We regularly visit other blogger websites and we have taken the owner of Formerly Fundie, now the official Blog of …’ to task for his heretical views. We do so to warn others of false teaching. What we are about to link raised the title question in our minds when we first read his title for his post:
If God Needed A Blood Sacrifice For Sin, God Is Not Holy
We need to ask that question for we need to know what qualifications he has achieved to question and judge God’s requirements for atonement? What has happened in his life that make shim superior to God and able to declare if God is holy or not? Has he found a ore superior being and if so, where are the divine and inspired writings of that being so that we all may see what he says?
The lack of answers to these questions, of course, tell us that that author is not qualified to stand in judgment of But he proceeds to claim that he is and has written three articles, so far, in his series. We already know that that author has a problem with God’s regulations for he constantly argues for inclusion of unrepentant sinners in the church and Christianity. So it is not a surprise that he has trouble with another one of God’s requirements.
What really bothers us about that particular piece is that he doe snot appeal to scripture or some other divinely inspired writings from another Supreme Being higher than God bit goes to the dictionary to redefine holiness just to make his point of view seem to work. he writes:
The word “holy” in and of itself doesn’t tell one much. The term holy technically means totally “set apart or different.” Thus, when we say that God is holy, it means that God is uniquely different than anything else in existence. “Holy” is simply a reference to other attributes, or an essence, that is different than anything else.
For example, if I told you my daughter was unique, that wouldn’t tell you much– you’d need to ask: “What makes her unique?” In the same way, when we say God is holy, we are making the claim that God is fundamentally different, and referencing other character attributes (or lack of attributes) that warrant use of the adjective “holy.”
That is NOT how God and the Bible define holiness nor is it how they describe God. When God says he is holy he is not saying he is unique or different, he is saying that there is no sin in him. A very big difference between the two definitions.When we say God is holy we are not making a claim that he is ‘fundamentally different’ we are saying he is what we are not. He is without sin and he calls us to be the same way when he says ‘be ye holy for I am holy’. God is not saying be unique and different.
It is funny these false teachers ignore that facet of God and definition of the word holiness. We have a dictionary in our electronic library so we doubled checked his definition and here is what we found:
Properly, whole, entire or perfect, in a moral sense. Hence, pure in heart; temper or dispositions; free from sin and sinful affections. Applied to the Supreme Being, holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character; and man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions. We call a man holy, when his heart is conformed in some degree to the image of God, and his life is regulated by the divine precepts. Hence, holy is used as nearly synonymous with good, pious, godly.(Webster, N. (2006). Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Anaheim, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education.)
Hallowed; consecrated or set apart to a sacred use, or to the service or worship of God; a sense frequent in Scripture; as the holy sabbath; holy oil; holy vessels; a holy nation; the holy temple; a holy priesthood (Webster, N. (2006). Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Anaheim, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education.)
There are 5 different definitions in that dictionary and NOT one says ‘unique and fundamentally different’. Not even technically. We even looked the word up in other dictionaries and did not see in a cursory loo that meaning he is trying to place upon the word. So we can see that he i snot talking about the word holy as it is actually defined but a word that has nothing to do with God and who he is.
This redefinition causes that author to come to a very misleading and mistaken conclusion:
If holy had an antonym it would be “same” or “similar.” And, if God needed the blood sacrifice of an innocent human, he sure is similar to primitive versions of god.
Thus, let us be clear about what we are doing when we describe the cross of Calvary in this way: when we say that God’s anger at sin necessitated the blood sacrifice of an innocent human in order to calm his wrath, we are not describing a god who is fundamentally different and holy– we are simply describing another version of an angry god who needs a virgin thrown into the volcano.
Really?! So God is not the one being copied by false religions and evil but is the one who stoops to low levels and not be unique and fundamentally different? How can we describe God as fundamentally different and unique if he copies false religions and their beliefs about their gods? If God describes himself as ‘unique and different’ then we must ask why he did not use another option for atonement than blood when he wrote the bible? Why would he copy if he describes himself as holy, which that author defines as unique and different?
That author’s logic makes no sense given his definition. What this copying actually tells us is that God did provide a unique and different method of atonement than the rest of the religions of the world and that it was he who was copied by the others. When people reject God like that author does, they do not look at God with clear and Holy Spirit led eyes. They look at him with clouded and deceived lenses and then conclude that they have the perfect vision of God and who he is.
This is why there is no biblical instruction to follow scholars and theologians to the truth. Most of them do not have a clear vision of god and most of them do not know the truth. They do not accept the truth and go about refashioning God after their own image instead of being humble and asking the holy Spirit for help to see God clearly.
What that series does, and we may eventually get to it for further analysis,is to tell people that Jesus’ sacrifice is not good enough and that it is inferior. Evil wants us to doubt Jesus’ sacrifice and our redemption so that we lose our salvation and be destroyed. There is nothing wrong or unholy about blood atonement. It is what God requires because he is holy not because he is unique and different.