Feminine, Not Feminine - Part 2; Take Heed

From Where Does it Come?

When the heresy of a feminine Holy Spirit came to my attention, it wasn't too hard to understand this belief must have a notable source. No one jumps out publicly with heresy without strong back-up or a supporting source of belief.

It seems some are prone to heretical dogma. They are pulled away easily at every turn. There is Scripture warning of that, (Ephesian 4:14) so we should not be surprised. In recent, years there has been a turn among some groups back to mysticism and some Catholic rituals. A trend to follow the practices of Catholicism from which Protestants were once freed. They have been led astray by mingling in Catholicism and mysticism of the past with "new age" teaching of the present. Talk of following "ancient paths" instead of pointing to the Holy Bible is becoming more and more common and taking believers off track. I suspect the fallacy of a feminine Holy Spirit has some root here.

A quick Google search will reveal many connections. There are some names that may come up, that are obviously heretical, without a tremendous amount of influence. I won't spend time there. Jack Hyles, once a pastor of a Baptist mega-church may bare some responsibility. He claimed the Trinity is analogous to a family. His point was that in the family the woman would be the Holy Spirit. I suspect that may have been misconstrued (probably not his intent) and reversed - i.e. making the Holy Spirit female. I don't think he is important enough to spend time on here. I simply mention these sources as a warning for those who choose to do more research on their own. Also, there are Catholic sites that tell us the family is a reflection of the Trinity - apparently they need the Spirit to be female and a Mother to carry out this comparison. I suppose in their belief, it gives place for them to put Mother Mary within the Trinity. Just beware. But there are other more dangerous sources than this. The two following people that I want to mention are where I suspect most of the fallacy gained momentum within mainstream Protestant Christianity.

It didn't take too much time searching before I found that Monica Dennington, from "Tic Toc Ministries" is in part responsible for the dissemination of this lie. From the videos I listened to from Tic Toc, I suspect she was too busy preaching about "following the ancient path", rather than rightly dividing the Word of God. Once thought to be accurate in her teaching, she obviously has been led further and further astray. I do not know for fact she was ever accurate. I have read reviews from some who say she was. But personally I have not studied her teachings to that degree. I only have recently become aware of her, and that was through finding her distortion of the gender of the Holy Spirit. Every video I watched from her (and there were several) all contained inaccuracies/heresy. I do know that heretics often follow Scripture, sometimes even with the right heart; but then something causes them to become increasingly off track. Maybe by their own pride, or taking their eyes off Jesus, maybe getting sucked in by the world - I suppose there are many reasons.

Regardless, Monica Dennington now very clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is feminine. She is also very clearly wrong. I also found a video of Monica Dennington criticizing Calvinism. So it seems everyone is at odds with everyone over different issues. There is Scripture for that too. Surprised, not surprised. Many who have bought into the female Holy Spirit are Calvinists. I suspect Dennington is on the other side of some issues from them to have had much influence on this group. Due to her warnings of Calvinism her influence is probably limited as Calvinism has increased exponentially among millennials and others. But still, she has obviously influenced many Christians, and most of them from the younger generation. In my opinion, Christianity is getting increasingly messy. And we have only ourselves to blame by allowing incorrect doctrine and not following Scripture's admonition to correct it when we find it. We are too kind (note sarcasm, probably more likely gullible) and politically correct for that.

I suspect the greatest source of this teaching, with the most likely degree of influence comes from R.P. Nettelhorst author of several books, two of the most popular being: A Year with God; and A Year with Jesus.  

Nettlehorst writes for Ridge Rider News and is a professor of Bible and Biblical languages (Hebrew; Greek; Aramaic) at Quartz Hill School of Theology in Southern California. He also writes for the liberal Jerusalem Post. His resume clearly demonstrates there is no reason for him to not understand the rule of "grammatical gender" within those languages that I wrote about in my previous post. Yet he chooses to ignore it; defining and leading others to define the Holy Spirit as feminine.

A list of credentials from his website:

"I’m married with three daughters. I live in southern California and I’m a deacon at Quartz Hill Community Church. I teach Bible, Theology, and languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac at the small church-based seminary Quartz Hill School of Theology. And I write books. I spent a couple of summers while I was in college working on a kibbutz in Israel. In 2004, I was a volunteer with the Ansari X-Prize at the winning launches of SpaceShipOne. I’m a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Religion, and The Authors Guild."

Let that sink in. He writes for the liberal Jerusalem Post. He claims to be a scholar in Greek and Hebrew language. And he has spent time in Israel! He obviously understands the languages. He surely must know he is deceiving.

In an article for the Quartz Hill School of Theology he covers a feminine Holy Spirit in a segment entitled: Is There a Question About the Gender of the Holy Spirit. This is what he says (in part) regarding a feminine Holy Spirit. I will counter them after the quote.

• "A feminine Holy Spirit clarifies how women can also be said to be created in the "image of God". It has long been recognized that he Godhead must include some feminine aspects, since Genesis 1:26-27 explicitly states that both men and women were created in God's image.
• A feminine Holy Spirit explains the identity of the personified wisdom in Proverbs 8:12-31:
• The third benefit of recognizing the femininity of the Holy Spirit is that it explains the subservient role that the Spirit plays. The Bible seems to indicate that the Spirit does not speak for itself or about itself; rather the Spirit only speaks what it hears. The Spirit is said to have come into the world to glorify Christ (See John 16:13-14 and Acts 13:2). In contrast, it should be noted that the Scripture represents both the Father and Son speaking from and of themselves.
• Finally, a feminine Holy Spirit, with a Father and Son as the rest of the Trinity, may help explain why the family is the basic unit of human society."

Let me discuss/refute briefly each of these points.

• Genesis 1:26-27 isn't speaking of both men and women when the pronoun "our" is used. Rather it is speaking of the Trinity. This verse has long been used as proof that God is a Triune God. "Our Image" - the image of the Triune God. The other key is in the word "them". The verse means he would create male and female in the image of a Triune God; NOT man and woman as implied.
• No. The "grammatical gender" rule discussed in my previous post explains "personified wisdom" in Proverbs 8:12-31. Wisdom is a feminine noun, but it does not denote a feminine Holy Spirit or God.
• NO place in Scripture does it identify the Holy Spirit as subservient. Rather that the three are all equal in one. 1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in Heaven. And these three are one." And there are many more verses to support that: 2 Cor. 3:16-18; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 8:58; John 1:1; Eph. 4:4-6; Isaiah 48:16; Matthew 28:19; John 10:33, 36; and Acts 5:1-4. The role of the Spirit to point to Jesus is to prevent exactly what this author has done. ¹³ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. ~ John 16:13 That is NOT subservience. That is unity of a 3 in 1 God. And that is what God intended.
• No where are we told the Triune God is to explain the family. That is from a Catholic belief system which I mentioned earlier.

While, Nettlehorst is careful not to say definitively that the Holy Spirit is feminine, (at least as far as I have studied thus far) he certainly is attempting to lead readers/students in this direction. Shame on him! And while Monica Dennington might be honestly deceived by not gaining proper knowledge, I absolutely cannot understand how R. P. Nettlehorst could be with the credentials he claims.

This is simply an old-fashioned "new age" heresy that is making the rounds once again. If one starts down the path of mysticism in any form, one will end up in heresy. Personally, I believe this is a part of the feminism political agenda, which has infiltrated the Church to lead Christians astray.

Heresy and Politics

The ironic thing is, when one finds heresy, one can usually find a liberal political bent. I mention it here as a warning. The Christian left loves to tell us not to be political, but yet they are.

Nettlehorst has political leanings even though he advocates against Christians being political. Simply by denial, or by saying that politics have no place within Christianity, he is political. I knew I would find it. If there is distortion of Scripture these days, or heresy, researching the source will almost always reveal a liberal bent. They all tell us not to be political, but then they are. Please prove me wrong, if you don't believe it. I would welcome it. It simply is a consistently consistent narrative I have observed.

From an article of Nettlehorst's at the Jerusalem Post:

"The obvious corruption, both morally and in every other way that is the nature of the political arena should have been the first clue to French or anyone else that the church has no business getting involved in such things.  The church’s purpose is something entirely different than politics."........" The church, and its so-called leaders, should just stay out of the political realm altogether."

That is a political statement. But they never end it there. They continue with liberal talking points that often include anti-gun; anti-American; as well as attacks on those who take a stand against gay rights, or anyone who argues against pro-choice activists. And I won't even get into some current world-wide missions where the social gospel is encouraged, but not the True Gospel. I have already done that several times in other posts.

With all that being said, I am left to believe and we should all stop to consider that our faith has been infiltrated from a deviant source. I just happen to believe some of it is political. It is all very definitely the enemy.

A Masculine God

All references to God in the entire Bible are masculine. He never uses the feminine gender to identify Himself. Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, Kurios, Theos, Ekeinos, are all masculine gender.

In the New Testament, the majority of the translation of the word "God" comes from the Greek word Theos - masculine gender.

The Greek word "parakletos" translated “Counselor,” “Helper,” “Comforter”, “Advocate” in the New Testament is a masculine word. Thus masculine pronouns are correctly used. God wanted to be seen as a Male. We do NOT get to question that.

The Greek word "pneuma", translated “spirit”, also translated “wind” or “breath” in the New Testament is neuter or neutral; but when used with "grammatical gender", as well as the full counsel of the Word of God, it is correctly translated as the masculine gender.

From GotQuestions.org:

"Linguistically, it is clear that masculine theistic terminology dominates the Scriptures. Throughout both testaments, references to God use masculine pronouns. Specific names for God (e.g., Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, Kurios, Theos, etc.) are all in the masculine gender. God is never given a feminine name, or referred to using feminine pronouns. The Holy Spirit is referred to in the masculine throughout the New Testament, although the word for "spirit" by itself (pneuma) is actually gender-neutral. The Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine in Genesis 1:2. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity."[1]

As explained in my first post the gender identity has to do with the rule of "grammatical gender" as well as correct usage of the full counsel of the Word of God. If we follow those two things, as God intended, we will arrive at the right translation and conclusion.

In Summary

One cannot do simple word studies as they do not teach the details or grammar of a language, thus ending in inaccurate translations.

There is almost always a political implication or agenda beneath the surface when one finds heresy.

People that support this false doctrine, in effect, deny the Trinity; they deny the Holy Spirit is a person; they deny HE is God. They will next be able to deny the Virgin Birth. They will even be able to deny Jesus is God, because if the Holy Spirit is not of a Triune God, then Jesus isn't God either because the Bible says that they both are God. Once you head down the wrong path, (new age, mysticism, ancient paths) there is no extremity to where it might end.

I'm sorry, not sorry, this cannot continue. Those spreading this false doctrine must be corrected and silenced. Titus 1:9-16:

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. ¹⁰ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: ¹¹ Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. ¹² One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. ¹³ This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;* ¹⁴ Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. ¹⁵ Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. ¹⁶ They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Finally, let me say this. In Matthew 24 - the chapter where Jesus tells us what will happen at the end of the age - the very first warning is to not allow oneself to be deceived!

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? ⁴ And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you."

This was so important to Him that he said it at the very outset of His last major discourse and His most prophetic message about the end of the age. The entire chapter is one of warning to watch, to be mindful, what to expect. These warnings are being minimized within the church, in my opinion. They are too uncomfortable. It is for another time, people say. Many do not want to think about it. Which I guess is why we also need to hear 2 Peter 3: 2-3: 

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, ⁴ And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

This verse isn't talking about unbelievers. It is talking about believers. The Bible is full of warnings. We simply cannot just pick and choose that which tickles our ears or what might seem like "the next big thing".  God is clear:

"Take heed that no man deceive you."

 

---

 

[1] https://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Spirit-gender.html

 

*Emphasis in bold, mine. 

Feminine, Not Feminine - Part 1; Gender Matters

It seems there is a new "trend" (for lack of a better word) that is being taught by some within what should be considered traditional Christianity. Although I will say, those that teach it don't seem to want to be considered "traditional".

False doctrine or heresy is of course not new. Most fallacies have gone around, been around and gone around again - for generations! "Nothing new under the sun", as they say. But perhaps the prevalence and frequency of inaccurate teachings occurring now, within what should be considered mainstream Christianity is new. Anyway, I have heard heresy before, as we all have, but it still surprises me every. single. time. I know it shouldn't. I guess maybe in reality, it doesn't...it simply leaves me feeling desperately nauseous, but mostly heartbroken.

Does anyone remember the laughing movement in the 1980's? Supposedly the Holy Spirit would come upon congregations of people and they would break out in uncontrollable laughter.  Well for starters, the Holy Spirit is always a gentleman (we will get to that) and He is always in control and commands the Christian be in control, so I think we have to consider this trend was heresy. Thankfully, it has gone by the wayside. But I remember the first time I heard of the "laughing movement". I cringed! I thought, "Oh brother!" But when I actually watched a video of it taking place, I honestly felt a demonic spirit in action as I watched. And I don't usually like to go there, (discussion of demonic spirits) as an answer. But there are times, one simply cannot deny it. That was one time.

I have been a Christian long enough to see many trends come and go. Some have been worse than others. The pendulum swings one way, and then swings the other; eventually righting itself. We are in the Hands of a Mighty God, after all, and He has promised not to lose his church. Still, I think it is important to discuss something that is clearly not Biblical which may be taking place within our church. And we are commanded in Scripture to not let heresy continue. I know this, yet I sometimes hesitate. I do not want to offend anyone. I want to be obedient to the Lord as I discuss any issue. This issue, I couldn't let slide as merely a pendulum swing.

It seems there is a new trend where some chose to refer to the Holy Spirit as "She". I was heartbroken, sickened, shocked, all of the above, to learn of this trend among truly born again Christians.

"From where is this coming?" I asked myself. Research time. "Who is saying what, now?" I thought. I knew there would be a higher source teaching this; even pushing it. One does not usually stand out so boldly on ones own belief without having backup. I will address where it began in Part 2.

In truth, I have felt, for sometime now, that increasing heresy was going to happen within some groups of Christianity. I have seen a slippery slope for a while now. There have been many false doctrines coming out of especially the younger generations of Christians. The Bible warned it would happen. We should not be surprised.

Many times it isn't from a Biblically ignorant group. But sometimes it is from a Biblically arrogant group or leader. Sometimes misunderstanding of Scripture is where arrogance will lead. (And again, I am only talking of the leaders here.) They know their Bible, and I am sure they love their Bible. They obviously study their Bible. But we find some in this day and age who are always looking for a new twist; the next big thing. Too often, it seems to be about bringing attention to themselves. In an attention seeking world, they want attention. Many love to expound upon their knowledge and share what they believe. But sometimes it seems they have a practice of one-upping each other or others within the Christian community. At least, it appears that way to those on the outside. I'm sure that isn't the case, at least consciously, from those doing it.

I believe they love and know the Lord...certainly those at the lower echelon of these groups love the Lord. But it is my belief that they are purposefully being deceived by those at an upper echelon...maybe not all teaching within these upper ranks try to deceive, but I believe there to be a dangerous deceitful leadership at the helm of some who claim to be Christians. Besides distorting theology, I believe it is for a political purpose. I have written about this before. It is not conservative politics. It is an infiltration of the church by the left and it is intentional. With that preface let me get to the most recent controversial belief that we are beginning to hear.

Apparently the newest popular belief/trend making its way through some modern thinkers in Christendom is that the Holy Spirit is and should be considered female. I am sure most don't realize it, but this latest heresy is about to undue, in a seemingly innocuous way, everything Christianity stands for and teaches.

That may sound dramatic. Let me explain. Maybe to some this new teaching/belief sounds innocent enough. It absolutely is not.

6 Points of Danger

Why is this new fad (for lack of better word - pendulum swing might be more Scriptural) dangerous?

1. It denies the Trinity. If the Holy Spirit is female, the Trinity cannot possibly be 3 in 1.

2. It undoes all Scripture where the Holy Spirit is referred to as He or Him. (John 14: 26; John 15: 26; John 16:7 to list a few.)

3. If the Holy Spirit is female, Mary could not possibly have been impregnated by the Holy Spirit.  - Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the argument now. "God is Spirit; He is neither male or female", the argument will go. But...

4. God chose to reveal Himself to us as Male - Father, Son, Holy Ghost - He used this analogy for a reason. This new heresy purposefully denies God's very deliberate intent that we perceive Him, understand Him and know Him as a Male.

6. Finally, it is inaccurate. And no one gets to purposefully spread inaccurate interpretation of Scripture. The warnings throughout Scripture are many. I will choose this one, Galatians 1:6-10 King James Version (KJV):

⁶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: ⁷ Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. ¹⁰ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

And yes, this heresy changes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If one is changing the gender of the Holy Spirit without full understanding and explanation of the Hebrew, one is changing God's intent and on dangerous ground. Sorry, not sorry.
 

We should actively question anything that goes against previous teachings, that which we know to be true for centuries in our faith. If we hear something that is convincing on the outset (like when we study a word in Greek or Hebrew) but it seems to be contrary to our faith, we then need to dig a little deeper. We should teach ourselves to hear a warning alarm in our minds. When something seems inaccurate or different, we need to prayerfully go on a deeper search. We need to consider the full counsel of the Word of God. We cannot believe merely a snippet someone might be telling us; even if we have previously trusted that person. That is the only way we are prevented from being led astray. We need to be Bereans (Acts 17:11 ) and we need to rightly divide God's Word (2 Timothy 2:15).

Ok. Let me move on with more about this latest trend and the danger of it.

Feminine, Not Feminine

First, why is this determination of a female Holy Spirit inaccurate? Those who teach it use the translation of Hebrew to justify this belief. The Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine in Genesis 1:2. But they incorrectly let it end there, supporting a false doctrine.

There are some things we need to know about the Hebrew language, as well as the Greek, if we are going to use them to translate Scripture. The old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." applies well here. The gender of a word that is used in these languages cannot be left alone. There are only two genders in their languages - male and female. And there is neuter or neutral. Each noun is labeled with one or the other in the way it is spelled or pronounced.  But it doesn't have anything to do with actual gender - male or female. Let's use the noun "throne". Now obviously "throne" has no gender, but it is assigned as a masculine noun in the spelling and enunciation.

One cannot assign a gender to anything without determining what else is being said in context. That is their grammatical rule! The rule is called - "grammatical gender". Every language has rules to follow before understanding any language in full. It is extremely important to utilize this as there is no proper understanding without knowing and applying the grammar of the language.

Think of it this way, just because I name my mare with a name that represents the masculine in Spanish such as Loco, that doesn't mean my mare is a male. As I write or speak and call her a mare, I let it be known she is obviously a female horse. The masculine wording I chose as her name will not EVER change the fact she is female. That would only occur in someone's mind that doesn't understand the entire situation. But that will never make it truth. One must read and listen to the statement in the entirety of its context for full understanding.

Let me use another example using the English language. When I was growing up, it was part of our language to understand that when we use the pronoun "he" or another masculine pronoun, it was not meant as identifying gender. It meant it could be either. People understood that. It was common and it was a rule of grammar of the English language. The woman's lib movement was offended by this, so it gradually changed. But we cannot change the meaning of the history of our language by ignoring that once common rule. It certainly didn't make the subject male or female for fact, it was usually used when the gender was an unknown or both genders were included.

Further, one cannot pick and choose to follow some grammar rules from a particular language anymore than one can pick and choose to follow only the Bible verses they like, while mostly using them out of context. If one is going to interpret or explain from a foreign language, one must understand how the language works, the rules and understanding of the language - accurate grammatical usage of the language is imperative in understanding the correct meaning!!

In other words, in the Hebrew language, it is understood in use, that everything is to be applied in context. The gender of the word is not determined by its spelling or endings but by the complete context where it is used.

From Bill Mounce, the founder and President of BiblicalTraining.org:

 "The Hebrew language only has two grammatical genders: masculine (זָכָר) and feminine (נְקֵבָה). Therefore, every Hebrew noun has an inherent grammatical gender. In the case of the noun רוּחַ, the grammatical gender is feminine. Yet, this does not mean the natural gender of the Holy Spirit is feminine."[1]

Let's look at the very first use of the word Spirit in the Old Testament:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2 KJV

The Hebrew word for God in this verse is the Hebrew word "Elohim" - Masculine. The Hebrew word for Spirit here is "ruach", as are all most all usages of the word spirit in the Old Testament. In the original text, the word for Spirit is (רוה) (ruach) and is attached a feminine grammatical gender. As explained earlier, all nouns in both Hebrew and Greek are only either masculine or feminine. The noun is wind or breath. And when read or spoken in context - the grammatical gender reveals it is masculine. Why? Because when the Hebrew language rule of grammatical gender, is considered and the word is looked at in context, the word is clearly masculine, because it is a word talking about God i.e. "Elohim" - Masculine. Using the full counsel of the Word of God , we know God is Male and that must be applied. We know clearly God chose to reveal Himself to us as Male. To distort this is to change God's meaning and we are warned against doing that in Scripture many, many times.

Revealed in both the Old Testament (Yahweh) and New Testament, but it is in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is given to us whom we know as the Spirit of God/Jesus - a Triune God! I will write about that in my next post. As a Triune God, God chose to manifest Himself to us as His Son. He came to earth as a Male. I am not going to argue what might or might not be in the spirit realm. That would be folly. And further I don't need to know about it, because I know fully that God wanted to be known and understood as a Male. It is really that simple. And we had better not deviate from that!! That is a very dangerous thing to do!

If He is not seen as He intended us to see Him, many would see Him as a hypocrite, because the Bible is filled with messages teaching us He is the Groom, with the church being the Bride. We see in Scripture that He wanted to describe marriage in a way we can relate to Him in our own marriages. That the male should be head over the family, as He is head over us. He relates to us as the Father and that He loves us as His children. He offered us the greatest sacrifice, the greatest gift of a Son. To distort this and apply a different gender to the Holy Spirit is only to bring confusion to believers, but more importantly to unbelievers! We cannot allow that to happen.

Everything is destroyed - and I do mean everything - if we try to relate to a Triune God in the feminine. This was never His intention. The Jewish people understood that as they know their language i.e. their grammatical rules and its correct usage. The Bible was written to us in these languages. Old Testament - Hebrew and New Testament- Greek and if we are to use those languages to gain greater understanding, to decipher, to dig deeper, then we must understand all the rules of those languages - exactly as we would be required to do in learning any language. It isn't any different than when we research customs of those nations and/or the era and times to gain greater understanding. It must be done accurately and without supposition!!

Anyone who has ever studied a foreign language learns certain things (understanding, tricks, punctuations that change meaning) about each language. We aren't required to take foreign languages within our primary and secondary education for nothing. There is a purpose. And the understanding of that right now, because of this heresy taking place is probably one of the most important reasons I would ever be able to think of to learn languages.

Now to the reason for my heartbreak. Someone already knows this. Trust me, if I know this, someone at the top pushing this belief knows this truth. IT IS INTENTIONAL DECEPTION.  And I will not be silent regarding it.

Shame on anyone attempting to change what God has said and said very plainly! Apparently they do it for their own purposes! Some time, some place, one simply has to consider tradition, and question when someone or something has strayed from it. Those are our warning signs.

I use the quote below reluctantly, because I am not a fan of the Gospel Coalition or John Piper. It comes from John Piper's site Desiring God. I have a few problems with Piper, I consider him part of the problem of much of what I have talked about, regarding incorrect doctrine and political bias. I do not usually even quote someone with whom I disagree, because I fear that leads others into areas which perhaps they shouldn't go. I will use the quote here because it is so accurate; but also because many that listen to Piper and those around him are some of  the very ones that are being led astray - maybe the truth will reach them coming from someone they trust. Further Piper, Tony Reinke (who wrote the article footnoted) and Bruce Waltke are all are Reformed Theology of which I disagree, so I do not want to be seen as promoting or agreeing with that theology. I simply do not want to be seen promoting something with which I do not agree. (I am not saying any of these men are teaching the false doctrine of a feminine Holy Spirit -obviously from this quote, they are not.) So with that disclaimer and a desire to stand on what I believe, this is the Biblically accurate statement by Bruce Waltke:

"And yet God’s self-chosen titles matter. Masculine titles for God are not the evidence of “religious conditioning,” but the product of God’s self-disclosure. God has chosen to reveal himself with masculine titles, and we receive those titles by faith because, in the words of theologian Bruce Waltke, “It is inexcusable hubris and idolatry on the part of mortals to change the images by which the eternal God chooses to represent himself” (Old Testament Theology, 244).[2]

And I will repeat what Bruce Waltke says which Reinke quotes:

"It is inexcusable hubris and idolatry on the part of mortals to change the images by which the eternal God chooses to represent himself"[3]

---

[1] https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/the-holy-spirit-she

[2] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/our-mother-who-art-in-heaven   
                                                                         
[3] ibid
   

 

Gunmetal Gray

A day or so ago, I came across an interesting video on Facebook . It was posted by a liberal page and shared by one of my friends, which is how I happened to see it. The video is arguing that the popular civilian, AR-15 rifle is the same as the M16 and AK-47's used in the military.

 

See the video here:

 

I decided to watch the video due to a conversation I had recently had with this friend. I was not surprised at the content. But the truth is, though this video is presented as fact, it is actually only opinion. Now granted, they use legitimate military veterans to state their opinion from their own personal experience, but it is still opinion none the less.

One can catch hesitation in one of the veterans' voice when he paused before saying, the two weapons are "basically" the same. I suspect he knows his statement is not entirely honest.

The AR-15 and the M16 as well as the AK-47 are not the same rifle. The AR-15, allowed to be owned by civilians, is only a semi-automatic while the other two are full automatics. The caliber of the AR-15 is smaller than the other two, only being slightly larger than a 22 caliber. While the M16 is only somewhat larger, the full auto makes the entire difference between the two guns.

Full autos are already banned in our nation...although in some states if upon a background check and an ATF permit to handle, full-autos are allowed.

The distortion in the video bothers me. I don't like truth painted in a gray shade - even if it is gun medal gray. ;-) Just please tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And PLEASE do NOT try to make your opinion look like fact.

Now because they are veterans speaking in this video, it pulls at our heart strings. But truthfully, one can find anyone in any position or occupation that will differ from that of others' opinions. The fact that they are veterans does not make them correct. Further, (and I am not saying they were paid) but people say things for money all the time. I don't know if that is the case in this situation. I actually believe that they believe what they are saying. That doesn't make them right. Very simply, the fact that it is NOT a full automatic firearm makes the difference between the two rifles extremely notable. It is an IMPORTANT distinction!

My husband, also a veteran, says the opposite (as I am sure many would) of these veterans and points to the fact that there is a little lever on the side of the M16 that makes it fully auto. And he points out the caliber difference.

 

From the NRA:

"While the AR-15 and M16 are nearly identical in external appearance, they are internally different. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are designed differently, and the bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of the semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The AR-15 can only switch between safe and fire functions.  

There is a vast difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms. In order to fire a semi-automatic firearm, you must pull and release the trigger after each shot. You cannot hold the trigger for rapid fire. Semi-automatic firearms are functionally no different on any platform, whether it be a pistol, rifle or shotgun. Manufacturing of automatic firearms for the general public has been tightly regulated for 80 years and fully-automatic firearms have not been manufactured for the general public at all since the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act became law in 1986."

Regardless, none of this is really the point. The point is the 2nd Amendment states, simply and effectively: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is really that simple. The continual creation of laws to ban firearms is a very slippery slope. And we know that those who do so will not stop until every firearm is off the street. They think! They hope! But the truth is we will NEVER get all the guns out of the hands of the criminal, even if the left was ever successful in getting weapons from the hands of citizens.   

What the left doesn't understand, as well as many of my friends, is that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government should that happen at any time in our lives. It is what keeps us safe; it is what keeps us strong. The 2nd Amendment is what keeps the people in control of their own nation and destiny.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Now let's look at some facts regarding the AR-15 from a quick Google search:

 

From that search:

"Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such. For example: ... Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities."

What does the AR stand for?

"The “AR” in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles"."

Is an AR 15 a military grade weapon?

It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle that is marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles.

Is an AR 15 fully automatic?

"It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle that is marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles." (Yes, I know. That's a repeat. It seems necessary)

What caliber is the AR- 15?

"One such firearm is the AR15, which was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the new rifle for the United States military, replacing the M1 and M14 rifles, both of which fired 30 caliber bullets. The AR15 was chambered with a new type of ammo, called 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO."

Can an AR 15 shoot 150 rounds in 15 seconds?

"The AR-15 (as most semi-automatic rifles) has an effective rate of fire of only ~15 rounds per minute. ... Because a semiautomatic rifle fires once per trigger pull. To get 150 shots in 15 seconds, you'd need to pull that trigger 10 times per second. Nov 2, 2018" (That's impossible.)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This is a link to the NRA: (YES a credible source) for a page of definitions, while also using definitions from the US Army.

As tragic as the mass shootings are, handguns are responsible for more deaths than the AR-15.

 

You will find an interesting, factual article - link here - by Aaron Bandler at the Daily Wire. It is a short, factual, easy read.

What can be done? 

Enacting more legislation is NOT working. We have more gun laws now than we have EVER had. It didn't use to be this way!!! To expect criminals are going to follow ANY gun law is insanity. The criminal has already broken a number of laws before reaching the stage of a mass shooting. Gun-free zones are setting people up for attack. It's like sending your kid out to go play a game of marbles on the freeway. How about we try this?  

• Outlaw Gun Free Zones.
• Put retired police or military veterans in our schools as guards.
• Proper, Truthful Education. (When I was in school the NRA taught a class in the public school classroom beginning in grade 7.)
• Enforce the laws already on the books!!!!
• Stricter punishment for offenders, including the death penalty in certain situations.
• Study solutions for mental health; effects of video games on our youth; effects of a growing acceptance of marijuana and increasing use of it. (Why isn't the increasing use of marijuana - especially a more powerful drug than of the 1960's - ever considered for anything???)
• Identify weapons correctly! The AR-15 is NOT a machine gun; it is also used for hunting by some; it IS a means of home protection and in case of governmental tyranny (intended as caution by our Founders); handguns have caused far more deaths. Once one gun is banned, the left will go after the next.
• Place the blame where it belongs and call something by the correct label. It is a HEART issue.
• Invite God back into our schools, our government and our politics.

Certainly this is not an exhaustive list, but one that definitely needs attention.

Can we just look more diligently for all truth and quit accepting half-truths and shades of gray?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Sources:
 

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/1/why-the-ar15-is-americas-most-popular-rifle/

https://www.nraila.org/for-the-press/glossary/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/6749/debunking-top-5-myths-about-ar-15-aaron-bandler