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

Book Plunge: Bamboozled

Are the Christians bamboozled, or is it the reverse? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I have a kindle as a gift from someone I was in Seminary with and I get a list of free books that come out regularly. One of my subjects of interest naturally is religion and so when free books on religion come out, I get notified. One such book was by a man named Timothy Aldred called “Bamboozled.” I amusingly told a friend who is in apologetics as well and he downloaded it and read it before I did.

I was told to expect something incredibly bad from him. He could not believe what he was reading. I was thinking “It cannot be that bad.”

After all, in my time of apologetics, I have made it a point to read what I disagree with regularly. I have been online for more than a decade doing debate and I have seen a lot of really strange ideas.

I do not think I have seen anything as crazy as this. I kept thinking throughout the book that I would love to find a good psychologist who would read this book and try to give an assessment of the author. The material I find in here is insane.

Aldred says he was a born-again Christian. I do not doubt him. Then about 50 years later he abandoned his faith and now argues against it. As I have argued elsewhere, all he did was change his allegiance. He did not change his mode of thinking. It would be difficult to give examples, but it is not because there are too few. There are too many! In fact, I stopped using the highlight option on the Kindle after awhile or else I would have been highlighting most everything. To reply to all the mistakes in this book would take a book ten times the pages in length, and that’s because there are so many false assumptions all throughout.

Aldred regularly makes statements about God speaking telepathically and has an obsession with talking about an “invisible God” and says that the answer to any objection is “God can do anything.” You will not find arguments given why some people think the Bible is reliable in this book. In fact, with his own sourcing, at best, he tells you a book he found the information on. There is no citation with a page number so you can check it up yourself.

Not to mention, his sources when he uses them are regularly not scholarly sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica is cited regularly on Constantine, leading me to think that’s all Aldred read on the matter. In the chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Baigent and Leigh are the main sources, a source no historian would accept, although Aldred lists them as historians. In the chapter on Billy Graham, Wikipedia is his main source.

Aldred tells of how biblical history is blindly accepted but a look at real history shows otherwise. What is the real history? Sumerian history. What is the reason given to accept Sumerian history? None. Aldred accepts it with the same blind faith that he accepted biblical history.

So what Sumerian history are we talking about? Oh just the usual. You know, stuff like aliens establishing space ports on Earth and that there was one in Canaan and that YHWH is not the real deal but that there were alien overlords working with humanity. This takes place all throughout Genesis.

Do you not believe me?

From page 22

“the Anunnaki maintained outposts at the gateway to the space facilities; Jericho is one of them.” (This is started in mid-sentence to be fair, but any reader can look at this for free and see it changes nothing.) One is reading this and thinking “Is this serious?” The sad reality is “Yes. Yes it is.”

Aldred has an obsession with the KJV Bible and with Rome. For him, everything is a big Roman conspiracy. Dead Sea Scrolls? That was a Roman cover-up to keep us from seeing what was in them. John Allegro tried to expose the cover-up, but he failed. Never any mention that Allegro’s own publisher apologized for releasing the book Allegro wrote called “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.”

The conspiracy theory runs constant throughout the book. Indeed, it takes a lot of faith to believe what Aldred is selling. I was even thinking at one point that Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist would have told him that his theories were crazy. Aldred ignores all evidence opposed to his theory and his biblical interpretation is horrendous. (Has anyone heard of an interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins where the bridegroom is coming to marry all the virgins? Note that that is said to be “light paraphrasing.” (Page 111)

Aldred came from a background apparently that fostered faith as belief without evidence and did not consider that perhaps, not everyone is that way. He has not changed that belief. He grants full faith to the Sumerian accounts as accurate history. He grants full faith to Baigent and Leigh. He grants full faith to Wikipedia.

Most amusing is an account of him on trial against D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge. I am no fan of Kennedy. Still, reading this, it seems to escape Aldred’s attention that the problem could have been him. He goes to a church and causes a disruption and gets indignant when he is told to leave and when he doesn’t the police are called. Aldred sees himself as a hero standing up and exposing Coral Ridge instead of realizing they did exactly what would be done anywhere. It seems to be Aldred’s position that he could not be at fault and perhaps, what was the real problem was his fundamentalist way of thinking.

Fortunately for me, the book was free, but finishing it was a labor. I regularly told people I was reading the most ridiculous thing I had ever read. It almost makes me think I should pick up a book by a new atheist again soon because at least there is some glimmer of reason in there from time to time.

What is sadder is that people on Amazon have frequently commented about how eye-opening this is and what great research was done. Great research will have better documentation than this and interact with much more scholarly resources. For instance, in writing on the Inquisition, there will be no interaction with writers like Henry Kamen. Of course, Aldred would reject any such scholarship as part of the great Roman conspiracy that has sought to bring monotheism to the world to deny our real history under a gospel of Jesus.

Yet he is believed entirely by some readers. I even wonder if they know what he believes. Is Aldred a Christ-myther? I can’t tell. What does he think about textual reliability of the NT? I can’t tell. Does he think Peter or Paul existed?

Sadder still than Amazon is the fact that we are responsible. When the church does not give a good focus on education, people like Aldred are the result. Aldred regularly writes about a God of love would not allow X to happen, ignoring that God is a God of justice. He writes that he can see no reason why X should be the case, as if that would settle the case entirely.

Aldred is still a man of faith. His allegiance is changed, and for those agreeing with him, it is sadly the blind leading the blind.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Christian Ambition

Should a Christian wish to succeed? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, my pastor did a sermon on the temptations of Jesus and spoke about how we can often want to have shortcuts. It would have been easy for Jesus to bypass the cross by jumping from the temple or to go ahead and get all authority by bowing down to the devil, but in both cases he refused. In the end, he ended up getting billions to see him as the Messiah and today does have that authority.

In this, he talked about the drive for success in Christians and I was pleased to hear him say that ambition is a good thing to have. Christians should seek to be ambitious people. Unfortunately, as I as complimenting him afterwards on that, he did tell me that all too often he sees the opposite attitude.

We tend to think it’s humble to not succeed. After all, we don’t want to steal any of the glory of God. Certainly that is something true. None of us wants to take glory that should go to God and give it to ourselves, but let us remember that the goal for the Christian is to give glory to God.

How are you giving God glory by being mediocre?

If you want to have God glorified in your life, then you give God as much as you can for Him to get that glory with. For some of us in ministry, that does mean we seek to give the best sermons, write the best books, do the best in counseling that we can, do the best in debates and giving answers, etc. Not everyone is in ministry, so what else do you do?

If you are a Christian doctor, you be the best doctor you can be. You seek to learn all about the field that you’re in that you can and you seek to have the best reputation with your patients for treating disease. We are told regularly in the Proverbs about how important it is to have a good name. Seek that name.

If you are a teacher, you seek to be the best you can. You seek to make sure your students know the subject well. You seek to learn all you can and make an impact on the lives of your students. You want it to be that they remember you and what a legacy it will be if the teacher they remember is the one who was also clear in her Christian walk.

If you are a businessman, you seek to run the best business that you can. You seek to have the best product or the best service. Do you believe God gave you a mind for your business? Then you seek to use that mind to the best of your ability. You seek to please as many of your clientele as possible.

Some of you might be thinking about the danger of wealth. If you build up too much wealth, won’t that be a bad thing?

Excuse me. Do you know how much good you could do if you had a lot of wealth?

Imagine going to that poor family in church and making sure their children have toys on Christmas. Imagine going to that single mother and making sure she gets a car so she can take her children to and from school. Imagine going to that grandmother who lives alone and paying her electric bill when it looks like no one else would. Imagine helping that student who wants to go to school by paying for his college education.

Also, imagine the ministries that you could support, just like Deeper Waters. I was talking with a friend yesterday about the possibility of my doing a radio show that would be syndicated on the internet with 20,000 listeners. Now we’re in a tight financial situation right now and I started thinking “If each of those listeners gave just $1 a year to the ministry, we could be secure and be sure to have our time devoted to full-time ministry.”

To run a ministry takes some of that wealth. If you build up wealth, you can easily use it for the Kingdom of God. Of course, there is always the temptation to misuse wealth or be fixated on it, but wealth like anything else is just a tool and it is not to be avoided for that reason.

What about pride? That’s another one.

This will also depend on you. Allie has been present when I have received compliments from people. Those are always nice to hear and I will tell you that you do not need to respond negatively internally to compliments. Be happy about them and thank the people who give them. Yet always also tell yourself this.

“It is an honor to be used as a servant in the Kingdom of God.”

Remember. It is your role to be a servant. You are just doing what you are supposed to do. God is using you, but you are not essential. He could just as easily have used someone else. He chose you. Be grateful for that opportunity. You are here to build up His Kingdom, the one that will never fade, not yours, the one that will fade with time. Even if your name lives on for years, it will only live under the name of Christ. Aquinas’s legacy could fall without killing the cause of Christ. If the cause of Christ goes down, then Aquinas will be a great thinker for his time, but just so sorely misguided.

To deal with pride, start developing Christlikeness now.

Then, whatever you have in mind to do, seek to do the best at it that you can, provided it is in line with Christian teachings. Seek it all for the glory of God and to hear those great words “Well done good and faithful servant.” That will be something you can smile about for all eternity.

Which is how long you’ll have to smile.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Ehrman’s Introduction To The New Testament

Are our students ready for Seminary? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I went on a search through local churches in our area to see how many of them were interested in having a speaker come talk about apologetics-related topics. I would consistently find that there were youth programs and college programs, but on only two churches can I recall finding anything remotely related to apologetics.

Oh you can find about concerts and pizza parties and “Jumping into God’s Word!” everywhere. What you cannot find is serious content. It is more important to keep our youth entertained. Still, there will be some who will want to go off for higher learning and that includes in the Christian faith and when we send them off to Seminary or Divinity School or something of that kind, we can be sure that they’ll be safe. Places that teach the NT will teach them the beliefs that they grew up with.

If you really believe that, you are part of the problem.

I have been making it an effort to study Bart Ehrman’s material more. In wanting to get the most of his thought, I ordered his “Introduction to the New Testament.” Now Ehrman does say that he’s just trying to go with what historians can say about the Bible. If you want to believe the Bible is the Word of God, he’s not going to tell you to not do that.

However, he sure won’t give you any reason to think that.

Now of course, Ehrman does have some good material in there. There are some interesting ways to look at the text and a good student of the NT should be prepared for that. Yet despite his saying that he doesn’t want to persuade you of X, the end result is that his book will persuade you of X if you are not prepared.

Sorry parents and ministers, but pizza parties are not preparing us.

“But we are teaching our youth what the Word of God says!”

Until they meet an Ehrman who tells them through his book in a Seminary that the gospels are by anonymous authors and we can’t really study miracles and the accounts are written late and that there were other holy men walking around doing miracles and that most critical scholars think that a number of books in the NT are pseudonymous and that there are numerous contradictions in the Bible.

It will be hard for the youth to think the Bible is the Word of God while accepting all of that.

And what are they to counter Ehrman with? Faith? No. Faith is not meant to be a counter. It is not meant to be a leap in the dark. It is meant to be trust on reliable evidence and unfortunately, going to that big youth concert is not giving the youth the tools they need to be able to have that reliable evidence. There is only one way for them to get it. They must be taught it. Either parents and churches will teach them what they are to believe about the reliability of Scripture, or rest assured people like Bart Ehrman will.

It is quite disappointing to find that Ehrman never really gives counters to his positions. For instance, when discussing who wrote the Gospels, he never lays out the case for why some scholars think Matthew wrote Matthew. Any mention of the church fathers saying X wrote a Gospel are seen as “hearsay” because they are too late. (Although apparently 20th century interpreters are not too late.) It doesn’t matter that the tradition is quite constant about the authorship of the gospels and these are the people who would have been in the position to know. Ehrman will give no reason why you should think Matthew wrote Matthew, but he will give you reason to think that he didn’t.

The same goes with dating. Ehrman will tell you that these accounts were written after the events and use time descriptions that sound like a long time, without bothering to mention how long after the fact it was that other ancient biographies were written and that the time is like a blip in comparison.

When discussing a passage like 1 Cor. 15, Ehrman will say some people use it to defend the resurrection, but absent is any mention of the arguments that are used by those people. In fact, Ehrman says very little about the resurrection. He certainly gives no other explanation for the data. This is increasingly a concern of mine. Ehrman will give the impression that there is no one in scholarship who disagrees with the position of critical scholars and if they are, they are certainly in the minority.

His usage of Acts is quite odd. When Acts suits his purpose, such as when saying that Peter and John were uneducated, then Acts is reliable. When Acts disagrees with what he says, as it does numerous times, then Acts needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Why should I accept Acts 4 as reliable when I should question the “We” passages? This would be particularly so since Acts 4 would be early and the writer would not likely have been an eyewitness.

To be fair, a few times Ehrman will list evangelicals in the recommended books, but the overall tone of the book is clearly one that is meant to show that we should not trust the accounts.

Interestingly, when it comes to the text of the NT, his main area, Ehrman says the following on page 481:

“In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.”

This isn’t the impression you’d get from books like “Misquoting Jesus” or “Jesus Interrupted.”

So now let’s return to the college youth groups in churches. Our youth are not prepared. What are we to do with this? If we don’t do anything, then when the student goes off to college and starts reading Ehrman’s book, there will be one of three possible responses.

1) The person will apostasize or at least severely water down their faith effectively nullifying any good they could do for the kingdom.

2) The person will hold on to their faith but purely as a “faith” position and will isolate themselves from the world and not bother interacting with disagreeing thought, again effectively nullifying any good they could do for the kingdom.

3) The person will actually study Ehrman’s arguments and read the other side and make a defense for the Scripture.

Sadly, #3 will be the rarity if it ever happens.

We must be doing better. There’s nothing wrong with having some pizza parties and concerts and such, but if this is all we are doing for our youth, we are sending them off to have their faith destroyed, and no amount of pizza will restore it.

The choice is ours. We can determine who will teach our youth how to think about the Bible. It will be us, or it will be our opponents.

Choose wisely. Their eternity and the eternity of people they reach could hang in the balance.

In Christ,

Nick Peters