Is the Bible horrible just because it was misused by slave traders and owners?


Here is an article where I refute an objection from an unbeliever who asserts that the bible was used to justify and perpetuate slavery as well as to controll masses, Initially I intended to refute this implied objection in his question together with other objections from unbelievers in a single post when it occured to me that they was so much to deal with within this objection, so I decided that it would better if I created a single post specifically to deal with this very common objection. Of course in the phrasing of the question the objection is not even stated, the unbeliever as is in many other cases has merely asserted, however obviously the objection is implied.

So here is the question from the unbeliever in brackets below: 
[[ Have you read it? [ the bible ] Its a horrible boring book that was only used to control the masses. The slave masters and traders used the bible and the bible condones slavery and you follow it? ]]

Immidiately upon reading this question my reaction was: if some slave traders and slave owners made use of the bible to justify and perpetuate slavery does that make the bible horrible, boring and false, Does that make the Triune God non existent? Of course the unbeliever in this question does not explicitly assert that His assertion implies that the bible is false, but its clear as is always the case that when believers bring these kinds of questions, they do so because they want to use these statements to redicule and dismiss Christianity as false.
The unbeliever claims the bible is boring and horrible!
How does the unbeliever know that the bible is horrible, and what’s His definition of Horrible and what reason do I or any believer have to accept that definition as not merely based on opinion and not on fact. What rule and whose rule says that if a book is used to control the masses it becomes horrible? What does it even mean to control the masses? 

The unbeliever asserts that the bible was only used for the sole purpose of controlling the masses.
 By making the above assertion the unbeliever further implies that: he is transcendent and therefore knows that the bible has without exception everytime always been used for mass control. Of course the unbeliever is not transcendent, nor is any other human being, that being the case the unbeliever’s assertion is invalid.

 And then the unbeliever asks ” and you follow it” I follow the Transcendent and Triune God who has revealed Himself in the bible, who is Himself the creator of the universe, originator of all propositions of scripture, the laws of logic, morality and the order in the universe. This Transcendent and Triune God is the originator of His word and all propositions therein by which when I read He uses the occassion to directly communicates His truth to me. So yes I follow the God of the bible.

SLAVERY!

Now the unbeliever brings up two issues pertaining slavery which we deal with in the rest of this article; 

1. That the slave traders and Slave owners used the bible to justify and perpetuate slavery and 2. that the bible condones slavery. Now lets assess the first claim. 

The Slave Masters & traders, He claims used the bible and he does not explain specifically how they made use of the bible, could it be they used its contents to justify slave trade and slave ownership or did they make use of the bible to subjugate the the slaves. 

Either way the claim that the bible was used by slave masters is common and keeps coming up. Its almost always emotionally charged and rarely is it followed by a detailed explanation of what “to use the bible in slave trade” even means. The unbeliever’s approach in not explaining the phrase “The slave masters used the bible” may rest in the assumption on his part that everyone is aware of how exactly the TransAtlantic slave treaders and American slave owners used the bible. 

Now the first question is, on what moral basis does the unbeliever consider slavery to be evil? He may argue that humans have built in kindness and goodness thus are surely aware of right and wrong torwads each other. How does the unbeliever know this? Can he know for sure that he has an incorporeal and nonmaterial mind in which goodness is inherent? How does he know? 
If a believer said all men have an inbuilt knowledge of what is right and wrong, I would not have a problem with his statement for He could easily explain according to Romans 2:15 that God has written the law in the hearts of men. Of course the unbeliever having realised He cannot explain the source of the goodness and kindness within, will argue that it doesn’t matter how one knows slavery is wrong, well I could as well argue and say Slavery is right, why would that be wrong? He may say that Slavery is wrong because its illegal. 

I could argue that Once upon a time slavery was actually legal in the United States of America and in many other places, but does the legality of something make it right? We can go back and forth and its clear the unbeliever cites his human nature, the law of the particular nation in which he resides in as a source of morals, but as we have already seen the laws of nations do change as citizens and rulers thereof may decide over time, some even believe to this day that slave trade and ownership of slaves in the context of the TransAtlantic slave and consequense thereof is a good thing. Why would those who support slavery be considerd to be immoral and wrong? and by whose standard can their view be considerd to be wrong? The unbeliever might again claim that those who support slavery are wrong are going the human nature, but he has no way of proving this yet as a believer I can easily understand that I must love my neigbour as I love myself because the bible says so. its clear that humans are not the utimate reference point, for by human standards apart from God, what maybe right today maybe wrong tomorow.

 Prostitution was once considerd a crime in many countries accross the world however nowadays many have decriminalized prostitution. 

The question is, why is prostitution wrong to some and right to some, Why are prostitutes in Country A arrested and jailed while Country B does not arrest prostitutes? Why is polygamy illegal in the United States, Israel but legal in Zimbabwe and Kenya? 

Why is homosexuality considerd a crime in Russia and legal in Australia? Isnt it apparent the laws of the nations themselves cannot come up with an objective standard, for objective in human terms is subjective not objective.

 Therefore its clear that the unbeliever has no objective moral basis for claiming that anything is wrong. Anything objective must come from that which transcends humanity itself, since finite minds cannot even formulate a uniform legal system and justify it as objective. That which transcends humanity is God and its God who is the creator and Law Giver! Thats not to say that the unbeliever will not disagree with the law written on His heart, of course living in rebellion the unbeliever will disagree that the source of the law is beyond him and many times will go against this law.

The unbeliever cannot even claim that slavery, abortion, adultery, prostitution, theft, fraud and lying are objectively wrong! because the myriad of human wordviews will soon contradict each other, Some worldviews justify lying and even murder under certain circumstances. Some justify adultery and prostitution. 

Yet only the Biblical worldview is self evidently true and consistent, The bible is the revelation of a Trancendent Triune God who is Creator of all including morality and Its on the basis of the Bible that a coherent worldview can be formulated and its on this basis that I can objectively declare biblical slavery was right while American slavery and the TransAtlantic slave trade where very evil.

Unbelievers reject the fact that God created the world and most usually accept evolution as a correct explanation for the origin of human life.
 However evolution cannot explain the origin of morals. The unbeliever by rejecting God must accept an explanation for the source of morals from the theory of evolution, humanism, naturalism or from all three or more, that nevertheless cannot explain the source of morals other than simply saying “humans are naturally kind”. If the unbeliever accepts evolution then the question is, If humans evolved out of tiny pieces of matter, the matter which had also come out from nothing, then humans are just heaps of matter. 

As the theory of evolution asserts the animals best suited to the conditions of nature survive, how are good morals even necessary to help humans survive? I mean having slaves must mean more food can be produced for the slave owner in order to help Him survive, Therefore slavery has nothing or should having nothing to do with morality if the unbeliever accepts evolution since evolution must justify slavery on the basis that the enslavers are merely trying to survive and thus have enslaved other humans to accomplish this goal.

 Evolution would not even account for the reason why its bad to enslave fellow humans. In fact slavery was largely out of racial predijuce based on the theory that Africans where less human and therefore found proper use as slaves. 

The Unbeliever will assert that even if racism was key in the slave trader’s philosophy the bible too was used as basis for slavery because according to the believer the bible condones slavery. 
This is despite the fact that while American slavery was way different from biblical slavery, Among othe differences are, In the bible the slave owner who murderd a slave was to be killed in turn, The slave was to enjoy sabbath rest, In the bible the slave was not to be chained and mistreated, This, the unbeliever will not even bother to look at, yet clearly this is way opposed to the brutual slavery of the U.S where the slave was by law mere property of the owner, property that the slave owner could treat and dispose of as he willed.

When the unbeliever asserts “but the bible condones slavery” we dont even have to open the bible to respond to his implied objection for two reasons. First of all the unbeliever has no moral grounds to assert that slavery is wrong, none at all in fact its the evolutionary worldview that has everything in common with slavery since by its survival of the fittest narrative slavery cannot be possibly wrong.

 Even if He does not believe evolution is the correct explanation, there is no other worldview that he can turn to in order to expplain morality.
Secondly the unbeliever does not accept what the bible says anywhere, to Him we can not be possibly right, to him the bible is false and of course the unbeliever’s arguement that the bible is false refutes his claims that the bible condones slavery, here is why: If the bible is false then slavery actually never existed in the ancient Israel contrary to what the bible explains. In fact, it means Israel actually never existed contrary to what bible says, also it also means that the accounts pertaining slavery in the new testament are false. 
Thus the unbeliever has no right to point to the bible and say “look they is slavery therein”, because having already asserted that the bible is false it follows that the false bible is unreliable and cannot be used as basis for extracting truth claims since its a false document. One might actually think that its impolite not to explain to the unbeliver what the bible has to say about slavery. This is not at all impolite, in fact its the correct way to deal with the beleiver.
 Unbelievers no matter how corteous are pretentious at best, they live and speak in rebellion and are just as much in spite of your careful explanation bent on concluding that the bible is a lie. Unbelievers commonly say the bible is a lie and never accept any of what it says for instance about the age of the earth, the creation of humans by God, why would anyone think contary to what the bible says that unbelievers all of a sudden will accept that the bible is true and hence slavery accounts in the bible are true? See! You cannot have unbelievers accepting what they want out of the bible and rejecting what they dont want just so as to further their own rebellion and disbelief.
 To accept certain parts of God’s revelation and reject other parts is illogical, The pressuposition of a Christian is that the Bible as a whole is the word of God and its true.
 The Bible cannot be possibly true and false at the same time to us Christians, Rather its true in its entirety.
 Since the bible is not true and false at the same time then the bible does not contradict the Law of Non Contradiction, which says that Something cannot be both true and false at the same time. 
Yet since God Himself is Logic and Truth it follows that God’s word is TRUE and always TRUE. Well unbelievers and even some false believers may disagree about God aand and Logic but here is an explanation from W. Gary Crompton on the subject of God and Logic
“This is what the Bible teaches. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is a rational being, the “LORD God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). So much does the Bible speak of God as the God of logic, that in John 1:1 Jesus Christ is called the “Logic” of God: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (the English word “logic” is derived from the Greek word Logos used in this verse). John 1:1 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Logic is as eternal as God himself because “the Logos is God.” Christ, then, we are told in the Bible, is the logic (Logos) of God (John 1:1); He is Reason, Wisdom, and Truth incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3; John 14:6). The laws of logic are not created by God or man; they are the way God thinks. And since the Scriptures are a part of the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:16), they are God‟s logical thoughts. The Bible expresses the mind of God in a logically coherent fashion to mankind. Hence, God and logic cannot be separated, because logic is the characteristic of God‟s thinking. Gordon Clark taught that God and logic are one and the same first principle in this sense, for John wrote that Logic was God.” – W. Gary Crampton, The Trinity Review no. 298, 4

However to the unbeliever who is illogical and abitrary, The word of God is not a wholesome unit, therefore its true only when He sees it fit and false when he sees it fit. Thus to the unbeliever the bible is true and false at the same time, and like we already said this is a logical impossibility, and since its a logical imposibility the unbeliever must be shown His folly and must not be fed with precious scripture on the issue of slavery.
[ PROVERBS 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit KJV ]
The unbeliever must never be answerd on the basis of His otherwise false pressupositions for instance when the unbeliever asserts that the bible is bad because someone misused and misinterpreted [ of course the unbeliever wont say the bible was misnterpreted, or wont even accept this fact ] to perpetuate slave trade, I am to respond to the believer in a way that proves His worldview as faulty,For its His worldview that helps shape a false assertion. I am not to even open the bible to prove to him that his assertion is unfortunate, I am to show Him that His worldview that gave birth to the assertion is faulty and carries no basis for even dismissing scripture as faulty on the basis of its misuse such as in the case of slave owners and traders.

N O T E S
1. Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, 20
2. W. Gary Crampton, The Trinity Review no. 298, 4

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, reformed theology, slavery, theology

The Judaizer & The Zionist, why their patnership has misled many believers [ 2 ]

The Judaizer demands adherence to either all or part of Mosaic LawThe Zionist uses the OT to make a political case for the current state of Israel, There is obviously more to this.

The Zionist easily convinces the Judaizer to support His political cause, and somehow because the Judaizer is already obsessed with Mosaic Law and OT prophecy. The typical Judaizer being an evidentialist can easily be convinced into thinking that indeed The State of Israel as it exists is evidence of God`s promise to Abraham

The Judaizer being an evidentialist whose truth claims are based only on those things His 5 senses can get hold of cannot whole heartedly trust Christ, because Christ cannot be seen in the physical, Judaizer insists on works and the law thus can easily be led by the Zionist to spend 45 minutes day dreaming about the value of broken debris from the “Holy Land”

Those who have been manipulated by the Judaizer are easily manipulated by the zionist, Thats why you meet people claiming to be Christians who have no idea about Zionism saying “I support Israel” yet they can barely substantiate their position beyond the statement “its the holy land where Jesus was born” 

The Zionist and the Judaizer are both dispensationalists, choosing to believe that God either saves by grace or genetics.

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, heresy, ZIONISM

The Judaizer & The Zionist, why their patnership has misled many believers

The Judaizer demands adherence to either all or part of Mosaic Law. The Zionist uses the OT to make a political case for the current state of Israel, There is obviously more to this.

The Zionist easily convinces the Judaizer to support His political cause, and somehow because the Judaizer is already obsessed with Mosaic Law and OT prophecy. The typical Judaizer being an evidentialist can easily be convinced into thinking that indeed The State of Israel as it exists is evidence of God`s promise to Abraham

The Judaizer being an evidentialist cannot whole heartedly trust Christ, because Christ cannot be seen in the physical, Judaizer insists on works and the law thus can easily be led by the Zionist to spend 45 minutes day dreaming about the value of broken debris from the “Holy Land”

Those who have been manipulated by the Judaizer are easily manipulated by the zionist, Thats why you meet people claiming to be Christians who have no idea about Zionism saying “I support Israel” yet they can barely substantiate their position beyond the statement “its the holy land where Jesus was born” 

The Zionist and the Judaizer are both dispensationalists, choosing to believe that God either saves by grace or genetics.

Leave a comment

Filed under ZIONISM

Christ, real historical fact, not mere myth!


Have you ever been confronted by non believers? who claim that the basis for the Christian faith is a myth.

 Many non believers out of pure hatred for the faith will say such things even though they themselves either have biased evidence against Christianity or no evidence at all.

On 20th November 2016 Va Ndoro in His article “Religion incompatible with truth, science” he wrote ” Christianity is based on assumptions. That is, according to Va Ndoro, Christianity is based on mere claims that are not backed by proof. We Christians take the Person, Ministry, Life, Death and Resurrection of Christ, to be basis for our Faith.

According to Va Ndoro therefore Christ is a mere assumption, they is no proof that He was ever born, lived, died & resurrected. According to Va Ndoro Christ never had a ministry, he never did what the bible says He did, in fact Va Ndoro indirectly attacks #Scripture for Scripture in its entirety points to Christ.

Therefore since Va Ndoro says Christianity is based on assumptions, what this means is that The Ministry, Life, person, death, resurrection, teachings, gospel of Christ is a mere assumption without #proof and therefore a lie. Wait a minute dont we have proof for Christ, also what kind of proof does Va Ndoro need?

 

The valid form of proof that Va Ndoro requires must be from actual experience or observation. That is va Ndoro implies that Christ will only be real to Him if Science can prove, this is despite the fact that science uses inductive logic which draws probable not certain conclusions based on what the premises provide evidence for.

Now the the birth, life and ministry of Jesus Christ is a historical fact, but since Va Ndoro wants only evidence in form of things He can touch, sniff, see, hear and taste, he wont accept historical facts as valid evidence no matter what source shows it to have been a real event in history. Since Historical events themselves can neither be tasted, sniffed, seen, heard or touched, Va Ndoro being an #empiricist will not accept the Historical Jesus.

INCONSISTENT

When Va Ndoro says that Christianity is based on assumption what he actually means is that Christianity is based on claims that cannot be proven by empiricism. Therefore what He means is:

Claims that cannot be proved by observation are false

The basis of Christianity is a claim that cannot be proven by observation

Therefore the basis of Christianity is false.

Clearly Va Ndoro is being inconsistent, here is why: He discounts historical accounts of Jesus in His articles as mere myths not worth taking any look into.

 Yet Va Ndoro Himself explains the word “truth” according to how its essence was named and explained in extinct languages such as Sanskrit, ancient #Egyptian… The question is, how did Va Ndoro prove that indeed these languages once found use in the past? Its quite obvious that Va Ndoro read history books or referred to authors who made use of historical records to prove that Sanskrit and Ancient Egyptian are ancient languages. Va Ndoro would love to believe that #Sanskrit was once a language found on the face of the earth, that is a Historical fact. Yet Va Ndoro discounts Jesus in spite of overwhelming evidence in historical records chief of which is the bible.

Enough of the illogical and and therefore invalid objections of Va Ndoro, Below is what Charles Spurgeon says about the #resurrection.

“The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is one of the best attested facts on record. There were so many witnesses to behold it, that if we do in the least degree receive the credibility of men’s testimonies, we cannot and we dare not doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.

 It is all very easy for infidels to say that these persons were deceived, but it is equally foolish, for these persons could not every one of them have been so positively deceived as to say that they had seen this man, whom they knew to have been dead, afterwards alive; they could not all, surely, have agreed together to help on this imposture: if they did, it is the most marvellous thing we have on record, that not one of them ever broke faith with the others, but that the whole mass of them remained firm.

We believe it to be quite impossible that so many rogues should have agreed for ever. They were men who had nothing to gain by it; they subjected themselves to persecution by affirming the very fact; they were ready to die for it, and did die for it. 
Five hundred or a thousand persons who had seen him at different times, declared that they did see him, and that he rose from the dead; the fact of his death having been attested beforehand.

 How, then, dare any man say that the Christian religion is not true, when we know for a certainty that #Christ died and rose again from the dead? And knowing that, who shall deny the divinity of the Saviour? Who shall say that he is not mighty to save? Our faith hath a solid basis, for it hath all these witnesses on which to rest, and the more sure witness of the Holy Spirit witnessing in our hearts.”

Charles H. Spurgeon, vol. 2, Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 2, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Spurgeon’s Sermons (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998)., No 66 (exposition)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

God is not “reasoning” for scientific ignorance


Here is a response to Mr. Shingai Rukwata Ndoro’s article “God is reasoning for scientific ignorance”. Va Ndoro is an atheist whose otherwise blasphemous articles appear in the Religious section of sundaymail.co.zw as you will realise Va Ndoro bundles all of religion as having basis in scientific ignorance. All of Va Ndoro’s arguements are better suited as descriptions of pagan idols not the Triune God. In my response I  prove that Va Ndoro’s veiled attacks on Christianity are not only false but are no match to the superior truth claims of Christianity. Below each paragraph from Va Ndoro`s article is my response.

VA NDORO :  THE core of a religious disposition is that the source and sustenance of life is from the causative and creative power of a supernatural force or power, a deity. Such a deity or “God” is then assumed to be humanoid or anthropological with “an appearance, character and resembling that of a human being.”

MBOFANA : There is nothing anthropological about the Trinitarian God in the Christian Religion, The Bible says God is Spirit, Va Ndoro’s description can only be correct if He is describing pagan deities. Also we do not assume they is God, we KNOW they is God because He has revelaed himself to us in His revelation. Maybe Va Ndoro wanted to describe Jesus who as we all know had a human nature, but then again Jesus was both Divine and Human, this is not even what Va Ndoro knows and either way His description of God doesnt amount into an objection since he is describing something other than the God of the bible hence any objection to the God of the bible must follow a correct description otherwise it cannot be an objection worth wasting time on.

VA NDORO : The deity is also assumed to actively intervene, respond to and get involved in daily human behaviour. It does so by requiring appeasement through perpetual petitioning, invocations and supplications combined with fervent adorations.

To say that God merely intervines is an understatement let me state it here that God has decreed everything that comes to pass according to the pleasure of His will. In fact God is omni present, OMNIPOTENT and omniscient, thus Va Ndoro here misunderstands what we know about God and any conclusion deduced from this misunderstanding on Shingai’s part  cannot be accepted as valid.

VA NDORO Scientifically, each individual is a biological seed and product of the sexual relationship of one’s parents. Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Rastafarianism) then ridiculously claim the whole humanity is a seed of Abraham.At the beginning of life in general or origins of humanity in particular, they placed a humanoid deity as narrated in Genesis.

Va Ndoro here comes up with a blanket statement, The bible clearly tells us that every human is a biological descendant of Adam the first man, not Abraham. Thus again Va Ndoro rushes to make false assertions which will invariably lead to a false conclusion. As I explained in the first paragraph, God is Triune, a concept that is biblical that Va Ndoro may not be able to comprehend. God is Spirit, He is not human like Va Ndoro would otherwise want people to believe. 

VANDORO The human failure to explain certain things has been the “evidence” for the existence of a deity assumed to have caused everything. Ancients had to find an appropriate name for the force of life or cosmic energy.

MBOFANA This assumes that Christians have given the name “God” to cosmic ernegy or force, though they actually may not know this. However again this is false because the definition of God according to Christians is way broader beyond the definition of Cosmic ernegy or force in so many ways to an extent that Christians could never have ever invented God as to fill a gap pertaining their lack of knowledge pertaining cosmology. However his understanding of god best describes pantheistic religions such as that of ancient ROme within which where multiple gods and one particurlarly represantantive of “cosmic ernegy or force. Therefore since Va Ndoro cannot even accurately describe the Triune God, He has no right therefore to conclude that the Triune God is reasoning for scientific ignorance.

VA NDORO Among all the organised religions, Christianity is the only one without such a name of a deity because the word “God” came into Christianity from a Germanic mythical ancestor, “Gaud/Gawd/Gott,” after the 9th century.Before that, the deity was called “Theos” (Greek Concordance #2316, assumed to be the “supreme force that created and sustains the universe”) and Latin “Deus/Dieu” (itself derived from the chief deity of the Greek pantheon, “Zeus”(#2203), meaning, “lighting, brightness of sky, and clarity of vision”) (Etymology Dictionary).

MBOFANA Another  assertion by Va Ndoro, who hopes to carry away many people who may not know Christian doctrine so well. The name of God is sure to be dependant on language and this is not a problem for even God’s revelation has been translated into various languages. And even if there are multiple names for God how is this an objection against His existence, how is this empirical evidence for God’s non existence. Also how is this even proof that “God” is reasoning for scientific ignorance.

VA NDORO Since nature abhors a vacuum, the religious people made up some assumptions that cannot be supported by empirical evidence

MBOFANA  I assume, Va Ndoro here means that God cannot be proven by empirical evidence and well, so what if empirircsm cannot prove God? How is this an objection against God’s existence. How is this therfore evidence that God is an invetion of fearful, insecure people and even then can Va Ndoro prove it the thoughts of those that He claims invented the idea about God using empiricsm. ideas, thoughts, dreams cannot be proven by observation, Thus if empiricism cannot prove some things it therefore cannot prove all things and if it cannot prove all things then by that token it cannot be concluded that what empiricsm cannot prove does not exist. Just because empiricsm cannot prove God it does not mean God does not exist.

VA NDORO To the scientific minded, a deity is a formless variable and gap filler for the religious regarding the following:

 MBOFANA How can something formless  be a variable. How can non existence vary. Formlesness means non existence. What does this even mean? Does it mean scientific people believe in contradictory statements or what..?

VA NDORO Third, paternal and superior humanoid figure, this is to whom humans look up to with attributes of an alpha male, considered craving for people’s recognition and in turn controls and is intrusive in people’s lives. An individual’s conscience and empathy is then subjected to fear or avoidance of pain or loss instead of responsibility and accountability.

MBOFANA Let Va Ndoro first prove by observation that a conscience exists, an empathy exists, then having done so let him prove that God subjects these two to fear instead of accountability and responsibility.  Let him prove by way of observation and senses that scientific knowledge is the source of acccountability and responsibility, then having done so let him prove by by observation alone the concept of acconatbility and responsibility.
The god who craves for attention invented in the minds of insecure and cowardly men is indeed an idol, for such are the attributes of the idols according to the bible, however Va Ndoro cannot claim to know this if he is to be faithful to his system.  Since empiricsm cannot prove historical events I could ask him how his senses led him to know that the ancient people created god out of an emotianal need and fear of uncertainity. Thats if observation can even prove there is an such thing as an emotion.

God is not a human figure, He cant die, He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. Here Shingai claims God has attributes of an alpha male, yet this comparison is false according to the bible for an alpha male is top because he is competing where they are plenty other beta and alpha males. The alpha male competes for a mate, for a job, for survival. God competes with nobody, He is sovereign and His plans cannot be thwarted, He does what He wants when he wants. 

VA NDORO For example, when human beings do not know the bio-chemical processes of a diseased body, they will explain it superstitiously. Fifth, social and historical phenomena – the perpetual conflict between positive and negative, good and evil, vitality and decay.

MBOFANA Here Shingai says that humans without  knowledge of biochemical processes will be superstitious, thereby even by that measure He implies that God is a supersticious idea  invented by humans who lack  particular information for which they have substituted with the idea of God and once humans find the information for which they had created God as gap filler Shingai assumes that such people will immidiately abandon the idea and belief in God.

The above arguement is invalid first because here Shingai draws parallels betwen two events whose cause isnt necessarily similar as i prove below. According to Shingai : Lack of scientific  knowledge causes people to be superstitious. To believe in God is superstitious. Therefore those who beleive in God have no scientific knowledge. 

As you can see they way too many scientists of repute known to have been believers in the Triune God thus lack of scientific knowledge cannot be attributed as a cause of belief in God nor can it be attributed as a sole cause of abandoned belief in God. Therefore His argument cannot be a valid proof that God is reasoning for scientific ignorance.

“Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture”. – Eric Hyde [ ehyde.wordpress.com/ top-10-most-common-atheist-arguements-and-why-they-fail]

VA NDOROThe method of science is to find and provide a credible, verifiable and objective explanation based on empirical evidence of the “How” of natural phenomenon. It continuously improves with further research.

MBOFANA Since Va Ndoro belives thinks that in order to verify any, science must be deployed,  let Shingai prove by His methods that they is such a thing as credible. Also this is a false assertion for a number of reasons. By verifiable Va Ndoro means that a scientific experiment can be repeated over and over thus producing the exact results. However Science has multiple problems and i will present only one below:
1. Science affirms the consquent, what this means is that its assumed that if an event A followed event B therefore Event A caused Event B. 
According to Va Ndoro : Lack of scientific  knowledge causes people to be superstitious. To believe in God is superstitious. Therefore those who beleive in God have no scientific knowledge. 
In the above example Va Ndoro assumes that the belief in God is caused by lack in scientific knowledge, this is a lie, There maybe a dozen reasons other than lack of scientific knowledge causing people to believe in God.

Finally in the last 3 paragraphs Va Ndoro quotes Sigmund Freud as support for His veiled attack on Christianity. My arguments against His in the rest of the article can clearly be used to show that even his appeal to Sigmund Freud is no basis for  thinking that God is reasoning for scientific ignorance.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics

Tearing down the false doctrine pertaining spiritual fathers 2


In this second part of ” Tearing down the false doctrine pertaining spiritual fathers” Find part one here

In this article I discuss three cases that those who support the Spiritual fatherhood doctrine advance as justification for this false doctrine. The 3 cases I discuss below are: that of Paul and Timothy, Paul and the Corinthian Church, Elisha and Elijah.

P A U L     A N D    T I M O T H Y
The case of Paul and Timothy is common reference point for those who support the spiritual father doctrine. The key verse is 1 Timothy 2:1 where Paul says unto Timothy ” my own son in the faith”
This is normally misintepreted to mean that Timothy was Paul’s spiritual son yet such an misinterpretation ignores the facts.
First of all neither does Paul say unto Timothy ” My own spiritual son ” nor does He say Unto Timothy “my own son in the Spirit”

The greek word for Faith as used in that passage is ” pistis ” and below i have provided the definition as defined by Strong’s greek lexicon.
[ persuasion, that is, credence ; moral conviction(of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especiallyreliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: – assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. ]
    
As you can see the above definition of pistis does not imply Spirit in any sense. The definition of pistis does not in anyway imply that the verse can be made to mean that Timothy was a spiritual son of Paul.
So what does it mean, If Paul says Timothy or Titus are sons in the faith, according to that definition above, its clear that Faith could mean persuasion, moral conviction of truth especially in reliance upon Christ for Salvation and thus Timothy and Titus where sons in this persuasion as presented in the gospel. 

We must also look at the working relationship of Paul and Timothy to further understand why Paul calls Timothy a son in the faith. In Acts 16:1-4, is an account of how Paul took Timothy as a companion on His missionary journeys. Timothy  being a younger companion who bore the benefit of instruction in the gospel by Paul, it thus could only have been appropriate for Paul to refer to Timothy as His own son in the faith. 
 
W A S   P A U L,   T I M O T H Y’S   S P I R I T U AL   F A T H E R ?

I have explained what it means for one to be a spiritual son  and I have explained that no man can be another man’s spiritual son because only the Holy Spirit can cause the Spiritual birth of a human being. 
And so Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ made this clear in John 3:5-6
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
So what did Jesus mean when He said ” except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot be born again”?, Jesus was reffering to regeneration a process by which the Holy Spirit causes the Sinner to repent and believe the Gospel. 

Regeneration is an activity that only the Spirit can do.  Being born of water  refers to water baptism which is the outward sign that signifies the inward work of the Holy Spirit. Baptism cannot cause regeneration, it is just but a sign. Regeneration is an activity of the Holy Spirit not a preacher or an Apostle like Paul. 
In fact Paul himself had to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, how could He ever have power himself to cause spiritual birth? Therefore Paul could never have been anyone’s spiritual father.
Its worth noting that Paul was just a vessel in the Potters Hands, a clay vessel in the potter’s hands cannot create another clay pot! Paul therefore is just an instrument in the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Paul could ever be the cause of Spiritual birth then it must as consequence follow that man is saved by work of some other person in addition to the Grace of God, the Finished work of  Jesus Christ and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Yet we know that man is saved by God alone not the works of any man, thus his spiritual birth is caused by God who thus becomes His Spiritual father.

1  C O R I N T H I A N S  4 : 14 – 17
 
Here is another passage1 Corinthians 4:14 -17  commonly misintepreted by those who support the spiritual fatherhood heresy.  

 14  I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
 15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
 16  Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
 17  For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Its clear that Paul was calling the Corinthians “sons” on account of the gospel he had preached to them, elsewhere in His epistles Paul says that the gospel is power unto salvation, andf its foolishness to those who are perishing.. again in this passage there is no hint of Paul having caused Spiritual rebirth in order that he may be called Spiritual father of the Corinthians

W A S    E L I S H A, E L I J A H ‘ S   S P I R I T U A L    S O N  ?

We shall now look at 2 Kings 2:11-12, this passage is also used as a textproof for the spiritual fatherhood concept.

11  And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
 12  And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. 

Those who buy into this spiritual fatherhood concept believe that Elisha’s ‘”My father, my father” utterance in refence to Elijah amounts to justification for the erroneous view that Elijah was a spiritual father to Elisha, Also the Spiritual fatherhood heresy proponent will turn to whuch says that Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah’s Spirit, therefore a spiritual father can impart a portion of his spirit to a spiritual son, This notion is mistaken for 2 reasons;

1. Elijah is not a role model to church leaders, He was a pointer to the ministry of John the baptist [ Malachi 4:4, Matthew 11:14, Luke 1:17, Mark 9:11-13] who is himself a pointer to Jesus Christ. In a way the ascension of Elijah into the heavens was a pointer to the ascension of Jesus Christ into the heavens after ressurection.

2. Scripture and personalities therein are pointers to Jesus Christ [ John 5:39, Luke 24:27] not models of church leadership, Paul explains to Timothy the roles and qualifications of church leaders and suffice to say none of the things that Paul says ever make mention of the Elijah, Elisha relationship as a model for the made up spiritual fatherhood doctrine.Old Testament types and shadows such as the temple, the sacrifices, the sabbath, the Levitical Prieshood, Elijah, Elisha  point us to Jesus Christ as having fully revealed and Glorified the Father in the work of salvation. Yet some insist that the likes of Elijah as He was to Elisha are pointers to the morden but false spiritual father

3. Even in the Old testament God was always sovereign and it was upon Him to grant spiritual birth, God has always been active even befor creation.Christ was greater that both Elisha and Elijah combined yet instructs us in Matthew 23:7-10, “call no man “father” except your Father in heaven and call no man “Master” except Christ”​

Leave a comment

Filed under heresy, reformed theology, theology

Tearing down the false doctrine pertaining Spiritual fathers

 Spiritual Fatherhood of mere men over other men is a heresy, It is a common feature of The New Apostolic Reformation, Word of Faith/ Prosperity Theology and Catholicism, but before we dismantle this lie into pieces we shall quickly make a summary of Matthew 23:7-10

Jesus certainly does not mean that we should not call our natural male parent father, Since God is Spirit its apparent that what Jesus means here is that we cannot call any man “Father” in reference to spiritual things, for the title father denotes authority and power, and in the spiritual sense none has authority and power except God.
 Matthew 23:9 certainly is not an isolated verse for in the veres after, Christ prohibits the desiples from accepting any title that defines them as Master for He alone is Master, thus Jesus actually warns the desciples from usurping His role. In the preceeding verses to Matthew 23:9, Jesus does expose Pharisees and Scribes as the ones who love to be called by titles that inflate their worth in spiritual matters.

The words of Jesus in Matthew 23:7-10 applied to the Apostles while castigating the Pharisees and Scribes for their own obsession over titles that inflated their worthless state to the level of God. 

We must never deceive ourselves to think that any body can NOW claim to be another man’s spiritual father or spiritual child, We are NOT to think of ourselves so highly that we think Matthew 23:7-10 applied only to them and not to us.

Ascribing the role of spiritual Father to a mere human is an an invention of the Pharisee who seeks to unashamadely inflate self worth. Guess who loves to inflate self worth? Its the Word of Faith Pastor, Prosperity theology proponent and The New Ager.

In fact its idolatry to think of a fellow man as a Spiritual Father, first of all its as good as thinking that a man can lead another into spiritual rebirth, yet this is false for Only the Holy Spirit can regenerate a human unto Spiritual Birth. 

Not only are “believers” manipulated by this obviously unbiblical doctrine, but Persons of the Holy Trinity are made mockery of.
Since spiritual growth and birth is attributed to a mere man, the work of the Holy Spirit in Regeneration is ignored, Since the human “spiritual father” is believed to have direct contact with God the Father, the mediatorship of Jesus Christ is ignored.

Since the “spiritual father” either claims or is said, by followers to have power to bless or curse, the Fatherhood and Sovereignity of God is ignored.

Thus the human “spiritual father” doctrine is an idolatrous doctrine that places man in the place of the Holy Trinity.

However despite the fact that scripture is clearly against this spiritual fatherhoood craze, ​ the spiritual fatherhood nonesense is to be found as doctrine in many churches. The Spiritual Father aspect is so essential to the sustainace of many churches. 

For instance Shepherd Bushiri makes a claim that a fellow false prophet Ubert Angel is his Spiritual father to whom he owes obidience, Ubert Angel & Emmanuel Makandiwa claim Victor Boateng as their spiritual father to whom they submit to, now the reason for this public display of respect and allegiance is the false prophet knows that once it appears that He is submissive to somebody prominent, his followers will not only submit to him but will unquestionably obey what he commands even if it does not measure up with scripture.

– SPIRITUAL FATHERHOOD DOCTRINE, A CONTROL TECHNIQUE
The Spiritual Father aspect enables the leader of a denomination to easily control, manipulate and control followers. Followers can easily be threatened with curses if they ever disobey the “spiritual father” who apparently is thought to be connected directly to God.

Obviously they will cite a lot of scripture, for instance they will cite the example of Elijah and Elisha, Some will attempt to use the example of Paul and Timothy, In the Old testament all the Prophets such as Elijah and Elisha are not a source of instruction in themselves rather they are pointers to the person and work of Jesus Christ in the Grand Plan of Redemption, thus Elisha and Elijah are shadows of He who is Greater than all of them.

The story of Elijah and Elisha is no basis for the spiritual father craze. Even Paul could not have ever caused the Spiritual Rebirth of Timothy; rather Paul was gifted in instructing Timothy in the gospel of Jesus Christ. No man can give another spiritual birth!

 A believer is born again of the Spirit. Thus no man can lay claim of the title Spiritual Father because no “prophet” “apostle” pastor or evangelist can cause spiritual birth of another man. Man may only be endowed with gifts of preaching and teaching not of causing spiritual rebirth.

Many who support this false doctrine of Spiritual fatherhood claim that God speaks directly to the spiritual father who happens to be the founder of the denomination on behalf of a whole denomination. This is utter nonsense, a doctrine that usurps Hebrews 1:1-2 which explains the fact that: In the days past at many times and many ways God spoke to our fathers in many ways but in our time He has spoken unto us in these lasts days by way of His son. So there is just no room for the man made spiritual father to again act as a prophet revealing unto us what God intends.

To claim that a church founder can hear from God directly on behalf of the congregation is as good as bringing back the Levitical priesthood yet fact is Christ fulfilled all the requirements of Law and is our High Priest. To claim that a church founder can hear from God directly on behalf of the congregation usurp the role of Jesus Christ as mediator between God and men because they is only one mediator between God and men and that is Jesus Christ.

The Prophets of the old and their prophecies specifically where as pointers to the ministry and work of Jesus Christ, Even the last of these prophets John the Baptist on being told that Jesus was amassing many followers He said “ I must decrease and He must increase” because He knew that His mission had been to point people to Christ, yet this is the very person that Jesus spoke of and said “ among all men born of women is none greater than John” The Apostles too where foundations of the church in that they explained further the doctrine [ teaching] that the church ought to follow in relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God being Sprit is the only one who can lay claim to this title of Spiritual Father. To claim Spiritual Fatherhood is blasphemy and lack of reverence for that which only God can do. Yet even after this explanation, someone will still argue and say interpretations differ. 
Yet let me state it here in no uncertain terms that scripture interprets scripture and to bring an idea into scripture from outside scripture is plain horrendous because all scripture is to be interpreted in light of Christ!
– HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF
it’s very unfortunate that History is repeating itself, About 500 years the Christendom ascended into Reformation, God gave boldness to Reformers who rebelled against the overtly pagan and unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church. 
One of the most unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church, then and now is the fact that the papacy claims fatherhood of all Christendom on basis of obvious misinterpretation of Matthew 16:15-18. Matthew 16:15-18 says “He [Jesus] said to them, but who do you say that I am? Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, The son of the Living God. And Jesus answered him blessed are you; Simon Bar- Jonah for Flesh and Blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you are Peter, on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now Catholics have always believed that Peter was the first pope, therefore every other pope is thought of and referred to as a successor of Peter thus they obviously take Matthew 16:18 where Jesus said “ on this rock I will build my church” to mean that Jesus was referring to Peter as the Rock and church as The Roman Catholic.

 The truth of the matter is that the rock that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18 is the revelation that was given to Peter by God the Father as the basis on which He would build the church. The “church” in that verse is not referring to the Catholic Church or a particular denomination but the wholesome body of elect across the ages since the Apostolic age.

Attached to this false sense of fatherhood the papacy claims infallibility, Infallibility of the pope is the false and devilish doctrine of the Catholic Church which asserts that the Pope is not capable of error pertaining doctrine when He speaks in the capacity of his office as pope. This falsehood effectively contradicts the biblical notion that only scripture is sufficient & inerrant in all matters of Christian Faith and life.
Part of the heritage of all Protestants is to revere God and never usurp any of His roles like what the papacy and catholiscm do, yet many protestants are adamantly stuck to the falsehoods of “spiritual fatherhood”

Many Protestants today in an obviously state of zeal with little knowledge are ignorant of the History of the church since at least AD 70. Many in charismatic circles are only concerned with the history of their own denomination, many of these denominations are less than a 100 years old yet the history of new testament Christianity is over 1900 years old. Thus they so fall into heresy that Christians in the past stood against while missing out on a rich heritage of shared beliefs based on scripture that Christians in the past adhered to.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mvumo tinayo yekufumura dzidziso dzenhemha

Kufumura chiporofita uye dzidziso dzenhema, haisi mhosva. Rega nditaure ndichiti kufumurwa kwevaporofita venhema kunorwadza bedzi avo vanotevera vaporofita venhema. Haunga paridzi chokwadi chakazara usingapi yambiro kuvatereri pamusoro pema kava.
Va Kristu vose vakadanwa kwaari vanofanirwa kuziva zvose. Let me state it very clearly kuti Va Makandiwa na VaMagaya hapana shoko ravanoparidza, Bhaibheri mumavhesi aro ose rinotaurauye rakananga pana Kristu [ Johane 5:39, Ruka 24:27. Ukaona muparidzi achingizotorawo Kristu omukanda mumharidzo sechidhindo, ziva kuti wasangana nemuparidzi we fake. Dhavidha, Abhurahama, Boaz, Noah, Melchizedek, Elijah, Elisha, Sameri, Samson, Jonah vose vainongedza kuna Kristo, Chiporofita chose cha Testamente yakare chainongedzera kuna Kristo, Mutemo wa Moses wakazadziswa muna Kristo uye wainongedzera kuna Kristo, Zvibairo, Hupirisita hwechi Revi hwainingedzera kuna Kristo
Saka ukanzwa muparidzi oparidza kuti.bhaibheri rine.zvimwe zvarinotaura zvisiri zva Kristu arikureva nhema uye akafanira kuti afumurwe.
Pauro chaiye unotiudza muna 1 Timotio 6:5» kuti tingwarire avo vanoti vhangeri ndeyekutsvaga nayo mari, Uye Jesu chaiye unotiudza kuti vana kristu venhema vachava pakati pedu. Izwi rekuti “Kristu” rinoreva kuti uyo akazodzwa, Zvino ukaona vaporofita nevadzidzisi venhema vanozviti vazodziwa vanozodza zvibhotoro zve zvemafuta, ziva kuti paita mbavha ipapo nokuti kune munhu umwe chete wakazodzwa, uye akazodzerwa basa guru kusvika pakufa chaiko, Ndi Jeso chete, kwete Makandiwa, kana Magaya.

 Ko saka tingavaziva seiko vese ava kana tisinga wongorori vanoita zvisizvo nekuvafumura. Basa remufundisi ose ndereku dzidzisa makwai aShe nokua dzivirira kuti angwarire mbavha namakava akaita savana Va Magaya na Va Makandiwa, avo vanotsvaka kuzvipfumisa.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

So you saved yourself huh?

  1.  I hear often people brag about how they chose Christ by recititing some written down prayer, well I am yet to find biblical basis for the recital of a prayer as a prerequisite for quite never ends there, because they go on and on about how good they have been thus implying their good deeds are the partial cause of the reason why God saved them! Oh so you helped God, save you huh?

  2. Well thats interesting because all unregenerate me are dead in sin, and let me remnd you that a dead person cannot ressurect self, So if you where indeed saved, then something greater outside your power saved you..
  3. Ahh alluding salvation to your own choice this is as good as believeing that your good work of choosing Christ caused your salvation.
  4. The false belief that you caused your salvation is unbiblical and its tantamount to glorification of self, glorification of self is worship of self. Worship of self is idolatry. Idolatry is a sin!
  5. We are saved by grace and by grace alone not by our list of good works, its Grace that causes the good works to come forth! Not vice versa. By the way God saves by Himself unto himself for Himself.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

False Gospel, False interpretation, beware of Mr. Munyeza, my friends

A few months ago when bond notes were about to be introduced Mr. Munyeza likened the Army of Pharaoh to the economic crisis and poverty [probably in reference to the hyperinflation era], He also likened the Red Sea to bond notes, apparently this little allegory of His was based on Exodus 14 which describes the uncertainty Israel faced as the Egyptians pursued them from the rear while ahead of the Israelites lay the Red Sea.Being the head of an ecumenical body [EFZ], so full of men and women who have all sacrificed the truth of the gospel in the name of unity. Its clear many where deceived by Mr. Munyeza’s obvious misuse of scripture.

The story describing the uncertainty and miracle at the Red Sea does not signify economic or political problems rather the uncertainties signifies the great distress of the elect sinners deserving of destruction but are miraculously saved by God discriminating grace from destruction.

My friends, it does not matter how much you hate the present government, Fact of the matter is that you should not be using the characters, events and prophecies of the Bible to interpret news headlines and to settle your scores with the government.All Scripture bears testimony of God’s grand plan of redemption in the sinless life, ministry and more importantly the SACRIFICE of Jesus Christ all for the Glory of God. [ACTS 17:2, 3, 11, LUKE 24:27, JOHN 1:45, JOHN 5:39] The essence of truth is Jesus Christ, for Jesus is this truth, The essence of the Word of God is Jesus Christ who is referred to as the word of God that holds all things together in Collosians 1:17 and the very word of God that became flesh and dwelt among men in John 1.

Thus if we are to search for truth in the Bible we must be sure to find only Christ, If we are to search for God’s word to us in any instance we are sure to find Christ for its by Him that God has spoken to us according to Hebrews 1:1-2

This salvation of God is salvation of those that He has predestined, foreknown, called, justified and sanctified. The Elect are saved from sin and consequences thereof, its not salvation from political or economic turmoil, if it was the case then Jesus would have liberated Israel from the Roman Colonizers!

Thus to make the bible say something other than what it ought to say is tantamount to perverting the truth. ” He that perverts the truth shall soon be incapable of knowing the true from the false. If you persist on wearing glasses that distort, everything will be distorted to you” – Charles Spurgeon

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized