This Section is done in order to expose books that are either liberal, compromising or just plain dangerous because they are used in what we would consider the more "sound" congregations. They are books that I have personally looked at or have been asked to look at. It is my hope that when we buy Christian books we look for some of the complaints that I have raised and that these complaints would be thought about when considering any book by any author who is compromising and hurting the body of Messiah.
"Treasures of Encouragement-Women Helping Women in the Church" by Sharon W. Betters.
The background on this book must be provided. While attending an OPC the book was introduced in order to begin a women's Bible study. I was asked to look it over and I did. I sent my concerns to the Pastor who was temporarily filling the pulpit while they waited for a new Pastor. At first the concerns were believed to be serious and I was told "well done". It was my hope that the temporary Pastor would address the concerns with the Elders. A week went by and I heard nothing. However, it was brought to my attention that the same book was being used at another OPC just an hour away. Hmmm. Needless to say, almost three weeks later, the book was still going forward. My complaint/concern had eventually fallen on death ears and liberalism was not a concern. Machen would not tolerate such a book! Below is the letter of complaint to the Elders and why. I have adjusted it to take out some of the hems and haws.
I had a chance to review the book called Treasures of Encouragement and have deep concerns/convictions regarding what I believe are issues of compromise by the Author named Sharon W. Betters.
I am no friend to the doctrines of Arminianism and the disciples/promoters of this heresy, but I have overlooked that issue in light of what I feel are greater problems. When I say that, “overlooked that issue” I mean to say the use of Charles Swindoll's material on page 109 of said book or Oswald Chambers on page 128.
My problems are more focused first, with the use of Roman Catholic sources in her bookl. On page 83, the author quotes Father Francois Fenelon. You need to know that this was no average or ordinary Roman Catholic sitting in the pew. Who is Francois Fenelon? The New Advent website says the following;
“In this famous school, of which he always retained affectionate memories. Fénelon was grounded not only in the practice of piety and priestly virtue, but above all in solid Catholic doctrine, which saved him later from Jansenism and Gallicanism.” (emphasis mine.) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06035a.htm
The next website makes this statement about Fenelon;
Descended from a long line of nobility, Fenelon began his higher studies in Paris about 1672 at Saint-Sulpice seminary. Ordained a priest in 1676, he was appointed director of Nouvelles Catholiques ("New Catholics"), a college for women who instructed converts from French Protestantism. When King Louis XIV heightened the persecution of the Huguenots (French Calvinists) in 1685 by revoking the Edict of Nantes, Fenelon strove to mitigate the harshness of Roman Catholic intolerance by open meetings with the Protestants (1686-87) to present Catholic doctrine in a reasonable light. While unsympathetic to Protestant belief, he equally repudiated forced conversions. (emphasis mine.)
Needless to say a Priest under the Roman Catholic system is under the anathema of God according to Galatians 1. Please recognize that this man is no believer. Therefore, it greatly concerns me and grieves me that the author quotes from an ungodly source to make her argument. Blessed is he who walks not under the counsel of the ungodly! What message is she giving the enemies of God? What does this communicate? Isn't it true that the enemies of God can use these types of issues against us? Wouldn't a Roman Catholic who reads this book smile as he sees a Romanist Priest quoted by a self proclaimed “believer?” Do these writers understand that organizations like Catholic Answers get excited when Roman Catholics are quoted by Protestants? Especially when those apostates were once involved with the OPC or PCA?
Secondly, my greater problem and issue is found on page 166. First, I know you agree that Scripture is breathed by God and we are warned not to add or take away from it. Tthe word “add” found in Proverbs 30:5-6 is the Hebrew word yasaph. It means; To add, added, adding, again, another, any more, anymore, intensify, and surpass to name a few of the definitions. It is the same Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 4:2. But, Scriptures were “added” to or “intensified” on page 166 in this book. The following statement is found on that page to justify or rationalize her argument;
“Throughout the rest of this chapter I have replaced masculine nouns and pronouns with feminine ones in Scripture quotations.”
My spider sense is tingling! Replaced what for what? Not one word was placed in the Scriptures by chance or the will of a man. Mat 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.
If God was not sovereign and Sharon Betters, (or others who alter Scripture had their way,) then one letter or stroke, perhaps hundreds, would disappear. If we tolerate this type of adjustment to the Scriptures, again, what does it tell the enemies of the Gospel who may see this addition and assume the bible is a wax nose that can be adjusted to fit their theology as well? Therefore, it is simply wrong to adjust a passage in any manner, in this case to cater to a specific sex.
If this is the conviction of the author, then where will she draw the line since she has crossed over the line? My contention is that she has sought to replace specific words given by the inspiration of God to cater to her audience. When we cater to an audience, I would ask, would she also change other passages written to females and adjust them for the teaching of males? Would it not also be consistent for her to adjust the following;
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a man learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a man to teach or exercise authority over a woman; rather he is to remain quiet.
After all, all I did was replace the feminine for the masculine!
Or why not this one? Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every female among you shall be circumcised.
I don't mean to be redundant, but you see my point. What danger do I see beyond the horizon? What if a liberal "feminazi" sees a Christian do this? Can the liberal now use this particular book as a reference to argue that God can be a “she?” I can see it now. The liberal quoting Sharon Betters; “Throughout the rest of this chapter I have replaced masculine nouns and pronouns with feminine ones in Scripture quotations.”
Can the liberal now say “the Christian's did it, why cant I?” It is my opinion that this can be a reason for the enemies of God to argue against particular use of words in the Scriptures. By this deed, have we now given the enemies of God a foothold to justify their doctrines? I believe we have and this book is only one of hundreds of examples.
My final problem is with the use of Merriam Webster to define words used in the Greek text. It is my conviction as a Bible teacher that we must go to the original languages for the gems of the definitions. In this instance, on page 172, she uses Merriam Webster to define the word “exhort.” But, the problem is, there can be a difference in definitions between the English and the Greek. The Greek word “exhort,” is “parakaleo.” It is not always used in a negative manner. It simply means “to call to ones side,” call for summon,” “to address,” “speak to,” “to admonish,” “exhort,” “beg,” “entreat,” “beseech,” “to comfort,” “to strengthen,” “be comforted” or “consoled.” For example;
ESV..1 Thessalonians 3:2 exhortyou in your faith, that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this.and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and
NAS..1 Thessalonians 3:2 encourage you as to your faith,and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and
My issue is that she took the definition of the Greek word and replaced the Greek meaning of the term parakaleo with the English definition “exhort” for the meaning. She did not go to the Greek for the proper definition. She went to the English definition itself to define a term. (I hope I didn't confuse anyone.) In other words, it would be like me using a sub definition to define a primary Greek term. In other, other words, I may use the Greek term thelema which is found in John 1:13 which is translated “will” or “desire,” or “choice.” If I now go to the English definition of “choice” I have departed from the source of the meaning because “choice” may mean many different things in the English. If I go to dictionary dot com there are many types of definitions for choices that depart from the Greek definition.
The Webster definition she used for exhort does not communicate a tenderness, but rather an urgency or argument to accomplish warning or advice. This is the problem in replacing Greek definitions with English definitions and when we only get a part of a definition we are robbed of the deeper meaning. On page 172 she says;
“some believers seem to think that exhortation requires them to take on the role of the Holy Spirit with friends and family members. Not so. As biblical exhorter's we are neither to condemn nor to convict; we are to advise, warn and strongly urge fellow believers to pursue godliness when they stray in their thinking or behavior;”
This quotation above brings me to closure and final remarks. This statement is simply one side of a coin and again, misrepresents a full picture of the Scriptures. I am reminded how to deal with those who bring “stray thinking” to us.
Forgive my sarcasm here. First, define “stray thinking?” How do we exhort “stray thinking?” We cannot read “thoughts” right? “I have read your thoughts and they are stray?” Stray thinking is really what? Stray doctrines! Heresy right? And depending upon what the “stray thinking” is, depends on how severe it is.
When a person writes a book, he or she is teaching in written form! She (or he) will not be able to argue “I wasn't teaching” I was only, um, exhorting?” James said not all of us should be teachers and we who teach shall give an account. In her quotation is she talking about those “outside” the Church? Who are the “Friends and family?” Are they in or out of the fold? She quotes from Hebrews 13 following the quotation so I have to assume she really means believers.
So...a woman who reads this would say something like what? “Sister, I have to advise you that your denial that Jesus is Lord concerns me and I have to warn you strongly to pursue godliness because your thinking is stray?” “I am neither to condemn nor convict you regarding this matter because that is the job of the Holy Spirit!”
2 Timothy 3:16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"
Paul told Titus we must silence the mouths of those who are not teaching what is in accord with sound doctrine. "stray thinking" is stray thinking. To stray is to leave the direction you were headed for.
What does “play the Holy Spirit” really mean to her? Let's be friends?
We are given commands to remain away from those who have been warned. Not build friendships with them as they continue in "stray thinking."
Titus 3:10As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice,have nothing more to do with him,
Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
Is this “playing the Holy Spirit” when we are commanded to avoid those with stray thinking? Would this be considered “judging?”
I would also argue that according to her Webster's definition of exhort (as quoted in page 172) I see no tenderness toward certain stray thinking. Does doubting qualify as stray thinking? I see that we are to be compassionate, to show pity and have mercy. I do not see an urgent, argument, inciting or advising by giving warnings or urgent appeals.
Jude 1:22 And have mercy on those who doubt;
Also, I would say that 1 Corinthians 5 is very clear regarding what I would call “stray behavior.” Again, define stray and behavior. My position is clear. We are to judge those inside the church to protect others from this “stray behavior or stray thinking”. We are to judge them!” Throw them out, give them over to Satan until they repent and seek God's free pardon and forgivness.
This book is not to be taken as instruction when there are numerous other books that can be used in its place for the exortation of woman and godly instruction. I have to ask myself, does this person really understand the gospel if she goes to Roman Catholics or Arminians for instruction? As a Pastor's wife, is she accountable to the WCF or the Baptist confession of 1689 when she looks to the advice of those who deny Justification by grace alone through faith alone in the Messiah alone for guidance or instruction? Is she looking out fot the purity of the Church when she uses ungodly men who have no fear of God and asks other women to follow her in her thinking? Change cannot and will not happen until we get back to convictions. ENDORSEMENTS; Another note of sadness are the endorsements. The book was endorsed by Jay Adams. Did he read it or just sign off on it because the Pastor was a friend of his? Does Jay Adams endorse the use of a Roman Catholic and his thinking in Better's book? What about others like John H. Armstrong who was a former Pastor? Read the following about him and ask the question why did he endorse this book? "John Armstrong is a former pastor of more than 20 years, author of books and magazine articles, editor of the Reformation & Revival Journal, seminar and conference speaker both in the United States and abroad, and director of Reformation & Revival Ministries. Armstrong founded Reformation & Revival Ministries in 1991 for the purpose of encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening. Armstrong is the general editor of The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Moody Press, March, 1996) in which fifteen respected Christian leaders and thinkers come together to sound the alarm about the growing trend toward a tentative and diluted gospel message. This book deals with what evangelism will look like if it continues on the course it has followed in the past twenty-five years. Armstrong also is the general editor of the Gold Medallion award finalist Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Unites and Divides Us (Moody Press, 1994)." http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=261317 Armstrong was applauded and honored for his book. Does he really believe what he writes? What does divide Protestants and Romanists Mr. Armstrong? Does it really matter? Did the Messiah look for common ground with the Pharisees in Matthew 23? It is the gospel itself that creates union or separates union and one does not need to look for common denominators when the gospel is attacked by Rome. When he endorses Better's book when she uses a Roman Catholic to make her argument, is Armstrong really concerned with pursuing doctrinal reformation? Will the sheep of God wake up and see we are being betrayed by those who claim to be one of us when they endorse any book that uses or quotes from Roman Catholic sources? Moshe
