[Biblemat] S) POLITICALLY CORRECT DEITIES

[J5827Sasser at wmconnect.com]

Brethren and Friends, Jim Sasser here.  Here is a study from my
files.  Use to the glory of God.

POLITICALLY CORRECT DEITIES

     When it comes to religious practice, we can only wonder
what goes through the minds of those who are not satisfied
with what the Bible says.  How can anyone's religion be con-
sidered legitimate when they abandon the Scriptures in order
to conform to the politically correct dogma of today?  A recent Associated 
Press article reflects this observation.  It
is entitled, "Presbyterians may rename 'Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.'  What unmitigated gall!  The very idea that some creat-ed beings 
would dare to tamper with the names of Deity.  What can they be thinking?

     The Presbyterian church was founded by John Calvin, the
father of Calvinism, a false doctrine that includes the concept
of total hereditary depravity, the direct operation of the Holy
Spirit apart from the Word, preservation of the saints other-
wise known as "once saved, always saved," which in turn has
fostered an inaccurate view of predestination.  Their concept
of predestination claims that God has arbitrarily designated
those who are saved and lost and that fate is indelibly sealed
forever.  If you are lost, you can do nothing to be saved, and
if you are saved you can do nothing to be lost.  This is contra-
dictory to plain Bible teaching -- Jesus entreats the spiritually
weary to rest, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28).  "Whosoever will" has the 
opportunity to "take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17).  The predestination 
of which the Scriptures speak (Eph. 1:5) is tht God has chosen thoe who choose 
to
be obedient to His Will to inherit eternal life.  Therefore, these
and other false doctrines and practices nullify any claim that
they may make to be the Lord's church.

     Some of the changes to the names of Deity that have been
proposed by certain members of the Presbyterian church are:
"Rock, Redeemer, Friend," "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier," 'Lover, Beloved, 
Love," "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit
of Love."  The issue is not one of accuracy.  These terms are
accurate.  However, we come to the particularly egregious,
"Mother, Child, and Womb," and there we discover the impet-
us for these proposed changes.  Some modern day "enlight-
ened ones" have become "uncomfortable" with references to
Deity solely reflected in the use of MALE terms and pronouns
They ahve been indoctrinated with political correctness and
consider these sole male references to Deity as discriminat-
ory.  The problem with that position is that there is nothing
arbitrary or ambiguous about the Biblical language that des-
cribes Deity in the male gender.  The language cannot be con-
strued to allow any other form or fashion than as the male
gender.  This is nothing but a cheap attempt to pacify and
placate the politically correct.  The fact that the Presbyterian
Church has been "studying" this issue since 2000 is an indic-
ation of their lack of respect for God and His Word.  One can-
not help but wonder whether John Calvin himself would arrive
at such conclusions.  We may speculate that he would be
appalled at the very idea of changing the names of Deity and
the time that has been spent (wasted) examining this issue.
Even as theologically flawed as Calvin was, there were certain
things on which he correct, one of which was his contention
that mechanical instruments should not be used in worship,
a stance that the Presbyterians have since ignored.

     This action was taken under advisement at Presbyterian
Church U.S.A.'s recent national assembly in Birmingham, Ala-
bama.  Delegates to this convention voted to "receive" this
policy paper, but stopped short of approving it.  In other words, while 
allowing individual churches to experiment with
alternative liturgies for the Trinity, no one will be forced to do
so.

     We note some of the justification for even entertaining such a notion.  
One Iowa woman was quoted as saying, "This
does not alter the church's theological position, but provides
an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our
membership."  How changing the male gender references to
Deity to female or ambiguous references are supposed to en-
hance onyone's spiritual life is unclear, unless this is a typical
attempt to make people "feel good about themselves."  The
panel that has been examining this issue states, "The classi-
cal language for the Trinity should still be used," but added
"Presbyterians should see 'fresh ways to speak of the myste-
ry of the triune God' to 'expand the church's vocabulary of
praise and wonder.'"  This is so typical of this 21st century
"touchy, feely, getting in touch with your emotions" society
tht we have become.  Instead of looking for fresh ways to 
speak of the mystery of the triune God, they would do well to
"Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, 
where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your 
souls" (Jer. 6:16).

     How can anyone seriously refer to Deity in the female gen-
der when the Bible is replete with examples otherwise?  Jesus addressed God 
as "Father" (Matt. 26:39; Jno. 11:41; 17:1; et al.).   The Father called Jesus 
His Son (Matt. 3:17; 17:
5; Heb. 1:5).  Jesus promised His disciples the coming of the
Holy Spirit with repeated male pronoun references (Jno. 14:
26; 15:26; 16:7,8).  To tamper with these references is to 
assault the Bible's claim of inspiration.

     God is not pleased with those who act frivolously with His
name.  His name is holy (Psa. 103:1; Matt. 6:9).  It is to be ex-
alted (Psa. 34:3).  The name of Jesus is the name by which
salvation is offered to man (Acts 4:12).  It is also exalted 
(Phil. 2:9).  God warned tht those who take His name in vain
or misuse it in any way will be held accountable (Exo. 20:7).

     The panel made another outrageous observation.  They
claim that he language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to 
support the idea that God is male and that men
are superior to women."  The reason the language supports
hat God is male is because it is true!  One might wonder if
this panel considered at all that Jesus came to earth AS A
MAN, not a woman (Matt. 1:21; 1 Tim. 2:5).  As far as men
being superior to women, that is not a concept tht is endors-
ed in the Scriptures.  The woman was the crown jewel of crea-
tion, being the final creation of God (Gen. 2:22).  Paul wrote
tht in the kingdom of heaven there are no positions of super-
iority (Gal. 3:28).  Peter distinctly declared tht men are to honor women (1 
Pet. 3:7).  Within the church, men have been
given positions of leadership, but Paul explained why this was done: 1) the 
order of creation -- Adam first, then Eve and
2) Eve was deceived in the transgression.  This was also the
reason that God made man the head of the home (Gen. 3:16;
Eph. 5:22).  This is in no way an indication that men are sup-
erior to women.

     In the next to last paragraph of this article in a sort of "by
the way" reference, the assembly was to also vote on a pro-
posal to give local congregations and regional presbyteries
some leeway in ordaining clergy and lay officers living in homosexual 
relationships.

     Conservative groups within the church are predictably pro-
testing such a policy.  If recent history is any indicator this
resolution will pass regardless of the conservative protests.
Such is the case when people are more concerned with being
politically correct than religiously correct.  These actions will
no doubt, bring praise from the world, however they face the
wrath of God Who will root up this illegitimate plant as He will
all of those that He has not planted (Matt. 15:13).  One cannot
help but wonder why these people even bother calling them-
selves a religion when they are so bent on defying the living
God and His Word and are truly seeking to please themselv-
es.    ---------- Randy Robinson via The Sower, Vol. 52, No. 3,
May/June, 2007.   </HTML>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070706/5d8fce71/attachment-0001.html