Did Apostle Paul write against women?

Here is an article where I deal with the ignorant atheists, #feminists and liberals who question and condemn the writings of #ApostlePaul claiming that He was against women. Sometimes believers do not know how to react to this foolish charge, so here is an article that lays to rest the foolish claim that Paul was against women, Go through and share it with others.

Was Paul Against women?

This falsehood that Paul was against women is commonly brought forth by Atheists, feminists and sometimes liberal Christians, who use their foolish ways of thought to understand the Holy Scriptures!

The accusation that Paul was anti women must not surprise us that much, Peter reminds us that unstable people twist the scriptures and the difficult things that Paul writes unto their own destruction just like those who twist scripture and utter blasphemy by claiming that the revelation of Jesus Christ unto Paul was partially against women thus with error

as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2 PETER 3:16

Atheists, feminists and some liberal theologians claim that Paul said many things that where degrading to women and thus was anti women. Below is one such passage, 1 Timothy 2:13-15, cited as proof that Paul was against women.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Timothy 2:13-15

The immidiate question that comes to mind is by what standard does one claim that the above passage shows Paul to be anti women. The feminist cannot by any means claim that the bible is antiwomen, moreso Paul.

Here is why feminists and liberals who claim to be believers are so mistaken. If indeed they believe God is sovereign and is Creator, then they must know and affirm that God created men and women and of course being the creator God decides what he wants both men and women to do, and so if God spoke through Paul that exactly what God intended , case closed!

Secondly for those who assume that God is non existent, we ask, on what basis will they dare accuse Apostle Paul of being against women. What basis do they have for an objective standard of right or wrong that can be used to prove that Paul was against women. If they dont beleive God created everything including the standard of what is good or bad, then they will claim that humanity was brought about by evolution as it began to exist out of mere dust, eventually evolving from lower forms until such a time after billions of years humans eventually began to exist the way we know them.

Unbelievers have no basis for morality

Those who support this false theory of evolution claim that all species that have survived this far managed to tussle it out against other species for survival. Evolution doesnt presuppose the existence of a moral code, because placing restrictions and rules on action would actually limit the chances of survival of a particular species.

With evolution survival of the fittest is the rule, This implies that maiming, harrasing, exploiting and killing women or men is perfectly fine since this is how one can perpetuate His or Her survival into the future.

Evolution does not suppose a moral code thus the atheist cannot claim and has no right to claim that women have any right to be treated in any specific way, since he has no basis for morals. If humans just started to exist by accident and where not purposefull made, if they is no after life whats the motivation for treating others well. The only proper thing is to survive at all costs, for its the survival of the fittest that is the rule

Secondly the atheist claims the bible is false so if its false then He cant claim that indeed what Paul wrote is actually true, and it just could be Paul actually never existed thus the atheist once again cannot attack Paul or that which is alluded to Him, since its false, case closed!

As a believer I dont have to apologise for the things that are written in scripture, for the simple reason that God’s wisdom is better that man’s wisdom and thus what Paul wrote is the wisdom of God that is greater than that which the feminist, liberal of atheist says of the very things that Paul wrote.

Now we return to our text that some claim proves Paul was against women.
Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:14, that Eve was deceived and not Adam, By these very words some claim Paul was biased against Eve and thus proof He was against women, since Adam just as much sinned, but was not spoken of as a transgressor in this particular passage.

The truth of the matter is that indeed Eve was deceived by the serpent and not Adam, unfortunately this explanation is not complete without understanding the context, The context is as follows Paul was adressing an issue by which women where purveying a falsehood that woman was created before man. Also this doesnt mean that just because Eve transgressed, Adam was thus exonerated from sin, since elsewhere Paul does explain and mention the fact that Adam too also sinned.


Once one claims that Paul was anti women, then one will soon accuse Christ and God and the Father of the same, because the most excellent and sacred revelation of Jesus Christ as authored by Paul was not His own invention but proceeded from the Divine

Lets look at these specific examples from the Old testament and New Testament where women where exluded. God commanded that only the Levites and the male Levites could be priests, will you say the Almighty was biased?

Only male sheep where to be sacrificed, as God commanded, was that bias, no it wasnt because God is perfect, he is sovereign and does what He wants when he wants!

In the New testament Christ called 12 disciples all who where male, is that bias, will one claim that the Holy son of God is biased

Paul writes to Timothy

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, – 2 Timothy 3:16

And of course The very things Paul wrote are scripture, and in themself part of the rule of the faith

Some claim that Paul is subject to reproof as he speaks of it in the passage above and thus especially regards to what he says about women. The question is, if what Paul says is considerd to be scripture how then should it be subjected to correction, and by what standard is that which Paul speaks subject to correction?

Its scripture that corrects us and everything outside it. Its not any part of scripture that must be corrected, Thus what paul speaks of women cannot be corrected.

What Paul speaks is infallible, its scripture therefore what Paul says is not to be seen His own utterance but the inspired word of God communicated unto us Whatever Paul wrote as we find in scripture is inspired! If its in scripture then its cannot be corrected Paul was writing under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, Paul was not writing His own doctrine, he was expounding the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit.

So how could the Holy Spirit make errors? The Holy Spirit shares the attributes with other members of the Trinity since he is God by virtue of the fact that He is part of the Trinity the Holy Spirit is perfect and thus cannot make mistakes, none of the things that Paul received from the Holy Spirit where mistaken.

Therefore since Paul received perfect revelation, Paul made no errors.

Thus Paul’s commands pertaining women are just as inspired as everything He writes. Since the revelation to Paul is a total unit one cannot decide what He wants out of what Paul while rejecting what He doesnt like.


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is the bible false just because events therein are not dated according to the modern calendar?

Here is a conversation I had with an unbeliever, I have edited the conversation for clarity. As you will realise the unbeliever claims that they are no dates in the bible, though it may sound like the unbeliever is making sense and asking a genuine question, you shall realise as you proceed that the unbeliever has an intention of showing the bible to be an untrustworthy source thus without truth. Yet at the end of it all the assertions of the unbeliever will be shown to be foolish. 

UNBELIEVER: “Why are there no dates in the Bible?”.

BELIEVER So what if they are no dates, does that make the bible any less true? And if it does how do you know that if it had dates it would be better and by the way what qualifies as a valid date to you?

UNBELIEVER A date is a specific time that can be named , for example a particular day….

BELIEVER A date, a specific time that can be named. That again is a very vague definition for purposes of our discussion. It does not tell us how the time ought to be named and who must name it in order for it to be considerd dated. You say that if a book does not contain dates its inaccurate, because according to you the only way for a book to be accurate is by way of having dates. However you must answer the following question what do yo consider to be a date? Should Moses have written the dates as we know them today? what should kind of dating system should a writer have used in order for us to prove that indeed his historical account is true?

UNBELIEVER There are no actual dates in the bible….. that is the point…

BELIEVER What are actual dates and dertemines actual dates, besides months are based on the moon and way before the morden calendar ancient people had calendars with months and years. Well you imply ancient people knew of no dates? then how do you yourselves claim the world billions of years old? The Israelites had their own claendar so did the Babylonians and Egyptians! Just because you are living in much more technologically advanced world doesnt mean ancient people knew nothing. They had methods to reckon time and seasons.


Filed under Apologetics, Uncategorized

Does European imperialism disqualify the truth of the bible?

One of the most common objections to the Christian Faith is usually along these lines: Christianity was brought to Africa by evil European colonizers with the intent of subduing Africans.

In fact the atheist usually just assumes that this statement alone is enough evidence to embarrass believers into renouncing their faith or to stop unbelievers from ever becoming Christians.

Yet the atheist quotes from god hating, and likeminded European philosophers and even uses the tongue of the colonizers to communicate his hatred for a “European god”. He fails to even realise that these very actions must refute his own argument. If supposedly everything that colonisers used to subdue Africans is bad then Africans should not use anything that Europeans used to subdue Africans, this should basically include the language, and the philosophy of the colonisers.

Yet the atheist doesn’t see this contradiction because he thinks of self as wise. Any student of apologetics must learn to identify self refuting arguments and specifically the argument against Christianity on the basis of colonialism whenever the atheist deploys this argument even if it is veiled in myriad of verbosity.

In this article I deal with self contradictory claims of an atheist Shingai Ndoro who loves to state that the idea of “God” was brought about by Europeans and thus must be rejected on account of it being a bad idea since it was an invention of the Europeans who also happened to be cruel colonisers.

VA NDORO: “Almighty God” violates the principles of secularity and human diversity and inclusivity because it assumes that every citizen of a country is theistic and therefore agrees to the existence of a God… ….. God is religiously assumed (thus not factual) as a humanoid force with superior powers over the lives of people, is claimed to determine a future by supplication, guides and support lives, and is owed unquestioning submission and obedience.

“God” is anthropological or humanoid figure imagined by some obscure Europeans derived from the creative myths of ancient civilizations.

A commonly used word doesn’t make it true for continued usage for both secular humanist and religious references. The Republic of Zimbabwe cannot constitutionally use public resources to compel anyone to subscribe to a colonial humanoid figure.

What kind of an identity is that for confident Africans with individual and collective agency who immortalize a colonial humanoid creature?

KUWENGA: According to Va Ndoro, the inclusion of the phrase “Almighty God” in the preamble of the constitution of Zimbabwe, an independent African country was a waste of money and an inappropriate inclusion since according to him the “Almighty God” is not real but supposedly a mythical European being, an idea he claims was borrowed from European colonisers, who it seems must be hated just as much as any of their ideas.

According to Va Ndoro European ideas are not for independent African countries.

He doesn’t attack the idea of even having a constitution even though constitutionalism in its current form is a European concept and specifically one that was carried over from the former oppressive and very brutal European colonisers.

VA Ndoro might argue that constitutionalism is not a mythical idea but the idea of God is mythical, hence on that basis might claim that he supports constitutionalism even though it is a European concept.

The question then is; suppose God is a myth by what standard does Va Ndoro judge myths to be undesirable, what if we love myths? How can it be judged to be wrong by an objective standard if anyone loves myths? If he calls the belief in God a myth on the basis that God cannot be sensed it by way of the five senses then can Va Ndoro deny the existence of propositions and language all which are but non material things that can neither be touched seen or sensed in any way by any of the five senses.

.It is interesting to note that Va Ndoro does not realise that even bible believing Christians would not claim that the phrase Almighty God refers to their own God. Reason being the bible reveals God to be 3 persons in one essence.

So in other words since the phrase “Almighty God” in the Zimbabwean constitution makes no reference to the Trinity, Va Ndoro’s veiled attack on Christianity falls to the ground because in actual fact the statement “Almighty God” does not actually refer to the Christian God.

Va Ndoro’s assertion that the inclusion of the phrase “Almighty God” in the constitutional preamble is outright favouritism to those who are theistic can only be applied to Christians if the god that Va Ndoro describes as a European human figure is the god that Christians worship. However Va Ndoro’s idea of “god” is indeed strange to Christians. We can safely conclude that the constitutional preamble doesn’t have anything to do with placing Christians over atheists like Va Ndoro claims.

Va Ndoro claims that to include the phrase “Almighty God” in a constitution is an abuse or in his words a violation to principles of secularity and human diversity. He makes it seem that these principles are an objective standard.

We ask, how and why He thinks these principles of all standards, are the most objective standard by which human affairs should be regulated. Whatever answer he might bring to justify his standard should fall to the ground because if He believes in human diversity and secularity as the standard by which the constitution preamble must have been written then by what token does He impose this standard over everybody else who might reject this standard?

If Va Ndoro insists on His standard, How is this different from those he accuses of imposing their theistic idea over everyone as he claims was done by theists on the Zimbabwean constitution?

Is it not interesting that though showing dislike for domination of others over him to a point of even condemning “God” on the basis that He was “imposed” by European colonisers, Va Ndoro actually is undeterred in His quest to impose His own ideas? Is this not clear evidence of self contradiction that Va Ndoro behaves in a way that He would never want to see others behave?

The unbeliever [ Va Ndoro ] thinks that by having the phrase Almighty God in the preamble of the constitution the government wasted public resources on promoting a god who he claims is merely a mythical European humanoid figure. I object to this assertion unless The Triune God is a mythical European figure, but since this is not the case Va Ndoro’s criticism has nothing to do with Christianity, which He nevertheless continues to attack. As is always the case, atheists in their rebellion against God never make any sense.

Va Ndoro fights straw men, He describes the God of Christians in ways opposite to the bible by calling Our God a European. Va Ndoro does not want a “European god” to appear in a European constitution according to European ideas of secularity and human diversity in a European language [English].

VA NDORO : This English word “God” (originally common Germanic “Gott/Gawd/Gaud”) was imported into Christianity after the 9th century. “Gad is a Syrian or Canaanite deity of good luck or fortune. In Hebrew, it is written GD, but with Masoretic vowel-pointing, it gives us ‘Gad’. Other Scriptural references to a similar deity, also written GD, have a vowel-pointing giving us ‘Gawd’ or ‘God’. Gad is identified with Jupiter, the Sky-deity or the Sun-deity.” (Tyndale Archive) The 11th edition of “Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910–11) says, “God — the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship … applied to all those superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies.

The word ‘god’ on the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being…” Webster’s 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged 1st Edition – 1938), says, “The word is common to Teutonic tongues … It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense.”

James Hastings in “Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics” (1908-1927) adds, “After the conversion of the Teutons to Christianity the word came to be applied also to the Christian Deity …

Its etymology and its original meaning are obscure, and have been much debated.” JGR Forlong in “Faiths of Man, a Cyclopaedia of Religions” (1906) on “God” says, “It is remarkable that philologists are unable to decide the origin of this familiar Teutonic word.”

According to Julius Pokorny’s “Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch” (The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary) only one German word resembles “god” and this is “ghodh”; and this word means “sexual union or mating”.

According to “Luneburger Wörterbuch, the following are the same word: “gott, got, gode, gade, god and guth (gud).” Before the importation of the Germanic term “gott/gawd/gaud” into Christianity, Christians had it in Latin as “deus”, derived from the word “deiuos” which refers to the idea of a luminous sky or radiance. In Greek, the humanoid force that created and sustains the universe and life was generically called “theos” (Strong’s Greek Concordance #G2316).

So when someone mentions “God” in your presence, where possible make it known that “God” is a common Germanic (Teutonic) mythical ancestor (“gott/gawd/gaud”), a Germanic “union, even sexual union (to mate)” (“ghodh/ghadh”) or a deity of fortune and luck (“gad”) for the Syrians or Canaanites (Isaiah 65:11) associated with the Greek Zeus (Strong’s Concordance #G2203) and the Roman Jupiter.

KUWENGA: Va Ndoro goes on to explain the origin of the word god in an attempt to prove it’s origins from amongst some myths, legends and languages of Europe, The conclusions of his research though full of holes will not be contested here nevertheless I want to bring your attention to this: that Va Ndoro in his attempt to prove “god” as an idea of former European oppressors thus undesirable in an African country, He nevertheless does not attack other ideas of European origin like secularity and constitutionalism. He praises these ideas, promotes and even defends these ideas, those he does not promote or attack he simply ignores them as harmless!

In other words Va Ndoro hates God because according to his imaginations God is a European and since Europeans oppressed Africans, the European idea must be hated in turn. Yet the question is, does He hate European constitutionalism and secularity even though it must be the same bad people who introduced these concepts.

As you realise, Va Ndoro’s arguments have nothing to do with desire to stay true to an African identity, rather Va Ndoro’s arguments are arguments of a rebellious man who hates God.

The bible shows clearly how men who reject the gospel behave, they think of themselves as wise though in reality foolish, they are living in rebellion.

Being foolish, say in their hearts that they is no God They are carnal man does not understand the things of the Spirit because the things of the Spirit are Spiritually discerned because they are perishing to them the gospel is foolishness. This, my friends is the sad state of the unbeliever

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics

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.


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.

1. Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, 20
2. W. Gary Crampton, The Trinity Review no. 298, 4

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.


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.

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!
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