Tozer Revisited

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,

that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17]*

In critiquing Tozer a few weeks ago, I encountered one very hostile response from someone who, hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, accused me of all manner of vile misdeeds for “daring” to suggest that Tozer could have his theology wrong.   He [and I am using the pronoun “he” in the generic since since the critic's identity and gender are unknown to me] made numerous statements gainsaying everything I said, but never offering a shred of documentary evidence to refute the charges made.  He challenged the definition of “pantheism” I used in the article – ignoring the fact that the definition used came from two highly respected scholars in the field of theology and apologetics – H. Wayne House and Norman L. Geisler.  He claimed my attributions to Tozer were wrong even though I cited entire paragraphs verbatim to demonstrate I was not taking isolated phrases out of context – and I provided page numbers so any person wishing to do so could look up the text being cited for himself.†

These were the high points of this “critique.”  [Although “rant” might be a more accurate description.]   Because then it broke down into a rambling, incoherent, string of alleged quotes supposedly made by Tozer in other contexts which had no relation to the subject addressed in my blog.  No citations to any works of Tozer were provided so it was impossible to check for the accuracy or the context of the alleged citations.

The unknown critic was audacious, if nothing else, signing his name as “YeshuaMeshiach,” which came across to me as a pretentious [and incorrect] claim to be speaking on behalf of the Lord Himself.  I see this as pretentious because no one speaks for God except when citing the words inspired by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.  He can be free to gainsay my assessment all he wishes.  But gainsaying does not alter facts or the implications and inferences which can be induced from those facts.  And nowhere in his rant did “YeshuaMeshiach” offer a scintilla of evidence which substantiated his gainsaying.

However, in the interest of “fairness,” I have decided to look further into what Tozer believed and taught.

It must be noted that Tozer was not a systematizer or deep thinker when it came to matters of theology.  He was a preacher with minimal literacy who had little under-standing of biblical languages, who preached in a denomination which had no standards for ordination apart from some vague, subjective “calling” which was in keeping with the roots of that denomination in classical pentecostalism.  Basically, in Tozer’s theological background – if a congregation agreed to accept a person as its pastor – that was considered proof enough of one’s calling.

Moreover, Tozer was not a writer in the terms used by academics.  He did not research his topics and then write his works based on the conclusions of careful hours and months of research.  Tozer’s works represent transcriptions of messages delivered from a pulpit.  In those messages Tozer’s method is evident – he started with a predetermined conclusion, then selectively cited evidence [and, as we shall see, in one case he created the evidence out of his fertile imagination] which supported his pre-determined conclusion while rejecting or dismissing all evidence to the contrary without evaluating whether or not his conclusions might be inadequate and ill-informed at best.

Consider this quote found in the preface to The Pursuit of God:  “The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts.”  [p. 5]  Tozer, in this statement, presumes to know more about the design and purpose of Scripture than can be stated propositionally, or even derived from necessary inference from the pages of Scripture itself.

Look again at what the apostle, writing under the prompting and superintendency of the Holy Spirit wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. There is no hint in the writings of the Apostle that the raison d’etre for Scripture is to bring us to some sort of mystical altered state of consciousness regarding God.  Paul writes that the purpose of Scripture is to produce four effects: correctness of doctrine, avoidance of unsound doctrine [“reproof”], avoidance of unsound action [“correction”], correctness of action [“training in righteousness”].  Even these are not an end result.  The end result is that we be “adequate,” or in the Greek: artios, which indicates a state of maturity.

The basic problem here is that Tozer has confused the effect of obedience and godly living with the purpose of Scripture.  And this confusion is perpetuated by those who are embracing the teachings of Tozer’s disciples via the Renovare program and other forms of contemplative spirituality being advocated by nominally Christian teachers such as Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, Beth Moore, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, et al. We shall come back to this to explore it further.  Moreover, their error is compounded by the all too easy trap of promoting a short-cut to holiness – a short-cut which is founded in ecstatic, mystically-induced altered states of consciousness unknown to the first century church, instead of simply growing in a day-by-day walk of obedience with the end that we should be conformed to the character of God.

Like those in Renovare and other forms of contemplative spirituality, Tozer can only make his points by adding to Scripture.  On page 11 of The Pursuit of God, Tozer writes:  “As he watched him grow from babyhood to young manhood the heart of the old man was knit closer and closer with the life of his son, till at last the relationship bordered upon the perilous.  It was then that God stepped in to save both father and son from the consequences of an uncleansed love.”‡  This is in regard to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac—or more accurately, what Tozer imagined that relationship to have been in his own mind.

While Abraham did have his faults, which are recorded in Scripture, there is not even so much as a hint in the Bible that he ever elevated Isaac to the status of an idol.  But Tozer implies that he knows the true story and is now giving it to us.  For on page 12 he again informs us:  “To the wondering patriarch He now says in effect, ‘It’s all right, Abraham.  I never intended that you should actually slay the lad.  I only wanted to remove him from the temple of your heart that I might reign unchallenged there. I wanted to correct the perversion that existed in your love.  Now you may have the boy, sound and well.  Take him and go back to your tent.’ ”

Again he hints that Abraham has engaged in idolatry, a charge nowhere found in Scripture—but Tozer in his infallible reckoning knows better than God and Moses what happened on Mount Moriah. Nowhere is it found in Scripture why God commanded Abraham to take Isaac to Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice.  Tozer is attributing to God words which God did not utter according to Scripture.  Scripture condemns all who presume to speak for God concerning matters about which God is silent.  [Deuteronomy 18:20;  Jeremiah 14:14;  Ezekiel 13:1-23]  Such adding to the word of God is beyond presumptuous—it is utterly, totally blasphemous.

This is the heart of Tozer’s theological system. He is not presenting Christian doctrine. He is promoting the ancient heresy of gnosticism. Again quoting from The Pursuit of God, page 12, we read: “There is the spiritual secret. There is the sweet theology of the heart which can be learned only in the school of renunciation. The books on systematic theology overlook this, but the wise will understand.” (emphasis added)

As I indicated in my previous blog, Tozer, in keeping with Wesleyan perfectionism and Keswickian theology, believed there were two different levels of Christianity, there were the “theological Christians” whom he believed to be little better than Christians in name only, and there were “The Wise” who experience the deep mysteries of God. “The Wise” are deemed by Tozer to be superior to the theological Christians, not on the basis of any Scriptural standards, but on the basis of their “supernatural experiences,” which are derived from following occult rituals found nowhere in the pages of Scripture, but which are found in the writings of mystics [practitioners of witchcraft] such as Julian of Norwich and Brother Lawrence.

This gnosticism crops up again on pages 22-23, when Tozer wrote: “Our uncorrected thinking… tends to draw a contrast between the spiritual and the real; but actually no such contrast exists. The antithesis lies elsewhere: between the real and the imaginary, between the spiritual and the material, between the temporal and the eternal; but between the spiritual and the real, never. The spiritual is real.” In this dichotomy which Tozer sets up, he equates what is spiritual with what is real. The unwritten antithesis here is that what is material or physical is therefore imaginary or illusory. This principle is found in ancient gnosticism and is more recently expressed by such cults as Christian Science and Unity.

On page 24, he denies that he is a pantheist [the point of my critic], but in so doing, he redefines pantheism in a way which is simply not an accurate representation of pantheism. In other words, Tozer creates a straw-man, a misrepresentation of pantheism, so that he can say he is not a pantheist since he does not believe in his straw man. The problem is that pantheism, as defined by scholars more learned and wiser than Tozer [scholars such as H. Wayne House, Norman Geisler, and Ravi Zacharias], is a belief system more encompassing than what Tozer describes, and Tozer’s beliefs about God line up with those definitions of pantheism exactly. Tozer is a pantheist and his protests to the contrary have all the disingenuousness of a child with his hand caught in the cookie jar protesting his innocence.

This is the crux of the matter where Tozer and all other contemplative spiritualists are concerned.  God has given us His Word.  That Word is wholly sufficient to guide us in all matters regarding what we should believe, what we should not believe, how we should live, and how we should not live.   Nowhere within that Word are we commanded or even encouraged to seek out mystical experiences.   Nowhere in the pages of the New Testament do we find it the mystical experiences which Tozer promotes even mentioned as an approved precedent for the children of God as an ongoing experience.   We only find two references to such experiences in the New Testament: 2 Corinthians 12:1-7; and Revelation.   Those experiences were unique to the apostolic age and will never again be repeated until the Tribulation, when the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 is completely fulfilled.

* Unless otherwise noted, all scriptures are from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

† Throughout this and other postings, I will continue to use the third person singular masculine in the generic sense. I will not accommodate my use of what is considered good grammar for the sake of political correctness. If the generic masculine was good enough for God to establish as a basic rule of language when He created language, it should be good enough for us.

‡ All page number references to The Pursuit of God are to an online edition which can be located at: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Tozer_Pursuit_of_God.pdf

A.W. Tozer – A Trojan Horse for Apostasy?

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night. [Psalm 1:1-2]*

 

Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You. [Psalm 119:11]

 

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. [John 17]

 

These [the Jewish people living in Berea] were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things [being told to them by Paul and Silas] were so. [Acts 17:11]

 

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

 

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. [Hebrews 4:12]

 

For many years I have had people recommend the works of A.W. Tozer.  Those recommendations came without reservation and qualification.  For many years Tozer simply wasn’t on my radar.

 

It was a few weeks ago, when the congregation my wife and I attended announced that it was beginning a Wednesday night study on The Attributes of God, Vol. 1, [hereafter designated as TAG] that I had my first introduction to Tozer.  What I encountered in the first few chapters of that book went beyond thought-provoking.  Tozer’s theology proper [theology of God Himself] is at best, poorly stated or nuanced, showing little regard for the implications and applications derived from such statements.  At the worst, his statements are thoroughly unbiblical and heretical in the extreme.  They have more in common with the monistic pantheism of Hinduism than with Judeo-Christian theism.  Let me repeat—his views, if not merely indicative of poor wording, are heretical. In addition, the views held by Tozer concerning the nature of God in relation to His creation, have heretical implications extending to bibliology [theology of the nature of Scripture], anthropology [theology of the nature of man], soteriology [theology of salvation], and eschatology [theology of final things].

 

The irony here is that Tozer once lamented that the biggest lack of the church in the last half of the twentieth century [and the situation has deteriorated since then] has been its lack of discernment in recognizing and rejecting false teaching.  The problem is that in delivering this indictment, Tozer himself is either a hypocrite, or a fool.  If he realized that what he taught was not only without foundation in Scripture, but contrary to Scripture, then he was a fraud and a hypocrite.  If he did not realize that what he promoted in his writings and sermons was unbiblical and false, then he was a fool and he falls under his own indictment for lacking the discernment to recognize that the source of many of his teachings was not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture – but unholy spirits speaking through the writings of medieval mystics and visionaries.

 

Let’s examine the evidence. In TAG, Tozer extensively cites the writings of a medieval mystic and visionary, Julian of Norwich, a woman who chose to use a man’s name.  Julian was an anchoress – a person who, claiming religious reasons, lived a life of extreme ascetism and isolation from others – believing any social contact would contaminate her before God.  Tozer’s writings uncritically glorify and venerate Julian’s example as a “higher Christian life” and experience – to be emulated by others.

 

Julian prior to becoming an anchoress, experienced an illness during which she experienced sixteen visions, these visions formed her theology and where those visions were contrary to Scripture – she placed the greater authority in her visions.  As we examine the evidence against Tozer, we shall see how deeply her writings influenced his false teachings.

 

Another medieval mystic whom Tozer held in high regard and cites as being equally authoritative with Julian is an obscure monk named Brother Lawrence.  Brother Lawrence had a series of meditations which after his death were collected and published as The Practice of the Presence of God.

 

Julian of Norwich, Brother Lawrence, and Meister Eckhardt [another mystic cited favorably by Tozer], did not base their practices upon the teaching of scriptures. What they wrote was the result of hallucinations produced during trance states [altered states of consciousness].  In the case of Julian of Norwich, the trance state was the result of a high fever.  In the case of Brother Lawrence, he focused on the repetitiveness of his menial tasks until he entered an altered state of consciousness – the same result as is achieved in hatha yoga by focusing one’s attention on breathing. Eckhardt believed the presence of God was achieved through focusing on an external object [such as the flame of a candle] until one’s mind was emptied of all human thought and could then experience the divine.

 

It must be noted that in formulating his theology, Tozer was not relying on Scripture alone, but on the visions and meditations of mystics steeped in medieval Roman Catholicism.  In other words, Tozer did not look to Scripture alone for his teaching.  Instead, he looked for authority in mystical, occult experiences.  In doing so, he denied the doctrine that the Bible is sufficient for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for training in rightousness.  He denied that Scripture is sufficient to make us complete in Christ and adequately equip us for every good work.

 

What does Tozer state concerning the nature of God? He makes the following statements concerning the nature of God:

 

“God contains space.” [TAG, p. 5]

 

“Then there is God. God has the attribute of immanence and immensity. God is immanent, which means you don’t have to go distances to find God. He is in everything. He is right here.

 

“God is above all things, beneath all things, outside of all things and inside of all things. God is above, but He’s not pushed up. He’s beneath, but not pressed down. He’s outside, but He’s not excluded. He’s inside, but He’s not confined. God is above all things presiding, beneath all things sustaining, outside of all things embracing, and inside of all things filling. That is the immanence of God.” [TAG, p. 22, emphasis added]

 

“Remember that God is outside of all things and inside of all things and around all things.” [TAG, p. 23, emphasis added]

 

“God is omnipresent, which means God is everywhere. God is also immanent, which means that God penetrates everything. This is standard Christian doctrine, believed even in the earliest days of Judaism. God is omnipresent and immanent, penetrating everything even while He contains all things.” [TAG, pp. 137-138, emphasis added]

 

In the study guide which appears appended to the end of the book, and which is a commentary on Tozer, David E. Fessenden writes:

 

“The attribute of immanence (which is addressed in more detail in chapter 8) is that God is everywhere and in everything, penetrating and permeating all the universe. This is a different attribute than God’s omnipresence….” (Study Guide, p. 19, emphasis added)

 

“And yet, Tozer adds, God is so immense that the universe cannot contain Him. Though He is in everything, He is not confined to or contained by His creation. Instead, He contains it. As an exercise to see how this view of God stands up against Scripture, meditate on Isaiah 40. Note how certain verses relate to what Tozer has said so far about God’s immensity. It is interesting to compare verse 15 to Lady Julian’s vision of the hazelnut.” (Study Guide, p. 20, emphasis added)

 

Let’s evaluate and explore the implications in those statements.

 

I have been told that I am wrong in attributing a pantheistic or panentheistic view to Tozer’s statements. Tozer has been dead for almost 50 years, so I cannot ask him for clarification – I can only go by the words he wrote in the context in which he used them and compare them with what others say.

 

H. Wayne House has defined pantheism as: “1: The belief that God and the universe are one and the same thing. 2: The belief that God is somehow diffused throughout the universe as its animating principle.” [Charts of World Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, p, 320, emphasis added] House defines panentheism as: “The view that God is related to the world in a way similar to the way in which the human mind is related to the human body; thus the world is part of God, but God is more than the world, and they are dependent on each other.” [ibid.]

 

Norman Geisler has stated: “According to pantheism, God ‘is all in all.’ God pervades all things, contains all things, subsumes [is over] all things, and is found within all things. Nothing exists apart from God, and all things are in some way identified with God.” [The Big Book of Christian Apologetics: An A to Z Guide, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012, p. 425.]

 

The definition provided by Geisler is especially crucial since it is almost verbatim how Tozer defines God’s immanence. This points to a fundamental flaw in Tozer’s definition. No other theologian would accept his definition of the word immanence. While they would accept that immanence refers to God’s nearness to His creation, orthodox theologians draw a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Tozer’s use of the term, on the other hand, arrogantly presumes superior knowledge and defies orthodoxy, blurring the distinction between the Creator and His creation.

 

Tozer’s creative, non-standard definition of the term “immanence” stands all of theology on its head. Consider the following implications:

 

#1: If God is in everything [and by extension, every person], then there is no distinction between good and evil, there is no distinction between believer and unbeliever, children of God and children of disobedience/wrath, for all actions would then find their origination with God since He is in everything/everyone.

 

#2: There is no such thing as sin—because if God is in everything/everyone, then He cannot act against Himself. For example, there cannot be such a sin as idolatry, because those considered to be worshiping idols are actually worshiping a manifestation of God. Nor can one person sin against another simply because each being filled with and permeated by God simply cannot act against God.

 

#3: If God is in everything, and there is no such thing as sin, then there is no need for redemption.

 

#4: If God is in everything, there is no such thing as sin, and no need for redemption, then the Bible is not true for it teaches the creation is distinct from the Creator, not a part of the Creator, that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, and require redemption.

 

#5: If God is in everything/everyone, there is no real eternal judgment, for He would have to render judgment against a part of Himself.

 

I am sure there are other implications which I have not explored, but these should suffice to show that Tozer’s teaching concerning immanence is, at best, sub-Christian, if not slashing away at the heart of fundamental Christian teaching.

 

Tozer further went on to demonstrate his heterodoxy in other ways. Tozer did not believe in the doctrine of man’s total depravity – that his nature is corrupt, and because of that corruption, is opposed and hostile to God. Tozer states than: “…we learn impurity from our cradles.” [TAG, p. 158, emphasis added] In other words, Tozer did not believe we sin because that is our nature and disposition from the moment we are conceived in the womb. Instead, according to him, we sin because that is what we learn from the moment we are born. Again, Tozer’s understanding is not what is taught in Scripture according to Psalm 51:5.

 

As if his unusual [if not heterodox] understanding and expression of theology is not bad enough, to read Tozer is an exercise in logical inconsistency and incoherency. For example, Tozer makes the following inconsistent statements:

 

“In the previous chapter I dealt with the fact of remoteness – that distance is unlikeness – and I pointed out that hell is for those unlike God.” [TAG, p. 138]

 

“Heaven is a place of complete comparability, and sin introduces incompatibility between God and the sinner. There cannot be any comparability or communion between the two because sin introduces that quality which throws humans and God out of accord with each other.” [TAG, p. 140]

 

These statements contradict what Tozer had written earlier about God being “in everything [and, by extension, in every person].” If God is in everything/everyone, filling and permeating their very being [again according to Tozer], then it is manifestly impossible for humans to sin, because that would involve God being in opposition to himself. Therefore there cannot be any incompatibility between God and man because there is no sin. And if there is no sin, there is no judgment.

 

But Tozer had anticipated criticism of his work. He considered those who are not on his level of spirituality to be lesser Christians, using pejorative terms such as: “elementary Christianity,” [TAG, p. 16] “nominal Christianity,” [TAG, p. 16] “theological Christians.” [TAG, p. 143]. Although his nomenclature is different, and he does not acknowledge his sources, much of Tozer’s theology is grounded in the heresies of perfectionism and the so-called “Higher Life” movement promoted by such writers as Andrew Murray, Watchman Nee, Charles Ryrie, and Zane Hodges. This is not surprising considering Tozer’s affiliation with [and ordination in] the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a movement which affirms sanctification/perfectionism as a second work of grace subsequent to conversion/justification.¹

 

In this unbiblical [and therefore heretical] view of the work of Christ, one can be justified simply on the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior, without ever demonstrating repentance, or acknowledging the full Deity of Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

The logical inconsistency then is that one must work to achieve a deeper/higher life, but one is unable to accomplish this work unless one has experienced a second, crisis-oriented, second work of grace. In Tozer’s views, which become a prototype to the “contemplative prayer” movement now infiltrating the church, one must learn to experience altered states of consciousness to fully experience God.²

 

This is what happens when one accords mystics equal or greater authority than Scripture, as Tozer has clearly done – instead of relying on the sufficiency of Scripture alone to guide us in all matters of belief and practice. One is left with a doctrinal house of cards, ready to collapse. One is left to drift into the heresies of unversalism and Pelagianism, not a deeper understanding and devotion to the God who created us.

 

*Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are from the New King James Version. Copyright ©1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

1 For a critique of Keswick/Higher Life theology, I recommend the following article:

http://www.frontlinemin.org/higherlife.asp

 

2 For resources evaluating the dangers of contemplative prayer [aka “spiritual formation”], I recommend the following websites:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com

http://www.cicministry.org/

 

Are We All God’s Children?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His Name:

who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13, emphasis added]§

“I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”

They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the work of Abraham.

“But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

“You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father – God.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

“Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [nature], for he is a liar and the father of it. [John 8:38-44, emphasis added]

He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God. [John 8:47, emphasis added]

Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [Elymas the sorcerer]

and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” [Acts 13:9-10, emphasis added]

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. [Romans 8:14, emphasis added]

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. [Romans 8:16, Compare Romans 8:9.]

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. [Ephesians 2:1-3, emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. [Ephesians 5:6, emphasis added]

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience,

in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. [Colossians 3:5-7, emphasis added]

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. [Galatians 3:26]

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. [1 John 3:10]

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. [1 John 5:2]

I had a recent encounter on Facebook in which one had written that anyone who “speaks poorly” of another person is in trouble with God for “messing with His kids.”  I had responded that I had a problem with the statement and did not agree with the inference that all members of the human race are children of God.  In truth, I found several problems with the statement but wanted to address the main issue first.  The person who initiated the thread responded that everyone is a child of God by virtue of creation.  The tenor of the response was suggestive that I was being presumptuous in challenging the assertion and had no authority to support me.  I stated that the assumption that everyone is a child of God by virtue of being created by God is not a Biblical position and cited John 1:12-13; John 8:37-48; Acts 13:10; and 1 John 3:10 as evidence of my position and added that if Jesus, Paul, and John were stating that unredeemed humanity cannot be considered children of God judicially or relationally, then any statement which contradicts what is propositionally taught in Scripture is contrary to the revealed will of God.

If we look carefully at the Scriptures cited above [and others], they show that:

1: Only those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ can be considered children of God [John 1:12; Galatians 3:26]. 2:  Only those who are led by the Holy Spirit can rightfully acknowledge Jesus as Lord [Romans 8:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3]. 3:  Those who are not led by the Holy Spirit do not belong to God [Romans 8:9] 4:  Those who do not belong to God are defined as “children of wrath” [by nature], “children of disobedience” [by their disposition judicially], and “children of the devil” [relationally – because they act according to the nature of their spiritual father].

The very foundation of what was being expressed by this person on Facebook was not Scripture, but rests on the concept of universalism, mingled with a large dose of “name-it/claim-it” heresy.

The soteriology of both of these heresies relies on the idea that all humanity possesses a spark of deity, therefore they will not suffer eternal punishment because God will not allow any part of deity to suffer in eternal separation from Him.  The “Name-It/Claim-It” crowd pushes the envelope of heresy further that to speak evil of any whom God has named as divine is to blaspheme God Himself.

If such is the case, then Jesus, Paul, and John would be guilty of blasphemy as defined by those holding to the name-it/claim-it nonsense.  However, since Jesus was sinless [John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 3:3, 5], and Paul [2 Peter 3:15-16] and John [Matthew 18:18] wrote Scripture [2 Timothy 3:15-17], then we cannot accuse them of blasphemy.

This brings up the second major problem with the Facebook poster’s initial statement: what is meant by “speak poorly.”  I have encountered this same or similar phrases from other followers of the “name-it/claim-it” teaching and no one has yet to objectively define what he or she means according to Scripture.  When pressed, the phrase is another way of saying “speaking negatively” or “being critical.”

Now keep in mind, the name-it/claim-it cultists are not stating their opposition to anything which is objectively and propositionally defined as sin in Scripture, because when pressed for evidence from Scripture to support their claims, they cannot point to any passage which when correctly understood in light of the grammar and context, which would support their claims.

No, when they are pressed for clarification of what they mean, people who “speak poorly” of another, or “speak negatively,” or are “being critical,” are people who make them feel uncomfortable or uneasy – usually because the person being accused of being “negative” or “critical” is exposing unbiblical behaviors, beliefs, or experiences to the light of Scriptural truth and showing those beliefs and behaviors to be false.

Now, it must be kept in mind, that I am not referring to such sins of the tongue as slandering anyone – because that is condemned in Scripture, regardless of whether or not the victim of the slander is a child or God or a child of the devil.  And we must not speak “evil” of anyone [Titus 3:1-2].  However, it is not speaking evil when we refute errant beliefs with the plain teaching of Scripture.  If the teaching of Scripture makes a person “feel” uncomfortable or uneasy, that person needs to examine him or her self to determine what is making them uncomfortable.  I would daresay the fault lies with the person who is uncomfortable, not the one proclaiming the truth of God’s Word.

The name-it/claim-it cultists cannot refute Scripture without exposing their own disregard for the Word of God, so the only recourse left is to malign the character or motives of those who disagree with them.

Therefore, anytime someone makes an assertion of moral absolutes, we not only have a right, but a duty to challenge them according to Scripture.  [1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1]  Any statement which cannot be supported from Scripture cannot be accepted as binding on any believer.

Moreover, it is incumbent upon those who pastor congregations to adequately teach sound doctrine to the members [1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9]. The problem is that so many have fallen for the artificial distinction being made by Presbyterians between so-called “teaching” elders and “ruling” elders.  Scripture knows no such distinction.  If a man is called to be an elder, he is called to pastor the congregation, and, as a pastor, he must be able to open up the Word of God for that congregation.  The elder/pastor has an obligation to keep the congregation from error.

§ Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Does God Hate Gays? — The Rest of the Story

Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth….”  [Genesis 8:21, emphasis added]*

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.  [Psalm 51:6]

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.   [Psalm 53:1]

The wicked are estranged from the womb;  they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.  [Psalm 58:3]

…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  [Romans 3:23, emphasis added]

But the Scripture has confined all under sin….  [Galatians 3:22a, emphasis added]

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.  [Ephesians 2:1-3, emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.  [Ephesians 5:6]

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth:  fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.  Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.  [Colossians 3:5-6]

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.  [James 4:4]

Do not love the world or the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  [1 John 2:15]

In my last blog, we examined the attitude with which God regards those who engage in practices which Scripture defines as “perversion” or “an abomination.”  In summary, the teaching of Scripture is that God finds such practices so repugnant, that He has basically turned away from any measure of more than common grace toward those so engaged.

In this blog, we go further because, contrary to the assertions of the cult known as Westboro Baptist Church [aka the WBC], God has not singled out those engaged in one single sin as special recipients of His judgment.

As seen from the Scriptures cited above—every single person stands condemned because, by nature, we wish to live our lives in opposition to God.  In this sense, it can be said that homosexual behavior is something which is in the genes.  But in exactly the same sense, it means that every single sin of which humans are capable is something which is in our genetic structure.  The nature which we inherit from Adam disposes and impels us toward sin, whether that sin expresses itself in outwardly manifested sins such as sexual perversion, theft, murder, gossip, slander, drunkenness, witchcraft, or whether that sin expresses itself in hidden ways such as covetousness, lust, and hatred.  Even though they may never exhibit themselves in outward behavior, it is the condition of our hearts and wills.  As James observes, if we fail in one point of the law, we fail in the entire law.  So it doesn’t matter whether a person is engaged in sexual perversion or slander.  All are equally guilty of failure to keep the law.  All have sinned and fall short of God’s perfection.

Falling short of God’s perfection, we are all “sons of disobedience” and are “by nature children of wrath.”  And being by nature children of wrath, we are by definition, enemies of God.

In other words, contrary to the pernicious lie of those who promote cheap grace, we are not, in our unregenerate state [without the Holy Spirit],  merely creatures who do sinful things, we ARE sin.  In other words, we are not sinful because we sin.  We sin because that is our nature.  That is why, apart from being regenerated by the Holy Spirit as children of God, we cannot enter heaven.  God will not tolerate the stain of sin in His kingdom.  He will not allow for even a second those who defiantly cling to their sinful nature to enter His presence.

What is the hope for those who are sin?  As I noted in the previous blog, both sides present a false gospel.  The WBC would have us believe that the only hope for the sinner is to clean up his act and thereby present himself as holy before God will impart any measure of grace.  In other words, the WBC presents legalism as the answer.  The homosexual community presents an equally horrendous false gospel, erring in the opposite extreme by advocating antinomianism—that God has no standard apart from some nebulous, warm-fuzzy “love” and as long as a person is “loving,” God will accept him.

Both show false understandings with regard to holiness, righteousness, justification, and sanctification.

The truth of the Gospel is not found in the legalistic denunciations of the WBC cult, which simply trades one form of bondage for another – without ever addressing or curing the problem.  The WBC cult message is one of despair, offering no hope to the heart broken by sin.

Nor is the true Gospel found in a warm-fuzzy “love” which states God only hates sin, he does not hate sinners and preaches a cheap grace which offers a fire insurance policy without the need for regeneration, repentance, or walking in holiness.  The warm-fuzzy false Gospel presents a lie – that God does not require holiness from His people and that one can be as sinful as he likes and still enjoy the hope of heaven.

Both false Gospels stem from the facts that (1) people do not really understand the meaning of “hate” from the standpoint of how God views sin, and (2) people do not really understand what it means to be regenerated [or in the popular terminology “born again”].  “Hate,” as God uses the term and its semantic equivalents, is not a foaming-at-the-mouth, red-faced rage.  Nor is it an irrational fear response.  When God says He “hates” something [or someone], that means he utterly, totally, completely rejects them.  He turns His back towards those who willfully persist in clinging to their natural state.

And if He hates all sin, which we ARE [not merely what we DO], it is only because we, in our arrogance and pride, first hated Him and rejected His will and rule for our lives.

The true Gospel is found when men realize their total and utter unworthiness to stand before a perfect and righteous God.  Realizing that, they also realize their complete and utter inability to approach Him in their own merit, relying only on His mercy and grace.

The promise of God is that He will not turn away the broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18;  51:17;  Isaiah 57:15;  66:2).

This is the paradox of Divine grace and mercy:  God hates sin because it is an affront to and a rejection of His nature, which is holiness.  But His nature is also to love;  and therefore in eternity past, before the world was even created, He knew man would rebel against Him.  He knew of sin and the ugliness it would bring to His created order.  And He therefore DECREED that He would become the perfect, once-for-all sacrifice, reconciling those He calls to Himself, regenerating them, sanctifying them, and once again conforming them to the image He created for them so long ago in the Garden.

In this regeneration, our stubborn, arrogant, prideful hearts and wills are broken before our Creator.  In this regeneration He then gives us new hearts, with new desires and a will to please Him.  With His ultimate end being that we are glorified and enjoy eternity forever in His presence.

This is the Gospel which should be preached, not only to those who engage in sexual perversion, but to all in the bondage of sin—however it is expressed in their lives. Whether sin is expressed through greed, envy, malicious words, theft, murder, any form of sexual activity apart from heterosexual monogamous marriage, or lying—the penalty is the same—DEATH.  The remedy is the same:  we must repent, calling on Him to save us through the blood shed by Jesus on the Cross.  He has not offered any other means by which we can be saved—so it must be on His terms alone, or not at all.  [John 14:6;  Acts 4:12;  1 Timothy 2:5-6]

That said, if we truly come to Christ, in repentance and solely dependent upon Him for cleansing and pardon from sin, we have the promise that He will not deny us what we seek.  [Matthew 10:32-33;  John 6:37;  John 10:28-29]

Moreover, in giving us pardon from sin, we are made into new creatures, with new desires conformed and conforming to His will and image.  [1 Corinthians 6:11;  2 Corinthians 5:17;  Ephesians 2:4-10].  Now that is good news.  We are saved not through keeping a list of rules and regulations, nor by a “warm fuzzy” feeling.  But we are saved through the grace and mercy of a righteous God, who makes us into new creatures and provides us the power to live righteously before Him.

* Unless noted otherwise, all Bible references are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Does God Hate Gays? [The Answer Might Surprise You!]

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.   [Leviticus 18:22]*

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.  They shall surely be put to death.  Their blood shall be upon them.  [Leviticus 20:13]

There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.  [Deuteronomy 23:17]

“I have loved you,” says the Lord.  “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”  says the Lord.

“Yet Jacob have I loved;  but Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness.”  [Malachi 1:2-3]

Of course the question is framed in such a way by the pro-perversion crowd so as to evoke an emotional response.  This is due in large part to a certain cult which makes public demonstrations at funerals, carrying signs and banners which proclaim that “God hates fags.”  And Christians who have either made no attempt to think through the issue by searching the scriptures for the whole counsel of God, or who fear the rebukes of men more than they value pleasing God, blithely assure the pro-perversion crowd that God does not hate anyone.  The cliched response is that God hates sin, but not sinners.

But is that really true according to the Bible?  What does the Bible say concerning the character of God and His relation to creation?  I’m not referring to a few proof texts taken out of context to soothe and beguile delicate sensibilities.  I am saying we need to look at the totality of what Scripture reveals concerning the nature and attributes of God as He relates to fallen humanity.

Moreover, we need to look at not just one word, as it appears in English translations, but the whole semantic range of words used in Hebrew and Greek.  However, we will look at the expanded semantic range in English also since many times those who produced English translations of the Bible would use different English words to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word.

According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, the following synonyms are listed for the verb “hate”:  “detest,” “abominate,” “abhor,” and “loathe”.  The same semantic range also attaches to the noun forms:  “detestation,” “abomination,” “abhorrence,” and “loathing,” along with the adjectival forms:  “hateful,” “detestable,” “abominable,” “abhorrent,” and “loathesome.”

Now, lets look at what Scripture says.  In Hebrew, the primary word translated as “hate” is an}c* [pronounced “saw – nay”].  Renn’s Expository Dictionary records it as meaning, “to bear great ill will or animosity towards other people or against certain phenomena.”  This is the word used in Malachi 1:3 to describe God’s attitude towards Esau.  The same word is used in the following contexts to describe God’s attitude towards certain people:  [1] towards all workers of iniquity – Psalm 5:5;  [2] anyone who is wicked and who loves violence – Psalm 11:5;  [3] the wicked – Psalm 45:7.

So let’s dig a little further.  What does the phrase “workers of iniquity” mean exactly?  What does it mean to be “wicked” or to “love violence” as those terms are translated from the Hebrew in the NKJV?

The phrase “workers of iniquity” in Psalm 5:5 is: /w\a* yl@u&P) [pronounced “p^e-ul-eh ah-wen”].  The phrase denotes those so given to evil that nothing they do contributes to the betterment of man or society.  The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament further notes that lup [“p^el” the stem of yl@u&P)], as a rule, describes a human action and behavior that is perverse because it does not conform to God’s expectations or demands.†

The phrase is further qualified by the use of the word, /w\a [“ah-wen”], which in most translations is rendered as “iniquity” [NKJV, NASB].  Again, according to the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, the word carries a significant weight behind it—denoting those who seek to bring disaster upon others.

Looking further, we know that God hates those who are wicked and love violence according to Psalm 11:5.  The term rendered “wicked” in this passage is uv*R* [“raw-shaw”], and basically refers to one who is impious.  Although the term “impious” seems like a mild description, the word carries a deeper meaning, signifying a blasphemer, one who is not merely indifferent to God, but one who is shaking his fist in God’s face as an act.

It is highly significant, that this is coupled in the passage with God hating one who loves violence.  The Hebrew phrase is sm*j* bh@a)w+ [“aw-hav khaw-mawce”].  The word translated “love,” [“aw-hav”] is a general term, but usually denotes an intentional setting of one’s affections and desires on the object, which is, in this context, is “khaw-mawce,” rendered as “violence” in the NKJV, NASB, and ESV.  This goes beyond the meaning of “iniquity” in Psalm 5:5, because one can be a worker of iniquity without loving violence.  The lover of violence is one who actively seeks physical harm to others.  An example of this may be seen in Job 1-2.  In Job 1, Satan is acting to work iniquity against Job, but he is not yet inflicting harm upon the person of Job.  In Job 2, Satan is now working physical harm against Job–he is inflicting violence on the person of Job.

So we see that there are three classes of people God hates:  [1] workers of iniquity—who willfully engage in activities they know are perverse and bring harm upon others;  [2] those who are wicked—who defiantly refuse to accept God’s ways;  and [3] those who love violence—who are so defiant in their rejection of God’s ways, they derive enjoyment in imposing physical harm on others.

But what of other words in the semantic domain?  In Psalm 73:20, it is taught that God “despises” the “ungodly.”  The word “despises” in Hebrew is hz#b=T! [pronounced “ti-b^e-zeh”], meaning to esteem as worthless or of no account according to Renn.  The same word is used to describe the value Esau placed on his birthright when he sold it for a mere bowl of soup.  The word rendered as “ungodly” is actually found back in verse 12 and is the same word translated “wicked” in Psalm 11:5.

Another word in this semantic domain is the word “abhor.”  In Leviticus 26:30, God, speaking to and through Moses, states that He abhors anyone who does not keep all of His commandments.  The Hebrew word rendered “abhor” is lu^G* [pronounced “gaw-al”] and indicates one whom God has found so destestable as to utterly reject him.

Finally, the last word in the semantic range is “abomination.  The Hebrew word is  hb*u@oT [pronounced “toe-ay-baw”].  It is used in the Old Testament to describe those whose actions are such that God judges them to be repulsive.  In Leviticus 18:22, God uses the term to describe those who engage in homosexual acts.  In Leviticus 20:13, God calls those who engage in homosexual acts detestable, using the same word rendered as “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22.

What does this tell us then?  According to the Old Testament, God finds homosexual activity to be repulsive and wicked, and He hates those who practice wickedness.  Like it or not, that is what Scripture teaches.  It cannot be explained away or denied.

However, some claim that that was how God was toward sin in the Old Testament, and that because we are now under an economy of grace, that those standards no longer apply because “God is love.”

Those who make such claims are cherry-picking and proof-texting Scriptures, still ignoring or attempting to explain away the whole counsel of God.  In Romans 1:24-32, Paul writes that those who promote and engage in homosexual activity have been [note the past perfect tense]:  (1) given over to uncleanness, (2) to their own lusts, (3) to vile passions, and (4) to a debased mind.  In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul states that those who engage in homosexual activity will have no place in the kingdom of God.  In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Paul states that homosexual activity is contrary to the will of God.

So, in a manner of speaking, Fred Phelps and his cult are correct in stating that God hates homosexuals.

But that is not all there is to the story.  Fred Phelps and his cult commit two egregious errors in their presentation.

The first error is in neglecting to mention that, while God hates those engaging in homosexual activities, He also hates ALL who promote wickedness and those activities which are specifically defined as “detestable” or “abominations.”  Some other activities so defined according to Leviticus 18;  Leviticus 20;  Deuteronomy 18;  Proverbs 6:  (1) incest, (2) adultery, (3) bestiality, (4) child sacrifice, (5) witchcraft, (6) soothsaying, (7) interpreting omens, (8) sorcery, (9) conjuring spells, (10) spiritualism, (11) arrogance, (12) telling falsehoods, (13) murder.‡

Paul further adds in the New Testament, that entry into the kingdom of God is barred to:  fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, slanderers, and extortioners.  In other words, the kingdom of heaven is barred to any practitioner of sexual activity outside of the boundaries of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

James 2:10 further adds that if one fails in even one point of the law, one fails in all.

In other words, all stand condemned as hated by God if they choose sin over obedience.  God has not singled out one sin over all others as designating its practitioners as being hated while other sins are glossed over and blithely ignored. That is the first and most glaring error of the Fred Phelps cult.

The second error is that Phelps and his followers ignore what those who are Christians are called to do.  Those who are recipients of grace are called to proclaim grace. Paul said it best in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21:

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.  Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:  we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.  For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

If they will not receive the word of grace and reconciliation, we are being less than honest if we do not make them aware of the penalty which awaits for those who reject grace.  The Fred Phelps cult has not presented the Gospel—the good news that Christ came to die on a cross for sin, and that those who come to Him in repentance, seeking pardon and release from sin, will not be cast out.  They simply present his narrowly-defined view of sin with a message of condemnation—bypassing the cross and preceding straight to judgment.

The error of many who claim to be Christians  They err in the opposite extreme—presenting cheap grace, an antinomian view of Christianity, that those engaged in homosexual practice can be redeemed and pardoned from sin without ever repenting from and repudiating their sin.

The Biblical truth is this:  If anyone insists that he can cling to his sins, he has demonstrated that he is not truly forgiven, not truly a believer in Christ.

* Unless noted otherwise, all Bible references are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

† Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997).

‡ Some modern expressions of these practices would include: ouija boards, tarot cards, palmistry, numerology, horoscopes, biorhythms, reading “auras,” I Ching, seances, abortion.

Who do you say the Son of Man is?–Part 1

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” [Matthew 16:13-17]*

Although many contemporary theologies give lip service to Jesus Christ being the Son of God, the meaning they impute to the phrase is nothing close to the meaning as it was understood and used by the first century AD Jewish mind.  Consequently, they are more likely to define Jesus as the radical/revolutionary [liberationist theologies], the sage/guru/magician/mystic [new age/feminist theologies], or merely a teacher of ethics [the Jesus Seminar] or some such syncretism of all of the above as long as it does not acknowledge Him as being the prophesied Jewish Messiah who was God Incarnate.

But, as Jesus indicated in His words of approval to Peter, there is only one correct answer to this question.

Therefore, my next few studies will be focused on an examination of the Biblical evidences as to what is embodied in the identification/confession of Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the God of Israel in the flesh.

This is a definitional doctrine of Christianity.  In other words, while our understanding of doctrines such as election and eschatology may be secondary or even tertiary, if one will not confess that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel and God Incarnate, that person is not a Christian, no matter what claims he may make to the contrary. Therefore this is a crucial area of study for the following reasons:  [1] The identity of Jesus as the Incarnation of the God of Israel is crucial and necessary to the formulation and an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.  [2] The identity of Jesus as the Messiah is crucial and necessary to the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to His people, Israel.  [3] We are commanded in Scripture to earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered. (Jude 3) How can we contend for that which we do not know?  [4] Many of the ancient heresies concerning the nature of Jesus and His identity have been revived in the past 150-200 years.

What is believed to be the first prophesy of the Messiah is found in the first book of the Bible.  In Genesis 3:15 we read:  “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed;  He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

The language here is an oddity.  This is the only time in the OT where the Hebrew word zera [translated “seed”] refers to the offspring of a woman without reference to a male progenitor.  In every other instance where this word refers to offspring or human reproduction, it refers to the male, not the female.  Because of this, some commentators see this passage as a prophesy pointing to the Virgin Birth [John Gill in his commentaries, W. A. Criswell in The Believer's Study Bible (aka the Holy Bible: Baptist Study Edition), Joseph Exell in the Biblical Illustrator, David Guzik in his commentaries, F. B. Hole in his commentaries, Matthew Henry, Chuck Smith, Adam Clarke in their commentaries].

Another prophesy of the Virgin Birth [or, more aptly, the virgin conception§] of Christ is found in Isaiah 7:14:  Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.  In this passage, the word rendered “virgin” is almah, in contrast to the word betulah, which is also rendered as “virgin.”  However, the word almah also signifies a woman who is of the age to bear children, while betulah does not have any such connotation and can equally apply to a pre-teen girl or to a spinster.

Although liberal commentators, who wish to deny or question the miraculous nature of Jesus’ conception and birth, assert that the Hebrew word almah can refer to a young woman of child bearing age who is not literally a virgin, such comments miss [or ignore] the fact that, in every instance of the Old Testament where the word almah is found, the word is used to indicate a woman who is a literal virgin of child bearing age.  Moreover, the understanding of the Jewish people that this passage refers to a woman who has no prior sexual experience is evidenced in the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek, made ca. 250 BC [or BCE for the secularists], in which the word almah is rendered as parthenos, which is a technical term which specifically relates to a woman of child bearing age, yet has no sexual experience.

Another indication is found by the use of the word ‘oth, translated as “sign,” which always indicates that what is prophesied is something outside of the ordinary course of human events.

Finally, there is the testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself, who so inspired the words chosen by the apostle Matthew when he penned the gospel which bears his name, that the fulfillment of this passage is found in the conception and birth of Jesus to Mary in Bethlehem.  [See Matthew 1:18-21;  Luke 1:26-38.]

While the discussion is centering around the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, let’s look at His genealogy from the human perspective.

This promise was given to Abraham:  I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you;  and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. [Genesis 12:3]

This covenant promise to Abraham is extended through Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and eventually, to Jesse and David.  [Genesis 17:19;  24:60;  28:14;  49:10;  2 Samuel 7:12-16;  Psalm 89:3-4;  Isaiah 11:1].  The Jewish people, kept, and still maintain, extensive genealogies [which make the genealogies maintained by the Mormons look amateurish in comparison].  But the probability that Jesus of Nazareth could fulfill these prophecies by sheer chance and NOT be the Messiah are 1 in 9,338,880.

There are two genealogies of Jesus indicated in Scripture—one in Matthew 1 and another in Luke 3.  There are significant differences which some see as a contradiction.  However, careful study and knowledge of Jewish culture and practices shows no such contradiction exists.  The first difference is that the genealogy indicated in Matthew starts with Abraham and moves forward in time to Joseph, while the genealogy in Luke starts with Joseph and moves backwards in time. The second difference is that Matthew only traces the human genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, while Luke’s genealogy traces the human ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam.

A more subtle difference is found in the exact wording of the text, and is highly significant. Matthew 1:16 states:  And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.  Luke 3:23 states:  Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.

According to Matthew’s account, Joseph’s father was Jacob, while according to Luke’s account, Joseph was the son of Heli.  A few commentators suggest that since it was common practice for Jewish people to be called by more than one name, that “Heli” and “Jacob” are the same person.  The problem with such an explanation is that it does not deal adequately with the rest of the texts, which show that Heli was a descendant of David through his son Nathan, while Jacob was a descendant of David through Solomon.

The more plausible, the historically accepted, and most likely explanation is that the genealogy shown in Matthew is the physical lineage of Joseph, using the term gennaō, which is indicative of physical descent.  Being a physical descendant of David through the line of Solomon and later of Jeconiah, no physical descendant of Joseph could rule, for reasons I shall explain later.

On the other hand, the prophecies require that the Messiah be a descendant of David [but there is no prophecy which points to which offspring of David's would be the progenitor].  And Scripture does state that Jesus is of the offspring of David according to the flesh. [Romans 1:3;  2 Timothy 2:8;  Revelation 22:16]  Therefore, the genealogy in Luke is believed to be the genealogy of Mary.   It appears that Heli had no sons, and therefore, according to Mosaic law, his daughters, in order to preserve the inheritance rights, would be required to marry within their tribe/clan.  [Numbers 27:1-11;  Deuteronomy 36:1-9]  In doing so, Joseph would have become the son of Mary’s father Heli as by a form of adoption.†

Moreover, it must be noted that the genealogy cited in Matthew 1 traces the lineage from Abraham to David and then to Joseph through Jeconiah.  As I mentioned earlier, Jeconiah brought a curse upon himself and all his offspring such that nobody descended through him could prosper on the throne of Israel [Jeremiah 22:28-30].  Therefore this genealogy cannot be the natural lineage for Jesus, but only the legal lineage securing His legal claim to the throne.

Finally, it must be noted that, as suggested in Adam Clarke’s comments on Luke 3:23, that, in tracing the human genealogy of Jesus back to Adam, Luke provides the link of the virgin conception of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 3:15—that He is the seed of the woman who would break the curse brought by the serpent.

* Unless noted otherwise, all Bible references are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

§ Which should not be confused with the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox dogma of “Immaculate Conception”–which is the teaching that Mary was born with a perfect, sinless nature instead of a fallen human nature.

† For more extensive explanations, please see any of the following resources: The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983), pp. 18, 212-213; Hindson & Kroll, The KJV Bible Commentary: Luke (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), electronic edition; Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 3:23 (electronic edition in Bible Explorer); Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on Luke 3:23 (electronic edition in Bible Explorer); W. A. Criswell, The Believer’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), pp. 1331-1332, 1440-1441; John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), pp. 1393, 1518-1519.

Discernment: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth or Theological Hair-Splitting?

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.  [Matthew 7:15-20]*

These (those in Berea) were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things [taught by Paul] were so.   [Acts 17:11]

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and discernment,

that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ.  [Philippians 1:9-10]

Test all things; hold fast what is good.  [1 Thessalonians 5:21]

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false spirits have gone out into the world.   [1 John 4:1]

According to A.W. Tozer, the biggest need for the Church is for the gift of discernment.  (K. Neill Foster, The Discerning Christian, Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1981, p. 11)  I’m not sure if I agree.

To be more specific, I’m not sure that I agree with Tozer referring to discernment as a “gift,” which implies that some believers may have it and some may not.  In 1 Corinthians 12:10, Paul writes about “discerning of spirits” as a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit.  Such manifestations are occasional, not general, sovereign manifestations of the Holy Spirit, “distributing to each one individually, as He wills.” [1 Corinthians 12:11]  The Bible Knowledge Commentary suggests as the application of this passage, that such manifestations are so that congregations can tell whether or not someone speaking to them is teaching truth or error. (Vol. 2, p. 533)

Such an interpretation ignores not merely the immediate context, but the broader context of the canon of Scripture.  I believe the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary more accurately defines the manifestation as the supernatural ability to determine whether other supernatural manifestations originated with the Holy Spirit or demons. (p. 458)

I believe it is more appropriate to say that the biggest need for the Church is the DISCIPLINE of discernment.  Or more succinctly, God, speaking to us through His word, requires all believers be more obedient in exercising discernment. This is not an occasional manifestation of the Holy Spirit, but rather an obligation which every believer should be expected to develop and utilize on a consistent and continuing basis.

Unfortunately, we live in an age, as I noted in a previous entry, where believers take the easy way out.  Instead of being Berean believers, who check out everything to be sure it lines up with the word of God, the Church has become, for the most part, a gaggle of itching ears waiting to be tickled by the latest theological whim.  We could rightly call this the flavor or book of the month club.   One month the trend will be why Christian leaders should be modeling the seven habits of effective Mormonism advanced by Steven Covey.   The next month we will be seeking to find our purpose in life from that surfer-guru Rick Warren.  Following that we will chant the mantra of Jabez while the women folk are downing a dose of name-it/claim-it denial of the Gospel from women possessed of the jezebel spirit like Joyce Meyer/Beth Moore/Gwen Shamblin.  The pretty package of theological apostasy is wrapped up in the ecumenical syncretism of Promise Keepers and Women of Faith with no clear proclamation of Biblical truth.  The bow is provided by Benny Hinn’s denial of the Triune nature of God and the package is placed under the tree of “Spiritual formation”–a bastardized syncretistic blend of Hinduism and Christianity promoted by Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, with the help of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Brian MacLaren, and a host of so-called Bible colleges and seminaries [such as my alma mater Lincoln Christian University].

In 2007, in a Sunday school class I attended at the time, I almost lost my breakfast when some woman who must not have a neural synapse functioning said that the way to deal with temptation was to chant the name of Jesus over and over–like it was some sort of mantra that would magically protect her from harm.  The spiritual nausea increased when the Sunday school teacher, an elder in the congregation, did nothing to correct this heresy.  I repeat, an elder, one who has been charged with the responsibility to protect the congregation from error, did absolutely NOTHING to rebuke this promoter of heresy.

I quickly jumped into the fray with the comment that the Biblical standard for dealing with temptation is to flee the temptation, but the elder quickly spun this to a rather anemic, “Well, that might work for you. . . .”

Where did this woman learn this heresy?  She was proud to admit she learned all her spiritual disciplines from that Jezebel of apostasy Joyce Meyer.

It is interesting to note that many of the false teachers I have named have a uniform reaction to any Biblical examination of their pompous posturing: shoot the messenger. Most of the time it is to proclaim a curse against dissenters by claiming “you shall not touch the Lord’s anointed.”  Their followers manifest the same sociopathy.  If you disagree with their dogmatic assertions, it is because you are a “toxic person,” and “chronic whiner,” or some other such pejorative intended to demean those who oppose them.  In other words, they claim to be above examination, immune from any need for correction—an arrogation of Divine prerogative that not even Peter or Paul were presumptuous enough to claim for themselves.

It isn’t enough that Christians practice discernment. We must be prepared to implement discipline whenever, wherever, and upon whomever it is necessary.

If churches insist on promoting heresy, whether it be pro-homosexual antinomianism, the syncretism of Renovare [the organization for which Richard Foster and Dallas Willard are spokesmen], the cheap grace pelagianism and universalism of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, or the polytheism of Benny Hinn, we must not only be prepared to denounce it in clear, unequivocal [and if necessary, public] terms, but to seek to have the congregational leadership promoting the heresy removed.  Failing such measures, Christians should abandon such heretical congregations for churches which honor and teach the pure Word of God without the accretions and corruptions of men.

If so-called Christian bookstores insist on promoting and selling heretical materials such as the whole Purpose-Driven cult paraphernalia of Rick Warren, or the whole Beth Moore syncretistic blend of name-it-claim-it/spiritual formations garbage, Christians should be prepared to boycott those stores until they remove the refuse from their shelves.

Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, the responses in such churches is the familiar tactic known as “shooting the messenger.” In debate, this is known as an ad hominem (“to the man”) argument.  When one cannot disprove one’s opponents logic or facts in a debate, the tactic of last resort is to attack one’s opponent personally.  Those who use it usually lose the debate because judges recognize the ad hominem argument for what it is. False teachers, not having any solid basis in Scripture for their heresies, always attack their critics personally.  Benny Hinn, promoting his heresies courtesy of sycophant and crony Paul Crouch and his TBN satellite network, announced his desire to kill his critics.  Steven Strang, publisher of the pseudo-Christian tabloid Charisma, has echoed the same unBiblical sentiments.

Rick Warren sends out people to train congregations embarking on his “Forty Days of Purpose” nonsense to identify and weed out congregational members who oppose the agenda and to train congregations to marginalize those people who have discernment and drive them out BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.  Documents prepared by Warren and his cult encourage congregations to even use slander, and intimidation to eliminate opposition to Warren’s cult and his agenda of perverting the gospel.§

Of course this pattern follows Bible prophecy, which states that as the time of the end draws closer, people would love falsehood more than truth and that they would not endure the teaching of sound doctrine and would instead prefer the teachings wrought by deceiving spirits. [1 Timothy 4:1-3;  2 Timothy 4:3-4]

We are called to reject such. [Romans 16:17;  2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14;  Titus 3:10;  2 John 10]

*Unless noted otherwise, all Bible references are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

§See the following articles:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/resistersdieorleave.htm

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/furtherinformation.htm

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/wsjarticle.htm