church and evangelicalism. Instead of going out and dealing with the interpretation of Licona, if it was found to be false, the bullets started firing immediately crying “Heretic!” with an Inquisition squad ready to come out.

So let’s get this straight. We have what has been the most in-depth defense of the resurrection of Jesus meant to silence skeptics and we’re going to go against it because it went against a secondary doctrine of Inerrancy supposedly? We are going to implicitly say that Inerrancy is more important than the resurrection? Are our priorities out of whack?

In fact, the book didn’t even call Inerrancy into question. By that standard, any time Licona said an event is “Highly probable” or something of that sort, we should have raised the alarm. After all, how could an event be “probable.”? It’s part of the “Word of God.”

What Licona did was he met the skeptics on their own turf and he fired a massive attack into their camp. What was the evangelical response? Ditch him. Leave him there. Of course, this isn’t true of all evangelicals. There were a number of scholars in the field who sided with Licona.

Friends. Let’s suppose a work came out like this that explicitly denied Inerrancy. I still say we should celebrate it. Why? Because this was a case of trying to prove the most important point of Christianity. As Michael Patton said, there should have been twenty letters of commendation before there was one of condemnation.

Historically, Gary Habermas has been the #1 name in the field of resurrection stories. Licona has been his main student. What are we to do now with him? Because he has not interpreted everything the way some people want it to be interpreted, do away with him. Licona does believe in Inerrancy, but keep in mind we are not trying to convert people to Inerrancy. We are trying to make them disciples of Jesus. I’m fine with someone coming to say “Jesus is risen!” if they’re not quite willing to sign the line on Inerrancy. If you’re not, you’ve got a serious problem.

Licona talks about teaching a seminary class in the article (Link below) and having a student with tears in her eyes crying about contradictions she thought existed. Let’s start with a simple question.

Let us suppose that beyond the shadow of a doubt a contradiction was proven in Scripture. This is purely hypothetical. I don’t think it has, but let’s suppose it was.

What would that do to your Christianity?

If you’re one of those Christians who says “My faith would be shattered immediately and Jesus would not have risen from the dead” you have a problem.

Many of us would say “Well I’d have to adjust my view of Scripture and of inspiration, but I’d still have the resurrection.”

You know why? Because we think the resurrection can be established historically if you treat the Bible just like any other ancient document. If you have to treat it with kid gloves, then you’re not really playing fair. You’re doing special pleading.

If you don’t think the resurrection can be shown to be a fact that way, then might I suggest that you could have a more fideistic approach?

It’s a shame this was happening in a Seminary class also.

Licona goes on in the article to describe how he went to the gospels and compared what he saw to Plutarch since the gospels are considered by NT scholars to be ancient biographies.

A lot of stink has been raised over this. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that it’s wrong that the gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. I think they are, but let’s suppose it’s wrong.

Here’s the reply. So what?

So what? What are you talking about?

What I mean is, you can take what your opponents will likely accept from critical scholarship, say Bart Ehrman for instance, and have it be that you can assume they are Greco-Roman biographies and then still say “Here’s how Greco-Roman biographies work. The gospels do the exact same thing. Why is that a problem?”

This is exactly what I do as a non-scientist. I am not qualified to discuss evolution, so I will grant it for the sake of argument. Why? My opponents do accept it by and large. Therefore, I can meet them on their own grounds and ask “How does this show that Jesus did not rise from the dead?”

Why do I do this? I do it because I want to convince my opponents of one thing. I want to convince them Jesus rose from the dead. They might disagree with me on Inerrancy. That’s fine. They might have different views on creation. That’s fine. They might have different hermeneutics than I do. That’s fine.

Getting them to know Jesus is risen is central.

Instead, we’ve had this whole tirade against the gospels being Greco-Roman biographies.

Consider what someone like Al Mohler said according to the article.

“First, we cannot reduce the Gospels to the status of nothing more than ancient biographies. The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit right down to the inspired words,”

When did Licona say the gospels were just ancient biographies? Nowhere that I know of. He said they were biographies. That’d be like saying we can’t say the Epistles of Paul are epistles because they cannot be “just epistles.” To say they are Greco-Roman biographies is not to say necessarily that they are just that.

Second, down to the inspired words?

In Matthew 3:17, we read these words at the baptism of Jesus.

“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Mark 1:11 says this:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke 3:22 also says this:

“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke and Mark disagree, but Matthew is different. Matthew has the voice speaking for the crowd. Mark and Luke have the voice speaking to Jesus? Which is it? Let’s suppose it was even the crazy idea of a work like the Jesus Crisis which has such ideas as the sermon on the mount being said twice with different tenses. Let’s suppose the voice said the first to the crowd and then the second to Jesus. (Because apparently, one voice was not enough for everyone to grasp.) You still have the problem of why would someone just leave out some of the words of God speaking?

If there is paraphrasing going on, then are we saying the very words of God were paraphrased? They might not have been quoted word for word?

Let’s consider another example. How about Peter’s confession of faith?

Matthew 16:16

“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 8:29

“You are the Messiah.”

Luke 9:20

“God’s Messiah.”

Again, there are differences. Mark and Luke are closer. Matthew agrees with the Messianic motif, but adds in that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Isn’t that something important to include?

One more example. At the Transfiguration, what did God say?

Matthew 17:5

“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

Mark 9:7

“This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Luke 9:35

“This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”

Each of these are different, and these are the words of God!

Now someone might say “Nick. Look. Each of these is pretty similar to each other. The wording may not be the same, but the thrust of the message is the same.”

Exactly.

Mohler is putting on the text a modern category of exact wordage. The ancients would not have cared about that. For a modern look, I had a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness today. I called some family members saying “I said X, she said Y, I replied with Z, etc.” Chances are, when I told that story, I did not get the exact wording right. That’s okay. I did not tell it the same way every time. That’s okay. I don’t know anyone who would say I was lying about the story or misrepresenting it. Even today, we know that the gist is what matters.

This would also be true for the Sermon on the Mount. Why assume Jesus gave a great sermon like that only once? If you’re a speaker, like I am, you know that you give the same talk many times in different places. You can also vary it some depending on your audience. In fact, it’s quite likely a lot was left out of this sermon. Why? The whole thing can be read in about fifteen minutes! Most speakers in the past spoke a lot longer than that! Heck. If that’s all it takes, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 that leads to 3,000 conversions can be read in about a minute or two. How many of you would like to speak for that long and get that response?

The Bible is only interested in the main gist of the message getting out. We today can do this. We can summarize a talk by talking about the main points without saying every word the speaker said.

Thus, Mohler in doing this is expecting the Bible to read like a modern document. It’s not going to. The Bible needs to be treated by the standards of its own time and not the standards of our time. This even includes the idea about interpreting it according to “plain” language. Plain to who? Why plain to a 21st century American? Maybe it’s different for a 16th century Chines man, or a 14th century Japanese man, or a 12th century Frenchman, or a 9th century Englishman, or a 1st century Jew.

Some might think it’s cultural prejudice to give the 1st century Jewish standard the main role in interpretation.

No. It’s not. It’s just smart thinking. It’s a 1st century Jewish document. Shouldn’t we expect it to read like one?

Mohler is not done. He goes on to say:

“The second problem is isolating the resurrection of Christ from all of the other truth claims revealed in the Bible. The resurrection is central, essential and non-negotiable, but the Christian faith rests on a comprehensive set of truth claims and doctrines,” Mohler said. “All of these are revealed in the Bible, and without the Bible we have no access to them.”

If the resurrection is central, essential, and non-negotiable, haven’t we already isolated it? It is in a category all itself. The reality is the resurrection is different from the other claims. Let’s demonstrate this.

We can have Mohler make a historical case for the turning of water into wine without just “The Bible says so.”

Then we can have him make one for Jesus rising from the dead the same way.

Which one will have more evidence. Which one will have more impact? Which one will change Christianity the most if it was found to be false?

It looks like Mohler is really afraid to put the Bible to historical investigation, but why should we think this? If someone is convinced Scripture is from God Himself, then one should say “Go ahead. Hit it with your best shot.” If we are not willing to do that, then we are not really treating it like a trustworthy text. It’s easy to say the Bible cannot be attacked if you remove it from all threats.

On top of this, Licona is doing his work to deal with supposed contradictions in the Bible and see if he can find some answers. How is it undermining the Bible if you seek to explain why the Bible is the way it is? If you’re going out to defend the idea that the Bible is without error, how can you be attacking it?

Next we have words from Jim Richards of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.

“Although the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention has enjoyed a ministry relationship with Houston Baptist University for nearly 10 years, that relationship is not one whereby the convention participates in the governance of the university. Our relationship with HBU is based on a mutual affirmation of a high view of Scripture,” Richards said.

“The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention was formed on a commitment to biblical inerrancy, that the Bible is true in all that it asserts. Certainly, our churches, board and convention messengers expect our ministry relationships to be compatible with this core value. We will be in conversation with President Sloan regarding HBU’s response to Mike Licona’s comments bearing on the reliability of Scriptures,” Richards said.”

Once again, Licona has a high view of Scripture. He only differs on an interpretation. Note that Licona has never once said “I think the Bible contains errors” or “I think the Bible is wrong” or anything like that. He has repeatedly denied it, but for his opponents, it is not enough. What matters is what they want to see. For them, if he is not interpreting it the same way, then cast him to the lions!

May God richly bless Robert Sloan, president of HBU, for the following:

“Dr. Michael Licona is a very fine Christian. We trust completely his commitment to Scripture. There are those who disagree with his comments on what is a very difficult passage (Matthew 27:45-53, especially verses 52-53), but Mike Licona’s devotion to the Lord Jesus, his magisterial defense of the resurrection, his publicly and solemnly declared affirmation of the complete trustworthiness of Scripture and his worldwide efforts to win others to Christ give us full confidence in his work as a teacher, colleague and faculty member of Houston Baptist University,” Sloan said.”

Sloan has it right. He is being a fine academic and looking at the character of Licona and the quality of his work. Would that other people would take the same approach!

What does this have to do with the future of scholarship?

It appears an impasse is here. What are we to do? I have a strange idea with this.

Let’s be people that say “We will follow the evidence where it leads!” When we meet a contrary idea to our own, let’s examine the evidence. By all means, we have our presuppositions. Let’s be aware of those. Let’s do our best to put them to aside and study. We want atheists who are studying the text to do the same. If our presuppositions were right, great! If they were not, great! Why is that great? It’s because we’ve learned something that we would not have known. We have gained truth, and that is always to be preferred.

If people like Al Mohler have the day, we can expect scholarship will decrease. Already, I have seen some people who will be our future scholars say they want no part of groups like ETS to avoid being criticized for their work. They want academic freedom. Already, I have seen people saying that they do not want to defend Inerrancy because it has become too much of a sacred cow. Already, this controversy has been used by atheists, Muslims, and others to demonstrate Christians cannot get along with themselves.

With Inerrancy, I have seen people have their faith fall apart when all is based on this doctrine. I’m not saying it’s unimportant. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying we don’t hang our hats on it. By all means, defend it. By all means, address contradictions. This is fine and good. Just remember the main point is Jesus is risen. There are times even I tell people that I don’t care if the gospels have some minor disagreements. Let’s deal with the central claim. We don’t get rid of other ancient sources because of minor disagreements. Why do so with Scripture?

It’s up to us to determine where we’ll go with scholarship in the future, but I hope we’ll hold to following the evidence where it leads realizing that if our beliefs are true, the evidence should show that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Baptist Press article can be found here

How I Met My Princess

What is the story of the love the Princess and I share? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

For today’s entry, I’d really like to go personal and share the story of how my Princess and I came together, seeing as it is Valentine’s Day as I write this. The story starts in the year 2009. I believe it was August.

That day, I had got off of work at the Christian Research Institute and was heading back to the apartment where I lived with my roommate. Gary Habermas I had heard was teaching a week long module at SES where I was a student. Gary and I had talked a number of times since he’d spoken at the church there. I had always had a problem of being my own worst critic which I considered a symptom of emotional doubt. I wanted to know if he could help me with that. My friends who knew me before Allie can tell you that, yes, this was a HUGE problem for me.

So I stop by to see him and get there early. We meet in the lobby and he asks me if I know about Mike Licona’s daughter. I say no, but I’m intrigued already. He tells me about a hard time she’s going through and how he was talking to some fellow apologists about it and the topic came up of her having Asperger’s to which someone at the table said “Nick Peters has Asperger’s.”

Gary gave me her email and suggested I talk to her. At the start, neither one of us was looking for romance. She especially was not. In fact, she was hoping she could win back another guy at the time. Knowing what she was going through, I had decided to get her in touch with some older female friends of mine and Allie and I just kept chatting.

Except she started really developing a liking to me. Today, she’d say it was because I was like Christ to her. I was showing her great love and not getting upset with her about matters. It was something really unusual to her and she was thinking more and more about me.

I was starting to do the same.

And on Labor Day, we started going out.

It was a month later when I finally got the chance to drive down for the first meeting. We also had the first kiss, which was my first one as well. Our first date was to go to the Georgia Aquarium together. We even had a homeless person on the street ask us how long we’d been married on our first date!

There are pictures of me there touching some of the fish in the water which led one of our friends to say “That’s how I knew you two were going to work out. If she got you to touch something, it was good.” On the way back, we listened to music in the car together and I found she even liked my Final Fantasy music. It was just incredible.

That evening, we watched together at her parents’ house “Beauty and the Beast”. It was my first time to see that as well. Normally, Allie’s parents would have been nervous about her dating a much older guy, as I’m nearly ten years her senior, but her parents already knew about me. Mike had seen me at SES a number of times and liked me.

There is a funny story about Allie and I watching the movie together downstairs. Seeing as we were trusted, her parents gave us a wide range of freedom. That first night when we were watching the movie, her brother wanted to go downstairs by us to the kitchen to get something and her Mom said “Nick and Allie are downstairs on the couch right now and they’re cuddling. You might not want to go down there.” (By the way, for all concerned, Allie can assure anyone I was a gentleman the whole time. Cuddling was not anything inappropriate.)

We never saw her brother the whole night.

I honestly don’t remember much more of what happened that weekend, but I know she was depressed when I had to get back and get to work, and I was sad about it too. I’m sure I called her almost as soon as I got out of the driveway. I don’t remember if that’s when we first told each other we love each other or not.

I have been told that when I got back, my roommate told a mutual friend of ours that he might have to start looking for another place to live.

At the end of the month, Allie and I got together again. When we weren’t together, we were bombarding each other with IMs and emails. In fact, we would often have LOOOOOONG phone conversations at the end of the day, staying up past midnight. Could I tell you what we talked about in these conversations? Nope. Not a bit. Neither can she.

When we got together again, we were visiting my parents this time so Allie got to meet them and she got to meet my grandmother, who passed away about a year later. I have been told that when the time came for us to leave, that my mother wanted her good-bye hug. I told her I had to get Allie in the car first. She later called one of her friends just so sad about it to which she was told “Nick’s found someone special and you’re going to have to accept you’re no longer the #1 woman in his life.” Of course she did, but I understand it was hard.

Just so everyone knows, my parents are great parents. Both of them have done all that they can to help us out and we try to get together regularly. For instance, on Saturday nights, they like it if we come up and watch Huckabee with them. Some Saturday nights, I forget. Often times, my mother will help us with cooking and some household things, seeing as we’re not the best in that area. I say this because I want everyone to know that I greatly value my parents.

The next time we met was at the Apologetics Conference in November. Allie was there before I as she had to work that day. She tells me how she liked how then president of SES Alex McFarland had introduced her (Seeing as she was with her Dad) as “Nick Peters’s girlfriend.” She thought it was such a joy to for once not be introduced as Mike Licona’s daughter. My friends there were surprised that I only bought two books that year. Hey. I had more important money investments to make.

I remember waking up so excited the Saturday of the conference that I’d be with Allie again soon and after the conference, I was talking to the mother of some twins who were friends of mine and realized then, I would not find another girl like Allie who was so devoted to me and understood me so well and who I enjoyed being with. My decision was clear.

I also recall being at work and coming through a hall and hearing someone there talking about me. Apparently, someone had asked who I was with and I heard the person answering saying things like “Match made in Heaven.” “Wonderful couple.” “Great how God brings people together.” “Probably going to get married.”

He knew how true that was when I asked if he knew a good jeweler in the area.

In fact, my rooommate at the time messaged me at work one day saying he’d found someone who needed a roommate and he was going to take the chance and said “Besides, if I’m reading the tea leaves right, you won’t want me around much longer.” I told him if he was reading them right, he wouldn’t want to be around much longer.

I think he got a good inkling of where it was going when we went to the mall one day so he could get some jeans and I was checking out jewelry stores.

To which, I saw Allie around Thankgiving that year and her mother knew what I was planning. She gave me a stone to use in the engagement ring. It was a pink sapphire that was a family heirloom. I was quite secretive about this and especially with Allie. In fact, Allie and I went to the mall and went to some jewelry stores. While there, she wanted to try on rings “just because” and told me about the stone saying her Mom said I could use it, totally unaware I already had it. When we got back and her Mom asked how things went, Allie told her about the stores to which I said “Yeah. Allie said something about some sort of….pink sapphire…that I could use. Can I look at it later?”

Allie has definitely learned that I am incredibly sneaky.

The next month was December. I called her parents then as I was as traditional as I could be. I got them both on speaker and they hid themselves from Allie as much as possible. I told them I knew Allie and I hadn’t been dating for long, but I adored their daughter and I wanted to ask her to marry me and I wanted to get their blessing.

Guys. If at all possible, do this before you propose please.

As you can imagine, they happily gave it.

On Christmas Eve, Allie was flying in to the Charlotte airport. I got off work at Noon. I had the plan all worked out. I had been practicing what I would say and everything. Her flight was to arrive at 1:04. I got at the airport at Noon. Her flight actually got there early and I saw her at 12:49. I helped her get her bags and said I wanted to show her something before we left.

Outside of the airport, there’s a statue of Queen Charlotte who the city is named after. It’s a fountain statue with a star-shaped pool around it, and I took my Princess (As I call her) out there. While showing it to her, I was fumbling around in my pocket. I had the ring in the box and I wanted to make sure I didn’t open it the wrong way.

Okay. It’s right.

So I released the line I’d been preparing for.

“So Princess. Have you ever thought about being a queen?”

And she answered “Only if you’re the king.”

So I said “I guess you’ve made this easy for me.”

And her mouth opened in stunned silence as I got on my knee and opened up the box and said “Allie Licona. Will you marry me?”

And she said yes. We were both stunned.

Especially since my cell phone went off during my proposal.

Of course, I had ignored it, but now that she had the ring on, we decided to see who it was. I thought it was my Mom. She ALWAYS calls at the worst times.

Half right. I had the wrong Mom.

Allie’s Mom had wanted me to know Allie’s plane had arrived earlier. It is something we have said we would always be teasing her about.

I suppose with this blog, we can definitely say “Mission Accomplished.”

We drove to Knoxville with her calling everyone. I called my roommate and got a busy signal. I called someone else and then checked back to see my roommmate had left a voicemail. He wanted to congratulate me saying that Allie’s Mom had already put it up on Facebook.

Yeah. There was some excitement.

When we got to our first stop for Christmas Eve celebrations, I told Allie I was going to do things strategically. We walked in with I on the left and her on the right. There had been bad weather and we had to take a longer route so everyone was together when we got there.

Perfect.

Anyway, we walked in that way because I was covering her hand with the ring. This was the first time several of them had seen her and so I said “I want all of you to meet Allie. She and I have been going out for a few months now and as of X hours ago, she’s become somewhat more important.” As I said that last part, I would remove my hand to show the ring.

I then say I dove out of the way to avoid the onslaught of women wanting to see that ring.

I honestly don’t remember too much in the months after that. Everything was in a rush getting set for the wedding. It was also difficult when I lost my job in that, but friends did come through and provide for us to get things like a bed and a honeymoon. (We went to Ocean Isle Beach.)

I remember speaking with my roommate in his new place one time and telling him I wanted him to pick us up at the hotel the day of the wedding as her parents had arranged for us to have a hotel stay on our wedding night. I remember him kind of shrugging about it. Then I said “I figure you can either pick me up there that morning or else just pick up a couple of honeymooners the next day and take us to our car.”

I remember his eyes opening big and opting for the first option instead.

Our wedding really was a dream wedding. Things went off so well. The theme to Superman was playing as we walked down the aisle together. A lot of people thought since I’m the Smallville buff, that I was the one who thought of that. Wrongo! It was Allie! She wanted to surprise me. We had “Wait for Me” by Rebecca St. James, “Love Story” by Taylor Swift, and a song that is still “our song.” That one is “Eyes on Me” which is actually from Final Fantasy VIII. My sister sang that and Allie’s Mom played the piano. (My sister got some good teasing in January of 2011 when she put up moments of the past year that made her smile and my wedding was not shown at all!)

My roommate also had the best wedding toast ever. I am posting it here in its entirety.

As we were moving Allie’s things into Nick’s apartment, my foot struck an object embedded near the creek. It turned out that they were a set of golden plates, curiously arranged. On them appeared writing; but it was of an unintelligible nature. I quickly realized that this was Nick’s writing; which, as most here know, required the gift and power of God to translate. I have done so—and here is what I found.

AND IT CAME TO PASS that Nicholas did meet Allie in the last year of the reign of George.

And it came to pass that while Nick did reside in the region of Mecklenberg, Allie didst reside in the far-off city of Atlanta, named after the Roman goddess of traffic jams;

And it came to pass that they didst fall in love with one another, and this love was confessed; nay, confessed and shown morning, noon, and night;

And it came to pass that their courtship did blossom like unto kudzu; nowhere to be seen one day, and is everywhere the next;

And it came to pass that Nick didst begin to contemplate a future of more than just phone calls and AOL Messenger chat; lo, he didst envision the prospect of Marriage, and a Family.

And it came to pass that he set about achieving this goal.

And it came to pass that he did quest within the Queen City for a band of metal wrought like unto the work of the smiths of old; from the City East to the City West to the Park of South didst he look. And lo, he found one.

And it came to pass at the Eve of the Feast of the Nativity that he didst finally pop the question;

And it came to pass that she said yes.

And it came to pass that many quests and trials didst they pass to get to the altar. Verily, the gifts and talents of much family and many friends didst they obtain, and grateful were all at the giving.

And it came to pass that they did get hitched in the second year of the reign of Obama, to the delight of all; lo, though those in charge come and go, Nick and Allie’s love shall not, lo, nor will they let their affection do the same.

And it came to pass that they did endeavor to be an Example, and for the radiance of their love and virtue to remain unsullied even should the years pile up like books; and they did also desire to be a reflection of the splendor of the Trinity to all they did meet.

And it came to pass—or at least, it better come to pass—that all their many friends and family did support them, and did offer counsel, aid, kindness, and wisdom.

Thus ended the text on the plates.

Kidding aside, I do not think that either of you could have found anyone more well-suited. Therefore it is my distinct honor to propose this toast:

First, to your holiness: because all else rightly flows from this. May it remain undimmed through many, many blessed years.

To your marriage, that it fully reflects that greater Marriage between Christ and his Bride. May this marriage be an image of the joy of His return!

To your virtue: that faith, hope, and love grow stronger and deeper from this day forward; that your temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude become an example that none can see without admiration.

To your health: or rather, to your attitude towards it. Good health you will not always have, nor is it guaranteed; yet may you have the perspective to face both blessing and trial with grace.

To your home: may it be Godly, and happy, in that order; and may all who enter it be washed and renewed its resonant blessedness.

And in all, may God receive the praise and glory. It is my desire that your marriage should seem fitting of praise; yet it is also my desire that you do not keep it for yourself.

Nick and Allie, thank you for letting me be a part of your wedding.

Thank you.

We left the wedding in a limo her parents had arranged. That was on July 24th, 2010. There have been bumps and hurdles since then. There have been good times and bad. We still have the financial struggles as before. We still have issues we’re working on. Still, to this day, my Princess is still my valentine and she is still the love of my life.

To my Princess, Happy Valentine’s Day. I hope reading this will make you smile as much as writing it made me smile.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Dude With Doubt

How can you help some real dude with doubt? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I was sent this today by someone who was hoping to see if I’d respond to it. I do aim to please. Let me state at the start that I am not a professional counselor or psychologist, but I do know that doubt is something serious and can be affected by any number of things.

For instance, if your health is not in the best state, you could be more prone to doubt. If you have just undergone a traumatic event, you are more prone to doubt. Some medications could alter your mind and make you more prone to doubt. It could be a lack of sleep or eating the wrong thing or any number of things. Of course, it could also be receiving really hard objections to what one believes.

Doubt is extremely common among all people. People who have never doubted what they believe are people who have not taken it seriously enough. I wish that more Christians were forthright and honest and saying that they were wrestling with doubt. When I meet someone who is doubting and fearful his faith is not true, I want to celebrate. This is someone who is taking his faith seriously.

Unfortunately, too many are not doing that, especially pastors. Our pulpits are filled with pastors who have not studied the reasons why they believe what they believe. Their sermons are just calls to ethical principles and feel-good messages about how much Jesus loves you and won’t it be great to get away from this old sinful world?

In the link above, unfortunately, I don’t have much information. I don’t know this guy’s medical history. I don’t know his educational background. I don’t know what he has going on in his life. Therefore, I really do not have as much to go on, but I’ll take some of what he says and see what we can gather from it on dealing with doubt.

“When you start doubting the faith, there are days when you just wake up in a state of unbelief. ”

This is certainly true, but what I’m wondering is what was this guy doing with his doubt? We are often told by well-meaning counselors “Read the Bible and pray.” This is an insult to God, the Bible, and the person being counseled. Now this is part of the process I agree, but it is not the whole deal. Prayer and Scripture are not meant to be magic cures.

For instance, let’s suppose intellectual doubt is there. It won’t help intellectual doubt to read a book that you’re intellectually doubting. This is especially the case if there’s emotional doubt. After all, emotions have a way of overpowering reason and the person in the state can interpret everything in a negative light. We’ll see that this is what happens to the dude in this story. (And I keep saying dude since the blog is “SomeRealDude.” It is not meant as disrespect.

“Usually something will set it off, but in my case, today I simply woke up unbelieving.”

Absent from this is any mention at this point of an evaluation of the evidence. I have a suspicion that this was more of a felt position than a thought position. This is my suspicion because too many people in the world today use the words “think” and “feel” as if they’re synonyms. For instance, the Christian who says “I don’t feel like God is leading me this way.” We often judge moral commitments on the basis of feeling. In our marriages, love has been seen more as a feeling than an attitude and commitment.

If this kind of change can happen just by waking up one day, then can we really see this as a case of examining the evidence and pondering it? I would not even want it to be the case that someone just wakes up and becomes a Christian. I want Christians with solid foundations.

“I was in a funk most of the day because of this and right before lunch, I had some time to quietly sit at my desk. I began to get sick to my stomach as I processed the implications of my 5 hours of unbelief. I considered the potential damage it could do to my marriage, my daughters, and the friendships I have developed with so many wonderful Christian people through the years and my eyes began to well up with tears.”

All understandable, but also largely emotional, which causes me to suspect a lot of emotional doubt behind the intellectual doubt. Note also the person is panicking about their condition. Last night, I counseled someone who was doubting and told them to not panic. Doubt is not the end of the world. Doubt is common and if all you want is truth, then what do you have to fear if you find it?

“After work, while driving home, I listened to a podcast show by Robert M. Price where he showed just how ridiculous Joshua’s long day really was. Upon briefly researching an apologetic answer to this, I found this link where the author argues that the writer/redactor of Joshua was using modern phenomenological language to describe the movement of the sun across the sky. The problem is, the Hebrews actually believed that the sun traced across the sky in the hard dome of the firmament. They didn’t believe that the earth rotated, they believed, as far as we know, the exact opposite. After Dr. Price explained this, I thought to myself, “Yep, more malarkey. Its no wonder I woke up not believing this stuff. Talking donkeys . . . sun standing still in the sky, geesh, I can’t believe I have seriously believed these ideas for so long. Man, this is the stuff of fairy tales.””

As you can imagine, I have great qualms with considering Bob Price a reliable source. I also wonder why this guy was wanting to listen to Price. Note also that in his search for an answer, no books were cited. It was just an internet source. Is the desire to save faith not even sufficient enough to go to your local library and study up on it?

Some sources on the internet of course point to books. An example can be found here. Please note that at the start of the argument, the arguer gives FIVE different explanations for this. Five of them! Our dude has heard one and deemed it insufficient. Personally, I agree in many cases. Too many apologetics arguments can be weak and contrived.

Note also something else lacking. There is no argument against miracles. There is just an assumption. Miracles are obviously ridiculous if there is nothing outside of the universe and all is the result of material interactions, but that is the point under contention. Is that the way the world is?

Another point to consider is there is nothing about the resurrection of Jesus. It’s as if to say that because I have a problem with an OT passage, that means Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. This is all-or-nothing thinking that would be unacceptable anywhere else, but people seem to think works just fine with religion.

Part of this is a hang-up over Inerrancy in our modern world. There are some Christians who think that if there is one error in the Bible, nothing in it is true. If you can prove the Bible is wrong about how many horses Solomon had, then Jesus didn’t rise from the dead! The case for the resurrection needs to be taken on its own. We are not trying to get people to believe in Inerrancy, but to get them to believe in Jesus.

“After coming home, getting a good meal and then spending time with the kids, and then briefly contemplating to write this article, I am exhausted but not as discouraged as yesterday. I almost feel as if my unbelief was exhausting and depressing during the first half of the day but quite a relief during the latter half. Yes, I know, I’m a mix of emotions; but what do you expect when you wake up an agnostic about the Bible you’ve believed, preached, defended, and formally studied and counseled others with for almost 20 years?”

How much formal study has gone on? I don’t know. How much reading? I don’t know. The author’s not mentioning of books I find problematic and his reasons for abandoning Christianity are not centered on a disproof of the resurrection. Of course he’s a mix of emotions, which is not the time to be making a decision like that. Sit back. Relax. Go see a movie and enjoy yourself. When your mind is clear, sit down and really examine the evidence. By all means, examine both sides. Then make a decision that will be rational and informed.

“Not perceiving the sustaining work of the Spirit today,

Some Dude”

And this part makes me wonder as well. What is it the Spirit was supposed to do? I see nothing that tells me the Spirit is to protect us from doubt. I mainly see the Spirit leading us in sanctification based on our own study of Scripture. Too many Christians seem to think the role of the Spirit is to make them feel good emotionally. This is not the case.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind chatting with the dude and seeing what’s going on. Naturally, this will be left on his post. If he wishes to engage, he is free to.

In Christ,
Nick Peters