"Yea, hath God said" and the preferences of Satan

I'm sure you've often seen during a debate with a very "Traditionally" conservative Christian.  A person will question if The Bible was actually making such a broad and absolute condemnation as we assume, and the "conservative" will point out that "Yea, hath God said" are the first words The Serpent utters in Genesis 3:1, as proof that questioning how strict God is is somehow obviously Satan's favorite tactic.

This is textbook out of context quoting.  Regardless of the inquisitive form of that phrase, the Serpent absolutely did want Eve to believe God didn't want her doing what he was trying to convince her to do.

You see what the Serpent says after that, the statement he attributes to God, is in fact something God did not say.

Let's go back to Genesis 2:16-17 where the actual command from God the Serpent wants Eve to break is said to Adam, let's quote God's exact words from The KJV.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now in Chapter 3 the Serpent says to the Woman.

"Yea, hath God said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?""

See the difference?  Thing is you could argue he gave a technically accurate representation of what the command was, but the tone is changed. God emphasized there was plenty Adam could eat, just one singular isolated tree he was not to eat.  The Serpent wants to make God seem less permissive, to make his restrictions seem broader then they actually are.

The Woman's response also played into The Serpent's hands.

"We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.""

 See that? God's Word was added to.  Was it because Adam taught her incorrectly (The Woman was created after the command was given) or was she herself making it stricter for fear of breaking it.  Or was it a little of both?  We don't know for certain, a view that Adam taught her wrong is perhaps backed up by how NT references back to this blame Adam alone for what happened.  But it's ultimately conjecture.

Point is, once again the misquoting of God makes God seem more restrictive not less.  And I've seen Bible teachers point out the significance of the "neither shall ye touch it" not being what God said, yet when on a different part of Scripture, they'll encourage the same attitude, saying the commands against drunkenness mean don't even walk into a bar, and so on.

In that movie about Johnny Cash called Walk The Line, there is a scene where one of Johnny's Christian friends judging him is actually referencing Genesis 2-3 and doing exactly what Eve did, completely oblivious.  I found it really funny and I'm not even certain the writers knew what they did there.

Satan was deceiving Eve, but the deception was about the reason it's a Sin not about making her think something is not a Sin.

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

By making God's command seem more restrictive, he made it seem unreasonable, which in turn made God seem afraid of something, which in turn made him seem like an @$$hole.

Once in a fallen world a lot more things are forbidden to us.  But the Torah also makes clear sinning in ignorance of The Law is not nearly as bad as sinning knowingly, still bad, but not as bad, because Sins made in ignorance can be paid for by the Sin Offering, while knowing Sins require more.  So Satan prefers to get people to do the worse option.

His Temptation of Jesus was not I believe typical of his usual strategy, he needed to do anything to make Jesus no longer a Spotless Lamb.  But even there only one of the three temptations (the first) seems to be based on trying to trick him into doing something unlawful by playing with technicalities.  The second is seemingly a dare to prove Who He Is and the third had no false pretense at all.

Jesus spent his ministry condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their overly strict interpretations of Laws like the Sabbath, and adding none Biblical Laws called Traditions.  Only on Divorce does he object to them allowing something he felt they shouldn't allow.

In Matthew 23 He says of them "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.".  This is in contrast to Himself in Chapter 11:28-30.  "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

So when I get told that I'm the one trying to pervert Christianity into what Satan wants it to be by promoting more "permissive" interpretations of Moral Law on issues like Sexuality.  I mostly just laugh and wonder what Bible they read.

Paul said "all things are permissible to me but not all things are beneficial" in 1 Corinthians 6.  The Law is now written on our Hearts not in Stone.

There are false belief systems out there built around saying people should do (Biblically) indisputably sinful things.  But they are mostly, (especially the ones that are successful enough to make me suspect Satan is putting particular effort into them) predicated on Rebellion against The Judeo-Christian God.  They have no desire to deny The Bible condemns those things, and it suits them in-fact to claim the Bible condemns things it doesn't.  Mostly these are different forms of Satanism.

The major heretical Judeo-Christian religions, whatever their heresies on Theology and Soterology are, all have in common on Morality wanting to increase not decrease what is Sinfull.  The Catholic Church doesn't want Priests marrying and many other rules, JWs want people paranoid about Blood Transfusions.  Mormons put Coffee in the same category as Alcohol and hard Drugs.  Rabbinic Judaism makes the command to "not boil a kid in it's mother milk" a condemnation of Cheese Burgers.  And you know I even consider Islam with it's over the top prudishness and legalism a form of heretical Christianity.  They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, their denial of his Divinity is not unlike the Ebonites and other early Jewish-Christian heretics.  All this shows me Satan wants the God of Abraham to seem strict.

The Christian sects that do take an anything goes approach (to the left of even my morality) are very small fringe groups without a lot of mainstream influence.  I actually don't think every false religion has Satan's personal endorsement, the fallen human mind can come up with bad ideas perfectly fine on our own.

Even major false religions and philosophical systems that have no claim of Biblical roots can also tend toward Legalism.  A recent example would be the Atheistic Straight Edge movement affiliated with pro-wrestler CM Punk (in his Face persona he's like most people in the movement, a perfectly like-able human being, but as a Heel he is a demonstration of how judgmental they can become).   The end result is the same, if people think living a Moral life is really difficult they will give up on trying to.

We've been conditioned to think Pagan=Anything goes especially on Sex.  Neo-Pagan sub-cultures in the West where the mainstream default religion is nominally Christian, tend towards being socially Liberal because they attract people who in some way want to rebel against society.  But even most of these have more Morality then people give them credit for.

I've already spoken of how Rome was contrary to popular imagination a very Socially Conservative culture.  I will talk in the Future about Greek Philosophy.  Japan is also a Pagan culture that is pretty Socially Conservative in it's own way.

On a few select issues Christianity has been tricked by Satan into being OK with things we should have condemned.  Like Slavery/Segregation, Anti-Semitism, Rape victim blaming, imperialism/neo-con foreign policy.  All these serve the same purpose as much of the Legalism however, alienating people from the Gospel and those who know it.  And tend to be tied to something those same Christians do condemn (rightly or wrongly).

Today I feel homophobia and Capital Punishment are at the top of the list of things serving that purpose.  To a Homosexual or Bisexual person their Gayness is part of who they are, not just something they do.  So my fellow Evangelicals even if you insist on still viewing those things as Sins at least avoid the topic while evangelizing.

A lot of False Religions are trying to appeal to LGBT individuals.  I've seen websites for Satanic groups bragging about the Gay Marriages they perform.  And even the Catholic Church looks like it may be trying to appeal to them under Pope Francis.  (Thanks to the Catholic Church accepting Evolution, Evangelicals are inclined to see them doing anything as proof it's wrong).  And there are plenty other Neo-Pagan examples.

However for all the reaching out to Homsexuals in some Occult circles, the Neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement has it's own Homophobia.

I think Christians need to stop simply thinking "if the world is promoting it, it must be wrong" and realize that Satan wants to reach out to exactly those who feel alienated by The Church.

When Blacks were enslaved by professing Christians he created Vodoo to appeal to them, fortunately many didn't fall for that and identified with the Exodus narrative.  During Segregation he created the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters.  To appeal to women who feel alienated by the Patriarchal norms of traditional Christianity he has feminist and matriarchal themed religions like Wicca, as well as the Aristasia sub-culture, which is another example of a very socially conservative Pagan belief system.

Today he's doing the same thing to reach out to LGBT people.  And we play into his hands when we push them away.

The Democratic Party and other institutions of the political left want to use the LGBT community as political pawns same as they do blacks and other minorities and feminists.  And the same as the Republican party uses Christians and Gun owners.  None of that I see as real true authentic support.

I shall now address Universalism

I've mentioned elsewhere how I wish Universalism were true, but the testimony of Scripture simply does not allow it to be.  I've read universalist arguments, hoping to be convinced.  But they simply don't stand up under scrutiny.

The core argument is a claim that the Greek words Aion and Aionion, which they say are translated incorrectly as "eternal", actually mean a fixed period of time, often a very long one but still one that will end.  And thus Gehena/the Lake Fire being described as "eternal" doesn't make it permanent.

Here is the problem, it's only Aionion that is translated Eternal.  Aion's meaning is what they say it is, it's where the English word Eon comes from, and can be viewed as a synonym for Age and Era, but the KJV also sometimes translates it World, however it is distinct from Kosmos.

Aionion is derived from Aion, but that doesn't mean it must also contain the "will end" element of it.  It could be related like how Age is to Ageless, or End to Endless, or Time to Timeless.

I'm not a Greek expert, but I know this much. Aionion (translated as both Eternal and Everlasting) is not just used to describe how long the people sent to Gehena/Lake of Fire spend there.  It's also used to describe the Life promised to those who Believe.  We are promised we will NEVER die.

What they combine with that flawed Greek lesson is that Revelation 22:15 to them seems to describe those earlier sent into the Lake of Fire as now merely being locked outside of New Jerusalem.  However those are in fact not the same group of people as I explain in my Outer Darkness study.

They will make a claim that all the Greek early Church Fathers unanimously believed in Universlaism, and it was translations into Latin that caused Aionion to start meaning Eternal.  I have read some quotes of the early fathers that sound universalist, but I've already expressed why I don't view them as authoritative.  It adds an amusing context to the desire enemies of Eternal Security have to point to the Church Fathers.

You may be thinking "aren't you by definition a believer in Eternal Security if you're a Universalist?"  Technically no, a Universalist (a Christian one at least) still likely believes you're given the opportunity to avoid going to Gehenna even temporarily when you accept Jesus as your Savior.  So they can therefore disagree among themselves on whether or not your get out of Gehenna free card can be forfeited.

Critics of Eternal Security probably fear that believing in Eternal Security is part of a slippery slop toward Unviersalism.  But in truth the importance of defending the Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security is likely to have less resonance to a Universalist.

Universalisim is like any other works salvation in a sense.  They believe even those who go through the Lake of Fire are Saved because of Jesus.   So they are saying that what Jesus suffered sometimes needs to be added to.  The role of the Lake of Fire in Universalism is not unlike Salvation by works.  It also suggests the completed work of Jesus on the Cross sometimes needs to be added to.

If any universalist who sees this thinks they can refute my arguments, please, I invite you to leave a comment, brief or lengthy.  I'm open minded.

Patriotic Idolatry

I am increasingly bothered by how much modern American Evangelicals marry their Faith to their Patriotism.  Because wrapping up the Cross in the American Flag is idolatry, and also the Sin of Pergamos.

When I see a church put the Flag right up there next to the Cross I think "abomination".  And sometimes they'll sing Patriotic songs in church, churches that otherwise would never approve of singing secular music in church, or even Christian music that seems secular to them by being too "Contemporary".

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is an act of Idolatry that makes the Flag an Idol, as is putting your hand on your heart during the National Anthem, and other similar activities.  Yet Christians have decided to develop some devotion to the pledge simply because idiotic Liberals whine about the meaningless "Under God" phrase that doesn't clarify which god and wasn't originally in it anyway.

I could also go into how the Pledge was written by a Socialist specifically to spread his Socialist ideals, which is why it's stupid for any Political Conservatives to like it (and Ironic that modern liberals now hate it).  But that's technically off topic.

Point is, Christians should not be Pledging allegiance to any Earthly Nations, we are supposed to think of ourselves as Citizens of God's Kingdom first and foremost, and remember that the Kingdoms of this World are all currently owned by Satan.

There is nothing wrong with having a nice healthy Patriotism (but never blind loyalty to the government type patriotism).  I value some of the ideals of our Founding Fathers (there is a reason Captain America is my favorite Marvel Superhero and Winter Solider my favorite MCU film.), and think many of them would agree with what I'm saying here.  But "American Exceptionalism" is absolutely idolatry that makes the Nation itself an Idol.  Israel is God's only Earthy Covenant Nation, when we declare any other nation "exceptional" we're attacking God's covenant with Abraham whether we realize it or not.

Same with Divine Providence which spawned Manifest Destiny.

I recommend this response to David Barton's narrative.

Also, I feel all these military themed Patriotic Holidays like Memorial Day and the Fourth of July and Veterans Day and so on, are days that Christians need to be doing Spiritual Warfare against Mars the god of War.

There is significance to that I said Mars rather then Ares, (you see I generally prefer using the Greek names of the Classical Olympians over the Roman names).  The Greeks did not generally think much of Ares, he was often the joke of the Pantheon.  They considered him necessary, but they mostly never desired to define themselves by their capability in War.  Even the Spartans didn't as much as our flanderized perception of them makes us think they did.  It was not easy for Leonidas to convince the Gerusia to go to war.

But for Rome, Mars was their Patron deity, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They considered their strength to come mainly from their might.  And Sadly modern America has developed that same problem, democrats as well as republicans.  That is why I believe Mars is the "God of Forces" mentioned in Daniel 11:38.

But sadly Churches instead join right in on the Military worshiping festivities, doing Military themed sermons, where they sing the most military themed of the Patriotic songs I talked about.  I even remember one service I was at where the Pastor mentioned how he thinks it's Cowardly to refuse to fight.  I was disgusted.

People will think I'm being disrespectful to Veterans.  Guess what, many Veterans often become depressed on those holidays.  It's not healthy for them either that we do this.  So yes during the Spiritual Warfare I suggest we pray for the Veterans and their family members, as well as those overseas victimized by American foreign policy.

On my Prophecy blog I've done a post about the possible eschatological significance of this problem.

How should Libertarians approach Gay Marriage?

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

Response to Al Mohler

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles

Men and Women are different, both physically and mentally.  And those differences existed from the creation of distinct genders for humanity in Genesis 2.  But the dividing of men and women into different roles in society, especially the notion that men are supposed to be in charge, is purely the product of The Fall in Genesis 3.

In Genesis 2 the Woman is created to be Adam's "Helper" or "Helpmeet".  Adam may have been created first but they were still meant to be equals.  It is not until Genesis 3:16 that God tells her "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

On this side of the cross The Church should be working to restore things to how God intended, though we do so knowing that won't be fully successful until Jesus returns and sets up his Kingdom.

But still we should be working towards that as much as possible.  That's why good Christians oppose Slavery in-spite of the Torah's tolerance of it.  And why I've argued elsewhere we should oppose Capital Punishment, even though it was an important part of The Law.

The Law of Moses does codify many traditional gender role related laws (but not in the same way most other nations did).  But New Testament believers are not under The Law.  And even in the Old Testament we had people like Deborah.

Ezekiel's description of the future Messianic Temple has no separate Court of Women just as it no longer has a separate court for Gentiles.  Likewise Galatians 3:28 says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I have another post arguing against those who say women cannot be Pastors/Preachers.

The verses some people dwell on about cross dressing are directed at specific pagan ritual practices involving cross dressing.  They were not meant to be taken as legalistically as they are today by many pastors who want to shame women for simply wearing pants rather then skirts/dresses.  I notice that particular phraseisim isn't as popular in colder states, like Wisconsin where I live.

The extent to which traditional gender roles are still endorsed in The New Testament (and I believe even NT instructions we shouldn't be legalistic about), are entirely limited to to the relationship between Husband and Wife.  Those verses exist purely for the typological application to the relationship between Christ and The Church.  Point is, as long as your unmarried those verses have no relevance to you and your interactions with people of the opposite gender, weather your male or female.  And if you are married they're relevant only to your relationship with your spouse.  Do not go around judging other couples or individuals.

The New Testament certainly doesn't forbid women to be unmarried.  Nor does it forbid women, married or not, from having careers or doing God's work outside the household.

Questioning someones Salvation based on how much they agree with your interpretation of The Bible

Some fellow believers in Eternal Security won't fall into the trap of questioning someone's Salvation based on behavior.  But they may insist that a Truly Saved person won't hold views that disagree with The Bible.

They base it mainly on verses like "Everyone who is of the Truth hears my voice" in John 18.or John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.".

The danger of this view is that it's very strongly based on opinion.  Yes I believe every Biblical question has only one correct answer. But the Brain is still of the Flesh.  The Faith that saves is of the Heart, not an intellectual belief.  The thief on the Cross didn't even expect his Belief would save him.

Basically this view says a Saved person can be mistaken on something at first, but if you show them from The Word the truth and they don't believe it they aren't Saved.  They may add that a Saved person can be stubborn on maybe 1 or 2 issues, but if they do it repeatedly they're not Saved.

The main Pastor I saw teaching this, tied into it his view that the Disciples (most anyway, not Judas who was never Saved) were already Saved all through Jesus' ministry.  Saying they were Saved before Jesus called them.  Well the Disciples repeatedly refused to accept what Jesus told them, that he had to be killed and rise again.

In my view, if someone outright doesn't care what The Bible says then maybe it can be logical to question their Salvation.  But if they clearly care what it says, if they're doing mental gymnastic to get around a clear teaching.  Or just insisting that you must be misusing that verse without an argument at all, then it sounds to me like they are hearing The Word, just struggling with accepting it like the Disciples did.

I think It's pretty difficult for an unsaved person to even believe The Bible is infallible.  One might say they view it as God's Word but have some qualifiers to that which make it fall short of true infallibility.

The World makes it pretty hard to simply see The Bible as Infallible.  Historically when someone has come to the conclusion that The Bible is a perfect book for purely logical reasons, they get Saved almost immediately.

Reason why I'm so annoyed about all these tests Christians throw out to prove someone isn't Saved, is that the Bible is far less ambiguous on what Proves someone IS Saved.

1 John 4:2 says " Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God".  And verse 15 says "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.".

Romans 10 says "All who call upon the name of The Lord shall be Saved" no qualifying statements.

1 Corinthians 12:3 says "that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.".

Those who take the verses on "knowing a tree by it's fruits" to say an Unfruitful Christians can't be saved are misunderstanding the verse.  BUT if a believer has borne visible Good Fruit, then that person's Salvation certainly should not be questioned.

I would also never question the Salvation of anyone who died for their Faith in Jesus.  Yet many Catholics have done that, especially during the French Revolution.  And none are more doctrinally wrong then Catholics.