Test the Spirits (Part 6)

Photo by Chokniti Khongchum on Pexels.com

We have learned much from the aged apostle. Our world is fraught with false prophets, seeking to undermine the Word of God and His Messiah.

Our last post provided the how of testing. In that post we learned that, for at least one type of test, the views of the prophet/teacher must align with the biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ. If they do not, then, as John tells us, they are “not from God” (1 John 4:3, ESV).

Photo by ATC Comm Photo on Pexels.com

Now we come to a shift, or at least an adjusted focus. Cameras are incredible machines. They can focus on one blade of grass amidst an entire field. John has been focusing on one single blade: testing the spirits. Now he shifts his focus from the individual blade of grass to the field.

He writes, “and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming and now is in the world already” (4:3). The origin of the false teach (i.e., spirit) is the antichrist. We learn two things about the antichrist from this one verse.

First, we learn that the spirit of the antichrist was coming. We read about this in 2:22 where John writes, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” The antichrist, then, is against the Triune God. And who has been against God since the beginning? The devil himself.

We will focus on this first point of the antichrist for this point, and pick up the second aspect in the following post. However, we learn about Satan and his opposition to God all the way back in the Garden of Eden. He is referred to as “the serpent” in Genesis 3:1.
In this account, the serpent enters the Garden and begins a discussion with Eve. He asks, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?’” (3:1) His very first statement to a human being is a question of God’s Word. And the serpent has been questioning God’s Word ever since. He denies the Father, to borrow John’s terminology.

Photo by Worldspectrum on Pexels.com

As the account progresses, the serpent plainly denies God’s Word. He tells Eve, “You will not surely die.” In other words, “God has lied to you, Eve. You will not die.” The Scriptures record the remainder of his speech, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4-5, ESV). “Eve, God has ripped you off! He has kept back the fruit because He doesn’t want you to be like Him. How ridiculous could He be?” Once again, the antichrist is denying the Father.

Though tempted by the serpent, Eve could have resisted. Adam, as the guardian of the Garden, should have stepped in, but he failed at protecting his wife and the Word and glory of God. We test the spirits, John tells us, because antichrist is coming. He will remark about his presence already, but this antichrist is the embodiment of full opposition to God. Paul speaks more about him in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. He is coming, both Paul and John tell us. But we see that his origins date back to the beginning and have manifested itself throughout human history. That will be the focus of our next post. For now,  when you do not feel like testing the spirits, when you read that blog, or notice that post on Facebook but aren’t sure whether it is biblical or not, remember that the antichrist is coming. That spirit (i.e., teacher) is not from God, but is from the antichrist.

Test the spirits.

FULL PARDON, WONDERFUL GRACE

Have you ever sinned against God, had your conscience rear up and bite you, and then confess your sins (1 John 1:9)? What is the next thing that happens?

I have often found myself beset by guilt. Guilt is an odd concept, and an even odder feeling. The Cambridge Dictionary defines guilt as “feeling of worry or unhappiness that you have because you have done something wrong, such as causing harm to another person.” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/guilt, accessed 27 August 2020).

It is this feeling of worry or unhappiness that often accompanies our confession. True, we have communicated to God what we have done. And true, we believe the Scriptures when they say “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9, ESV) But there seems to be a disconnect between the facts of forgiveness and the feelings of guilt. What is the Christian to do?

Thomas Manton, in his masterful exposition of the Lord’s Prayer printed by the Banner of Truth Trust, discusses this. He writes, “It is full pardon.” (Manton, 196)

It is true, for a while after they may trouble the conscience, as when the storm ceaseth, the waves roll for a while afterwards; so may sin in the consciences of God’s children work trouble, after the fiducial application of the blood of Christ. But the storm ceaseth by degrees; and it is possible that the commitment of new sins may revive old guilt, as a new strain may make us sensible of an old bruise.”

Thomas Manton, The Works of Thomas Manton Volume I (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), 196.

What Manton does is calm the guilt, like the storm-tossed sea, it takes time. While God fully and unequivocally forgives, the conscience rages from the left over storms of sin. It takes time, in other words, for our feelings to catch up with the biblical fact of forgiveness.

The implications, then, should be evident. When you sin, you must confess that sin. When you confess that sin, God forgives that sin. When God forgives that sin, regardless of how you feel, you are forgiven. There is nothing more to confess. Therefore, we must let unbiblical guilt to rule our lives. We must move forward, to pick up again the armor of the Lord (Eph. 6:10-20), we must reignite the light that must be displayed to the world for the glory of God (Matt. 5:14).

When God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, saves you, you experience full pardon. Is this not wonderful grace? Why? Because, “Justice hath no more to seek of Christ.” (Manton, 197)

Test the Spirits (Part 5)

Last time we were together we discussed the why of John’s command to test the spirits. Believers are commanded to test the spirits, to use discernment. It is not optional. But we turn our attention now to the how of testing.

In 1 John 4:1, John offers the command to test, provides the basis for the test, and the reason for the test. In verses 2-3 John provides the how of testing. Knowing the how is important for anything we do. Knowing how to change the oil in your vehicle prior to changing the oil in your vehicle is vital. You can do tremendous damage to your vehicle if you make mistakes during this process. The same could be said of making a cake. If one does not know how to make the cake, the order in which to mix the ingredients, the measurements, and even the time and temperature in the oven, then one cannot enjoy the warm, fluffy delight of a cake (strawberry is the best, by the way!).

Likewise, knowing the how of testing is vital. If God provides us a command, it is consistent with His just and righteous character to provide the how, and He does so through the aged apostle John. John write,

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” (ESV)

John tells us that we will not the veracity of the spirit based upon their confession of Christ, specifically His humanity. We have mentioned different heresies that have plagued the church throughout her existence, so we will not recount that again. It is important to remember that the church has been, is, and will be beset by false doctrine until the Lord returns. It is a good reminder, then, that we must test the spirits.

While this test is not exhaustive, it is an excellent test. How do teachers, preachers, and philosophers relate to Jesus Christ? Do they proclaim Him to be the Son of God, fully God and fully man, without sin? The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith provides an excellent summary of what we must believe about Jesus Christ,

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. ( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

How do you know if a spirit is from God? How do you know if someone is a believer? You know this by their relationship to Jesus Christ. Now, it is important to remember this is not an exhaustive test. This test is not like a battery test at the local automobile supply store. This is like a pass-fail test for the veracity of the individual. But perhaps it would help to provide an example.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as the Mormon Church), holds a certain belief about Jesus. Now, this group of people claims to be Christian. While there is much that could be written here, I want to offer one quote from The Book of Moses (referred to as The Pearl of Great Price), 6:9,

“In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them…”

This passage refers to God’s Creation of human beings. But notice the language, “in the image of his own body…” That is, God has a physical body at one point. Now, what does this have to do with Christ? Well, it negatively impacts the doctrine of the Trinity (a point that LDS already have an issue with), particularly the spiritual composition of God the Father (see John 4:24). This, in turn, affects one’s views of Christ. In addition to the nature and origin of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also adds to the work of Christ (you can see an example in 2 Nephi 25:23).

While this post is not about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it does help to have an example of how to test the validity of what individuals are saying. Jehovah’s Witnesses provide another example. Jehovah’s Witnesses also deny the deity of Christ, His co-creative power, and the biblical fact that Jesus is Jehovah.[1] It is important to test the veracity of the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses in accordance with their views of Jesus. This is one way that we can test the spirits.

Brothers and sisters, we must test the spirits in accordance with “sound doctrine.”[2]


[1] https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451#h=1:0

[2] See: Titus 1:9; 2:1; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; and 6:3.

You can read the other posts below:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Test the Spirits (Part 4)

In previous posts, we began examining the aged apostle John’s command to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). This is a command for believers to test individuals on their teachings and lifestyles.

There is a need for testing, as we noted last time. But before we dive into the how of testing, we must know the why. John answers that important question when he writes, “for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1b).

That is, there are many false prophets in the world. Now, John wrote this epistle around 90 A.D. (probably a few years before).[1] This would be roughly 60 years after Christ’s ascension (see Acts 1:6-11). Within 60 years, then, false prophets were already abounding in the early church.

You can imagine that things have not gotten any better. They have gotten progressively worse. Paul says as much when he writes to Timothy, “evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Why should we test the spirits, John? Because many false prophets have gone out into the world. They abound!

We, as believers, must understand this. While some godly men and women encourage the Church and stand for sound doctrine, many false prophets are seeking to undermine the work of God. John gives us a glimpse into some of the challenges he faced in the first-century church.

For example, apparently some individuals doubted the fact that Jesus had a physical body. At the beginning of his epistle, John focuses on the physical body of Christ. He describes Christ as one “which we have seen with our eyes,” and “which we have looked upon,” and one that they even had contact with when he writes “have touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1). Later in church history, this would become a heresy known as Docetism.[2] There seemed to be those who denied the dangers of sinning (see 1 John 1:5-10). All that is in chapter one!

The present Church faces many of the same challenges. Many of the heresies she fought against are present today. Additionally, there are other challenges the Church faces. Many false prophets are in the world, teaching that the Church must be more like the world, that the Church must stop preaching against sin, and that the Church must be more accepting. That is precisely why we must test the spirits, “for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1b).

________________

[1] Robert W. Yarbrough, “Introduction to 1, 2, & 3 John, in Christopher W. Morgan, Stephen J. Wellum, and Robert A. Peterson, ESV Systematic Theology Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 1573.

[2] If you want to learn more about Docetism, check out these two websites: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/docetism and https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/docetic-heresy/.

Test the Spirits (Part 3)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God…” (1 John 4:1, ESV)

After warning believers against a gullible approach to spirits (i.e., teachers), John then commands believers to test the spirits.

The word test is an interesting word packed with meaning.

Ultimately, however, the word means to evaluate. Evaluations are a routine part of life. Employers consistently evaluate their employees with annual evaluations. These are times when managers or supervisors sit down with the employee and discuss their performance at their job. I spent over five years as an Assistant to the Store Manager with Walmart. Though there were challenges, one of my favorite aspects of the work was giving associates evaluations. We would discuss their strengths, their areas of opportunity, and ways to help them develop. Of course, some evaluations were more enjoyable than others. Some had to be encouraged to develop in several areas. One of the tasks of an ASM was to evaluate. The sports world is no stranger to evaluation, either. Athletes are evaluated for their performance. Their statistics are evaluated to see their proficiency in their respective sport. Managers evaluate the effectiveness of coaches. Arm-chair quarterbacks evaluate the passing games of their team’s QB. We need to evaluate. It is a necessity.

Think about heading on a road trip. One of the important steps is to evaluate your motor vehicle to make sure it is running properly and ready for the trek. Doctors evaluate aging individuals for maximum health and to detect any potential health issues.

John tells believers to test, to evaluate, the spirits. This is a command. For the believer, to test or not to test is not the question. Believers must evaluate spirits. I mentioned a few modern heresies (though they are not really modern) in the previous post. That is just one example of why believers need to evaluate the spirits.

Another reason would be to simply look at popular, “Christian” books. CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) has Jesus Calling by Sarah Young as their number one book they recommend believers purchase. Now, if one were to test Sarah Young’s book, one would find several issues (biblically speaking) with it. Here are a few websites you can check to see why evaluation (testing) is needed for believers.

We do not have an option for testing. We need to test. We must test. Now the question is, “How do we test?” I am glad you asked! You will have to wait until next time to find out (or you could just continue reading 1 John 4:1-6).

____________________

For previous entries in this series, see:

Testing the Spirits (Part 1)

Testing the Spirits (Part 2)

Christocentric Priority in Biblical Interpretation

Introduction

Andreas Köstenberger and Richard Patterson note that at the heart of the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments stands “the message about the Christ.”[1] They are saying, in essence, what Jesus said about the Law and the Prophets, that they portray Jesus.[2] Or, as Ken Boa puts it, “Everywhere we read, we find hints, glimpses, foreshadowings [sic], veiled references, graphic pictures, whispered allusions, and prophetic mentions of Jesus. He moves through all the pages of the Bible, not just in the Gospels or in the apostles’ epistles.”[3] This view, then, takes for its core that the identity and work of Jesus the Messiah fills the Scriptures.

What are the implications of this statement for biblical hermeneutics? 

This view of the Christocentric nature of Scripture greatly impacts the work of biblical hermeneutics.[4] As Köstenberger and Patterson remind the biblical interpreter, this view provides cohesiveness to the canon of Scripture.[5] In addition to contributing to “this overall purpose of showing the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope and message in Christ,” it also gives an interpretive tool in the hermeneutic work chest.[6]

The first implication is that Christ must remain at the forefront of the mind of the biblical interpreter.

As Old Testament passages are studied, the person and work of Jesus Christ should be considered. For example, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has a present and future application.[7] While there was a present fulfillment of this prophecy, the biblical interpreter, utilizing Scripture, is also to interpret this verse Christo-centrically.[8] Thus, the entirety of Scripture points to Jesus. Sam Renihan remarks, “God has only ever had one plan, and history played out according to God’s design….The full and final plan of God was to bless the whole world through the Jewish Christ.”[9] While not every verse in the sacred Scripture points directly to Jesus, as a whole they speak of His person and His work, and this must ever-remain in the mind of the biblical interpreter.[10]

The second implication is that the person and work of Jesus provides an interpretive tool in the various aspects of the Old Testament in particular.

Noting this, Peppier writes, “…it is a way of interpreting Scripture primarily from the perspective of what Jesus taught and modeled, and from what he revealed concerning the nature, character, values, principles, and priorities of the Godhead.”[11] When interpreting Scripture, the student must not ignore the historical, literature, or theological issues involved. Nevertheless, “Christ is the focal point of the entire Bible—from beginning to end. He’s the one to whom the whole Old Testament points, the one on whom the Gospels focus, the one at whom the rest of the New Testament looks back.”[12]

What misunderstandings of this statement could occur?

This question is important because biblical interpreters must always be on guard of faulty interpretive measures and unethical approaches to Scripture.[13] Though the Scriptures must be interpreted Christo-centrically, it must be interpreted rightly. Concerning the possibility of this imbalance, Kevin Smith writes, “The proposed solution is that, to some extent, and in some instances, the rest of the canon needs to inform the Christocentric principle, just as the Christocentric principle often guides our interpretation of the rest of the canon.”[14] This balance is repeated by many hermeneutic guides.[15]

Along the same lines, Köstenberger and Patterson warn, “…the fact that, properly conceived, Christ is the center of all Scripture does not mean that every chapter and every verse in Scripture are narrowly focused on Christ as if every verse of the Bible needed to be read messianically in a strict sense.”[16] That is to say, Christ cannot be forced upon everything in the Old Testament.

Though biblical interpretation must consider the Christo-centricity of Scripture, it is not a tool wielding unlimited or imbalanced power.

The triad of hermeneutics provides that helpful balance.

An Example of the Possible Imbalanced Approach of the Christocentric Principle 

A popular example can be found in Job 19:25-27. In this account, Job says, “But I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the end he will stand on the dust.”[17] Concerning this Boa remarks, “Although Jesus is not named in the Book of Job, He is the only one Job could have been referring to. No one else can be called our Redeemer.”[18]

Boa makes two mistakes in forcing this Christo-centric hermeneutic. First, there is considerable debate on the identification of the redeemer mentioned by Job.[19] One study Bible describes the word redeemer, “The word is well-known in the OT because of its identification as the kinsman-redeemer (see the book of Ruth). This is the near kinsman who will pay off one’s debts, defend the family, avenge a hilling, marry the widow of the ceased. The word ‘redeemer’ evokes the wrong connotation for people familiar with the NT along; a translation of ‘Vindicator’ would capture the idea more.”[20] To conclude that “He is the only one Job could have been referring to” fails to consider the remainder of canonical literature on the topic of the redeemer. Boa handles this verse irresponsibly because he allows his Christo-centric focus to override the historical setting and literary context.

This leads to his second mistake. Because he allows his overarching purpose to see Christ in every book of the Bible, he misses the historical context of the redeemer in ancient Israel. Concerning the kinsman-redeemer, an important focus in Israel, one work notes that he was, “The relative who restores or preserves the full community rights of disadvantaged family members. The concept arises from God’s covenant relationship with Israel and points to the redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ.”[21] Boa’s mistake of overlooking the historical context of the kinsman-redeemer, and of a redeemer in general, causes him to place Christ where he is not. Köstenberger and Patterson state it best, “We must beware of an overly simplistic theology that finds Christ, somewhat anachronistically, in places in the Old Testament where finding him there would involve some major hermeneutical twisting and maneuvering.”[22]

__________

[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2011), 210.

[2] See Luke 24:27.

[3] Kenneth Boa, Jesus In the Bible: Seeing Jesus In Every Book of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), ix.

[4] See: Christopher C. Peppier, “The Christocentric Principle: A Jesus-Centered Hermeneutic,” Conspectus, vol. 13, no. 1 (March 2012), 117-135; for a counterview of Peppier, see: Kevin G. Smith, “The Christocentric Principle: Promise, Pitfalls and Proposal,” Conspectus, vol. 13, no. 1 (March 2012), 157-170.

[5] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 210; for an example of how this applies to the diversity of the New Testament, see: Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2009), 874-886.

[6] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 210; see also Peppier, “Similarly, by acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the central figure of all of Scripture, we are compelled to interpret texts from an essentially Christ-centered perspective.” Peppier, “The Christocentric Principle,” 132.

[7] See Gary V. Smith,  Isaiah 1–39, Edited by E. Ray Clendenen, The New American Commentary.( Nashville: TN, B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 201-205.

[8] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 84-86.

[9] Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), 180; for the development of this history, see: Gerrhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments Reprint (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2017), 5-8.

[10] For example, see: Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 188-195.

[11] Peppier, “The Christocentric Principle,” 120; see also Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, 11-19; and Ephesians 3:1-13.

[12] Boa, Jesus In the Bible, viii-ix. The only point that Boa is mistaken upon is his remark that the “rest of the New Testament looks back.” Revelation points to the coming of Christ which is yet future. See: Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 825-831; though the present author does not agree with all of his conclusions, see: John F. Walvoord, “The Future Work of Christ Part III: Christ’s Coming to Reign,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 123, no. 491 (July 1966), 195-203.

[13] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 58; Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Publishers, 1991), 59-61.

[14] Smith, “The Christocentric Principle,” 169.

[15] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation; Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation; J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012); and Gordon D. Fee and Doulas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003).

[16] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 210.

[17] Job 19:25, CSB.

[18] Boa, Jesus In the Bible, 36.

[19] Notice the translational effect of capitalizing Redeemer. It implies that this redeemer is different. For a brief treatment of the debate, see: David C. Deuel, “Job 19:25 and Job 23:10 Revisted An Exegetical Note,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 5, no. 1 (Spring 1994), 97-99; Brian P. Gault, “Job’s Hope: Redeemer Or Retribution?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 173, no. 690 (April 2016), 147-165; and Greg W. Parsons, “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Job,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 151, no. 604 (October 1994), 393-413.

[20] James Davis, managing editor, NET Bible, Full Notes Edition (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 857.

[21] Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: ENG: Martin Manser, 2009).

[22] Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 210.

Testing the Spirits (Part 2)

In 1 John 4:1, John writes “Beloved, do not believe every spirit” (NASB). It is a prohibition. Just as individuals are called to believe in the name of the Lord (Rom. 10:9-10), believers are equally called to not believe every spirit. Believers, in other words, must exercise a form of caution when dealing with “every spirit.”

Now, questions may arise in your mind, “What is a spirit? Is it referring to demons? Are these angelic spirits?” John is not discussing those spirits, however. Colin Kruse calls these spirits “secessionists.”[1] These individuals were with the apostle at first (2:19), but because of the separation of doctrine and practice (2:3-6, 19-23), they separated.

These individuals preached false doctrine, denying the physical body of Jesus (4:2). It is important to keep this in the back of your mind as you work through 4:1-6 in particular. While this section limits the testing to the incarnation of Jesus, the Scriptures teach that other doctrines can be and are denied by antichrists. John uses this term to describe anyone who denies Christ (2:22; cf. 4:3).

This helps explain why we are not to believe every spirit. We are to be cautious. Adding to this command is the explicit declaration of John that “many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

We must be aware that there are false prophets in the world. They are attempting to deceive believers. They want to lure them away from the truth. Just as a fisherman uses flashy and often realistic lures to catch fish, false prophets provide a wide array of alluring beliefs and practices.

There are appealing views all throughout the world. The believer is to be on guard against such false teaching. The believer must learn to be able to identify such falsity. They must ever be watchful against enemies of the truth.

The church has not been unfamiliar with false teachings. Consider a recent study by Ligonier which found that “3 out of 4 US evangelicals are ‘Arians.”[2] For a brief examination of Arianism, please check out Gervase N. Charmley’s article on it.[3] Other heresies have beset the church with false doctrine. And while the term heresy is used frequently, it has a narrow meaning. Mike Leake of Crosswalk.com offers a helpful description of heresy, as well as a discussion on four present-day heresies.[4] This is why we must not believe every spirit.

So, are you believing every spirit? Do you blindly accept the latest book published under the title “Christian”? Do you see materials put out by publishers as truth itself?

As John writes, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit,” the command stands true today. We must become individuals with discernment. We receive discernment by the Word of God. The basis for the test, a topic which we explore more in the future, is on the incarnation of Christ. We learn this, however, from the Word of God. As believers, we must spend time in God’s Word, not merely reading it, but studying it, applying it, checking Scripture against Scripture.

“Do not believe every spirit.”—John

_______________

[1] Colin G. Kruse, “1-3 John,” in D. A. Caron, gen. ed., The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 2255.

[2] Caleb Lindgren and Moran Lee, “Our Favorite Heresies of 2018: Experts Weigh In,” Christianity Today, 26 October 2018, https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/october/evangelicals-favorite-heresies-ligonier-theology-survey.html, accessed 14 July 2020.

[3] Gervase N. Charmley, “Arianism,” Banner of Truth, 1 December 2016, https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2016/arianism/, accessed 14 July 2020.

[4] Mike Leake, “What is Heresy? Bible Meaning and 4 Examples Alive Today,” Crosswalk.com, 18 June 2020, https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/4-heresies-still-alive-in-the-church.html, accessed 14 July 2020.

Testing the Spirits (Part 1)

I recently finished preaching through 1 John 4:1-6. In this portion of Scripture, John commands believers to test the spirits. Why is this important?

In our present day, we see that believers are gullible. We are easily deceived. Like the kid who, when told that the word gullible is not in the dictionary, replies “It’s not?” believers today are prone to deception, just like the believers of John’s day. This is evidenced by the confusion recently discussed in the joint efforts of Ligonier and LifeWay Research, published in the report, “The State of Theology: What Do People Really Believe in 2018?

The depressing results demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge regarding the crucial doctrines of the faith. It also demonstrated the gullibleness of the Church. In response to the third statement, “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Isalm,” 51% were in agreement. There is no doubt that this confusion and susceptibility to gullibility has only increased.

Screen Shot 2020-07-07 at 2.21.37 PM
Statement No. 3, The State of Theology

In John’s day, people were questioning the physical body of Jesus (1:1-3). People were causing believers to doubt how to interact with one another (2:7-11). The first-century believers are not much different than we are today. What was the remedy? John gives several points that we must consider today:

  • Do not believe every spirit (4:1a)
  • Test the spirits (4:1b)
  • Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God (4:2a)
  • Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God (4:2b)
    • This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and now it is already in the world (4:2c)

These will form the topics for this series. In this introductory post, I think it is important to provide some helpful resources to educate and edify the believer. These resources are not perfect, nor are they infallible. God’s Word holds that honor. However, these should be placed into your toolbox for growth.

flat lay shot of tools
Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pexels.com

Founders Ministry provides excellent articles and books to help provide discernment to the believer.

Desiring God is another helpful resource. Predominately the ministry of John Piper, this website gives sermons, articles, books, and videos to educate and edify the believers.

The Gospel Coalition offers a wealth of resources. One that separates TGC from the rest is their courses. Many courses are available, for free, that help believers understand theology, ethics, and many other issues.

Grace to You, the ministry of John MacArthur provides a verse-by-verse exposition of all of the New Testament. In addition to this, there are blog posts, devotionals, and books available.

 

Book Review: “We Love You, But You’re Going to Hell”

Dr. Kim O’Reilly, We Love You, But You’re Going to Hell: Christians and Homosexuality Agree, Disagree, Take a Look (Nashville, TN: Elm Hill, 2018), 199 pages.

106747272_4227928820580501_4936687144761600479_n

An Overview of the Book

In her prologue, Dr. O’Reilly writes,

There is a growing divide between individuals and groups who hold different and contrasting beliefs about homosexuality. Dialogue is too often rare, and getting more so. People have little contact with those who hold differing opinions. Real progress can be made if we sit across the table, in the Church, or public meeting places to talk through our differences—in safety and respect. This book is an attempt to launch that dialogue.[1]

I appreciated the demeanor Dr. O’Reilly takes in her work. Her goal is to open a dialogue in which individuals can discuss their views of homosexuality, hoping to create dialogue and, at the least, to remove the judgmental attitude many Christians take against homosexuals.

106924412_2719951021578718_2172198069832672154_n

Dr. O’Reilly sets out her goals in Chapter One. She begins by writing, “I have written this book out of love and compassion.”[2] I found this attitude throughout the entire book. Though as a lesbian, she does not agree with conservative Christianity’s approach to homosexuality, she never expresses any hateful speech. Her approach is one of question. She seeks to ensure a proper understanding of the passages of Scripture that concern homosexual behavior is understood within a modern-day context. She also discusses the reason she wrote the book. In response to Phil Robertson’s comments and book Happy, Happy, Happy, Dr. O’Reilly sought to provide a compassionate rebuttal to the negative views towards homosexuals. She ends the chapter with an outline and purpose of the remainder of the book

Chapter Two provides a glimpse into Dr. O’Reilly’s conservative upbringing, her coming out, and the struggles she had with friends and family, particularly her father. She describes her coming out experience concerning the Ninth Commandment, writing, “I chose to focus that on myself, asking whether I was bearing false witness against myself AND others if I wasn’t honest about who I was.”[3] This experience took place over seven years. Her experiences with coming out to her family varied from acceptance to rejection.

Chapter Three details how Christians used the Bible to promote and condone slavery and segregation. It seems odd to find this chapter in a discussion on homosexuality, but Dr. O’Reilly points out several passages of Scripture that Christians used. She writes, “It is obvious to most now that the Bible was misused and misinterpreted to promote the interests of slave owners. Over time, enough people began to criticize the Scriptures and question the interpretations in the face of such an ugly and abusive practice as owning fellow human beings.”[4] Dr. O’Reilly provides quotes from leaders supporting slavery/segregation, as well as court cases in which segregation was supported, not only by Scripture but also by American Law.

In Chapter Four, Dr. O’Reilly shifts gears to examine the seven passages of Scripture used to condemn homosexual lifestyles. She acknowledges two important points at the beginning of the chapter. First, she writes, “At the surface of this observation, there can be little debate. The Bible nowhere condones same-sex relations and, in a few places, explicitly censures them.”[5] And, secondly, “Biblical scribes, or anyone else writing in those centuries, had no idea or concept of homosexual orientation—a lifelong attraction, fixed early, toward people of the same sex.”[6] Dr. O’Reilly walks through the seven passages, offering counter interpretations, cultural contexts, and word studies to demonstrate that individuals today have incorrectly interpreted these Scriptures.

Chapter Five brings about the discussion of sexual orientation, writing that “New information about sexual orientation, emotional and physical attraction, and identity emerged after over a century of research.”[7] She distinguishes the sex act from sexual orientation, admitting that researchers have no idea how sexual orientation develops, nor when.[8] She also notes that no one can choose their sexual orientation and that sexual orientation is not “inherently moral or immoral.”[9] Dr. O’Reilly then works through the supposed Reparative Therapy. She finishes the chapter with individual stories of homosexuals or reparative proponents, detailing the damages and pain that accompanied each one.

Dr. O’Reilly discusses Stereotypes and Myths about homosexuality in Chapter Six. These myths and stereotypes are:

  • Bad Marriages Lead to Lesbianism
  • Homosexuality Is A Sinful Lifestyle
  • Gays and Lesbians Are Promiscuous
  • Gay Men Are Child Molesters
  • Homosexuals Are Emotionally Unhealthy
  • Homosexuals Cannot Sustain Long-Term Relationships
  • Homosexuality Is Demonic and a Curse
  • Homosexuality Can Be Compared to Alcoholism
  • Homosexuality is Unnatural
  • Gays Recruit
  • There Is a Homosexual Agenda
  • Homosexuality Threatens Family Values

In Chapter Seven, Dr. O’Reilly offers a compilation of sorts. She begins with quotations of prominent leaders who oppose homosexuality. She then discusses “Lesser-Known Ministers” who are outspoken against homosexuality.[10] Interestingly, she also brings up billboards. Moving from individuals, she discusses Churches, Denominations, and other religions’ desire to see individuals leave homosexuality. These include the Southern Baptist Convention, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. She ends the chapter with individuals from various denominations and religions who support homosexuality.

Marriage is the topic of discussion for Chapter Eight. In this chapter, Dr. O’Reilly provides examples of the religious and civil views of marriage. She discusses court cases and definitions. She also provides a brief examination of the purpose of marriage. The remainder of the chapter provides arguments for and against gay marriage. [11]

In Chapter Nine, Dr. O’Reilly spends time discussing the importance of religious freedom, particularly “the right to refuse service to gays and lesbians when it runs contrary to beliefs about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.” The majority of this chapter focuses on that nationally recognized case Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

106581537_300754934307679_7844341479379030817_n

Chapter Ten summarizes the main thrust of the entire book. In it, Dr. O’Reilly addresses the importance of one’s views regarding homosexuality and why it matters. She writes, “When individuals believe, and Churches preach, that homosexuality is an abomination, it matters.”[12] She discusses why from the perspectives of homosexual marriage, homosexuals generally speaking, and personal loss.

In Chapter Eleven, Dr. O’Reilly offers several steps that individuals can take in this ongoing discussion. They are:

  1. “Read the Seven Scriptures.”
  2. “Look at Sexual Orientation.”
  3. “Reevaluate Reparative Therapy.”
  4. “Challenge Stereotypes.”
  5. “Agree to Disagree on Gay Marriage.”
  6. “Recognize the Pain Inflicted.”
  7. “Contribute to the Healing.”[13]

After offering these steps, she also provides additional issues that should be addressed, whether from a leader’s perspective or the individual.

Strengths of the Book

I believe the most helpful contribution of this book is the openness to dialogue. It is unfortunate, but as Dr. O’Reilly remarks, people are unable to talk about divisive issues. Whether it is political, religious, or sexual, people are unable (or, unwilling) to engage in dialogue. Her book is written “out of love and compassion,” and that comes forward through her work.[14] In my own experience, I have engaged in dialogue with homosexuals and though we do not agree on issues, we can still experience a conversation.

Another strength of Dr. O’Reilly’s book is her focus on the stereotypes and myths. She mentions that the first stereotype, bad marriages lead to lesbianism, is “more lighthearted and not as damaging as other stereotypes and myths.”[15] Unfortunately, these stereotypes are all-too-common. Though I do not agree with all of her statements in this section, I think it is helpful to consider how viewing individuals through a collective, and often ill-informed, lens discourages thoughtful dialogue.

Weaknesses of the Book

Dr. Kim O’Reilly was open to the fact that she is a lesbian. I feel that it is only fair to state at the beginning of this section that I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I want to offer a few critiques to her arguments and reasoning. I encourage anyone interested to read her book to find out if my concerns are fair.

First, the main premise of the book is that homosexuality, in its present-day form, has not existed until recently. Thus, the traditionally-held view that homosexuality is a sin is not up-to-date. She concludes that Christians today, while not necessarily abandoning their beliefs, would live and let live. She writes, “Leave the judgment to God. We won’t know for certain this side of Heaven. If you err, err on the side of compassion.”[16] I see a major problem with this line of thought.

As even Dr. O’Reilly admits, “At the surface of this observation, there can be little debate. The Bible nowhere condones same-sex relations and, in a few places, explicitly censures them.”[17] At the very outset of that chapter, Dr. O’Reilly acknowledges the Scriptures’ face value as condemning homosexual behavior. For millennia, the Church (in the widest description as possible) has stood against homosexuality. If the Scriptures condemn homosexuality, the faithful follower of Jesus Christ should as well. Now, this does not mean the believer should treat homosexuals with any form of judgmentalism or inhumanely. The call for the believer to live in love stands firm.[18] However, it would be unloving not to tell someone of their sin. It is the very essence of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, that we should point out sin. It would be unloving not to do so.

Another issue I take with Dr. O’Reilly’s work is that she makes fallacious arguments. She makes the red herring fallacy when she compares the acceptance and defense of slavery and segregation to homosexuality. There is no connection to the two, logically or biblically. Unfortunately, she included it in her book, because, in my opinion, it weakens the strength of her argument. Another fallacious argument she makes is the appeal to pity. It is important to state, once again, that believers should never physically hurt, mentally, or emotionally abuse another human being. That being said, Dr. O’Reilly seems to suggest that you cannot condemn homosexuals because it hurts them. She writes, “It was a condemnation that was well-meaning and expressed in love, but nonetheless a condemnation.”[19] A third fallacious argument Dr. O’Reilly makes the equivocation of the word homosexual orientation with an acceptable form of sexual life. She writes, “Biblical scribes, or anyone else writing in those centuries, had no idea or concept of homosexual orientation—a life-long attraction, fixed early, toward people of the same sex.”[20] Later on in her book, though, she writes, “Many Christians who condemn homosexuality argue that there is no such thing as sexual orientation…. I have never understood the basis for that argument—biblically, historically, scientifically, or psychologically. There is evidence of human homosexuality across all cultures and across time.”[21] So, did they have a concept, or not? Furthermore, she goes on to say, “The widespread acceptance of “same-sex behavior” among the ancient Greeks has been cited as an example of increased numbers of homosexuals leading to the fall of an empire.”[22] Again I ask, did they have a concept, or not? It seems that this argument is used in two ways for Dr. O’Reilly.

The reason this is important lies in her reinterpretation of Scripture, which is the fourth weakness of the book. Concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, Dr. O’Reilly simply brushes by the fact that all the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot’s visitors.[23] Because other Scripture mentions Sodom and Gomorrah’s other sins, she concludes with the silent argument that homosexuality, as we understand it today, was not meant. Of course, if the act of homosexuality is sinful, then it is only logical (and biblical) to conclude that the orientation is sinful as well. Dr. O’Reilly also dismisses the two passages from Leviticus because “Christian tradition has viewed the purity concerns and regulations in Leviticus as irrelevant.”[24] It appears that Dr. O’Reilly equivocates dietary restrictions with sexual issues related to Israel. I could argue that the marital union between one man and one woman existed before, during, and after the Law (see Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; and Ephesians 5:22-32), but I would imagine this would be brushed aside with similar dismissal of normal interpretation.

Who Should Read This Book?

I think it would be helpful for anyone interested to read this book. I think Dr. O’Reilly’s demeanor throughout the book is helpful. I think one should keep in mind the logical fallacies she presents. Additionally, I am looking forward to seeing how this issue progresses.

____________________

[1] Dr. Kim O’Reilly, We Love You, But You’re Going to Hell: Christians and Homosexuality Agree, Disagree, Take a Look (Nashville, TN: Elm Hill, 2018), xi.

[2] O’Reilly, We Love You, 1.

[3] Ibid., 11, emphasis hers.

[4] Ibid., 22.

[5] Ibid., 30.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 44.

[8] Ibid., 45.

[9] Ibid., 48.

[10] Ibid., 83-84.

[11] Ibid., 129.

[12] Ibid., 149.

[13] Ibid., 169-179.

[14] Ibid., 1.

[15] Ibid., 60.

[16] Ibid., 3.

[17] Ibid., 30.

[18] John 11:34-35.

[19] Ibid., 185.

[20] Ibid., 30. It is ironic that she makes this statement, which is an argument from silence.

[21] Ibid., 47.

[22] Ibid., 77.

[23] See Genesis 19:4-5.

[24] O’Reilly, We Love You, 33; see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.

Book Review: “On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry”

Ragy R. Girgis, M.D., On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry: Exploring Mental Illness in the Bible (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 112 pages.

Overview and Purpose of the Book

106488110_1118911805158236_713332161675317042_n
On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry by Ragy Girgis, MD

When I received a copy of Dr. Girgis’ book, I was eager to read it. I am fascinated by the connection of body and soul, and I was excited to see a Christian’s perspective on mental illness in the Bible.[1]

Dr. Girgis clearly states his goal on page 3, writing, “Therefore, the goal of this book is to help change misconceptions that have historically pervaded Christianity by educating both laity and clergy about serious mental illness.” In order to accomplish this goal, Dr. Girgis sets out to perform an “exegetic examination of Biblical accounts of what may have been untreated serious mental illness,” to see the biblical worldview of mental health as represented in a variety of passages of Scripture.[2]

After mentioning a few books that have sought to accomplish this goal, Dr. Girgis sets his work apart as reading the Scriptures through a “post-Enlightenment narrative,” changing the way the Scriptures are interpreted to reflect a modern understanding of the

106508939_640523939869570_4768398230615678022_n
The chapters of the book follow a primarily exegetically-driven focus.

mental illness.[3] Without denying the accounts recorded in Scripture, he desires to view them in light of modern, medical advancements. He writes that the reader will “gain an appreciation of the non-morality and non-spirituality-based, biological nature and timelessness of available treatments.”[4]

Finally, Dr. Girgis ends the Preface and Introduction with a reminder that his book is written: “to be a resource for any Christian, including both the lay believer as well as clergy and Christian academicians.”[5] He wants his readers to see that “mental illness” is not a spiritual issue but a physical one.

Chapter two provides a wonderfully succinct overview of mental illness. Chapters 3-9 are exegetical examinations of individuals who may have struggled with mental illness. These include Moses and the children of Israel (Ch. 3), King Saul (Ch. 4), King David (Ch. 5), Jonah (Ch. 6), Nebuchadnezzar (Ch. 7), the Gadarene Demoniac (Ch. 8), and the demon-possessed man (Ch. 9). In chapter 10, Dr. Girgis performs an overview of the various teachings regarding witchcraft and sorcery. Chapter 11 seeks to describe the power and limits Satan (and demons) have on the creation and human beings. He provides his own assessment of end-times views in connection with a demonic activity in Chapter 12. In Chapter 13, Dr. Girgis brings the book to an end with a message of hope and encouragement.

Strengths of the Book

This book is helpful for its contributions to the field. Dr. Girgis is an experienced psychiatrist. Additionally, he has published many articles in peer-reviewed journals and has contributed to several scientific books. His professional experience alone provides a wealth of wisdom. Added to this fact is his faith in God.

Another strength of Dr. Girgis’ book is his heart. Repeatedly you read phrases like “I find that many Christian believers, including both laity and clergy, have misconceptions about serious mental illness, such as that it is related to morals weakness, bad parenting, and/or volition.”[6] Dr. Girgis seeks to help believers understand that mental illnesses are biological in nature, not necessarily a result of sin on behalf of the individual.

A third strength of the book is its accessibility. I am about a month away from completing a Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling, and in the coursework,  we are required to read many works in the fields of psychology and counseling. Thus, I was familiar with the terms and literature connected with Dr. Girgis’ field. However, the average layman (or, woman) would be able to pick up his book and read it with comprehension. He provides helpful definitions of a variety of terms and illnesses. For example, on page 17, he provides this definition of disorganized speech, as “is an abnormal thought process.” He then proceeds to provide several clarifying statements. He follows this method throughout his book.

A fourth strength is his inclusion of biblical references. In his 112-page book, Dr. Girgis devotes eight chapters to examining specific passages of Scripture. Then, two other chapters have many references to the Word of God.

106805828_2650259065291313_6558867960440212181_n
This work offers several examinations of the Biblical texts.

A fifth and final strength is his desire to help individuals understand that mental illnesses are not the result of sin but are biological phenomena. He writes, “These misconceptions often prevent Christian believers with serious mental illness and their families from seeking professional mental health treatment when it is most needed. In many cases, they do not accept psychiatric medications as they would medications for non-psychiatric conditions, such as high blood pressure or diabetes.” Many Christians completely reject this thesis, and this ultimately harms many who have biological problems causing mental disorders.

Weaknesses of the Book

While I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Girgis’ book, and as a whole, found it helpful, there are a few issues I have. First, Dr. Girgis, in his effort to reexamine Scripture, ultimately questions it. To his credit, he frequently reminds his readers that his view does not deny the miracle, it merely enhances it. He writes, “I would suggest that this additional understanding [i.e., that mental illness was the problem afflicting individuals that are described as ‘demon-possessed’] actually enhances our understanding of these miracles and, more importantly, of how we would understand serious mental illness.”[7] He routinely returns to this idea.[8] Why is this a weakness?

I see it as a weakness because it denies the literal understanding of the Bible. The authors of Scripture know what mental illness is (which Dr. Girgis acknowledges in chapter 3).[9] Thus, the writers of the Bible were familiar with it, and if the individuals possessed by demons, or individuals afflicted with depression (such as Saul), our response should be to believe them, to take them at their word. By seeking to view the Scriptures through post-Enlightenment eyes, he inadvertently, regardless of claims otherwise, calls doubt to God’s Word.

A second weakness is a failure to acknowledge the effects of sin on the mind. I agree that Christians must change the way they view mental illness. In fact, this is a strength. However, it appears that he dismisses the potential that spiritual issues can cause mental illness. For example, in Saul’s case, he routinely rejected God’s Word. After a terrible verdict of judgment, he begins to experience the afflictions of “an evil spirit.”[10] Saul’s rebellion brought about this tormenting spirit. This, no doubt, increased his hatred for David as well as contributed to his psychotic behavior. Likewise, the curses pronounced in Deuteronomy 28:28, God uses these distresses as judgments against sin.

A third weakness is an inconsistent and honest exegesis of Scripture. I mentioned one part of this in the first weakness, but I want to address another aspect of that. Dr. Girgis sets out to perform an overview of angelic power and abilities in the Scripture. After examining or referencing five passages, he concludes, “Therefore, Satan, or any angel or other spiritual being, has no power over Creation, or humankind, who was actually given dominion over Creation by God…These statements indicate that angels, in general, do not have power over Creation and have barely more power than humans.”[11] This is simply not true. Angels are incredibly powerful beings. A look at most systematic theologies will provide ample references to prove this. The writer of Kings dismisses this by writing, “That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp.”[12] This does not sound like they “have barely more power than humans.” Along the same lines, Dr. Girgis completely dismisses the clarify of Scripture concerning the possession of Judas.[13]

A fourth weakness, though similar to weaknesses one and three, is that he fails to interpret Scripture in a cohesive manner. For example, the Bible clearly teaches mental illness exists (see Deuteronomy 28:27-28, 34). However, in the Gospels something changes. This is a weakness.

Who should read this book?

Pastors and church leaders should read this book. It is helpful because he brings awareness to the biological issues related to mental illnesses. I think it will help open their eyes to the fact that we live in fallen bodies, and many in our churches are afflicted, not with spiritual issues, but with the physical fallenness of life.

I think Christians, in general, should read this book. It is accessible and clear. Keep in mind the weaknesses, and you will enjoy this book and expand your view of mental illness.

[1] Dr. Girgis declares his faith on page 11.

[2] Girgis, On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry, 3.

[3] Ibid., 5.

[4] Ibid., 7.

[5] Ibid., 13.

[6] Ibid., 13.

[7] Ibid., 8.

[8] See, for example, pages 30, 45, 46, 48-49, just to name a few.

[9] See Deuteronomy 28:27-28, 34.

[10] 1 Samuel 16:14, NIV.

[11] Exodus 17, Job, Genesis 3, Revelation 12:7-9, and Hebrews 2:5, 7-8; Girgis, On Satan, 81.

[12] 2 Kings 19:35, NIV.

[13] Girgis, On Satan, 86.

 

 

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.