Why I am not watching The History Channel's "The Bible", part 2. It sows error and confusion

I believe the contending for the faith over the History Channel's presentation of the miniseries "The Bible" is a pitched one. I have almost never received the number of views on one essay as I have on part one and in such a short time too. Christian blogger Mike Ratliff said the same. Further, Mr Ratliff said the following, with which I agree:

"... As I stated in an earlier comment referring back to this post, I haven’t experienced such a strong level of dark spiritual warfare protecting some stronghold of darkness in quite some time. Our enemy has obviously staked quite a bit into this…"

Why? Why is this such a battle to get people to see the error and corruption in this film?Look how bad it is, as Ratliff describes,

"I've watched extended previews of it Kim that are not available on TV. It is comparable to taking a man-centered version of the Bible and watering it down even further to make it entertainment. I believe the Bible calls that removing the offense of the Cross since the purpose of our Lord’s incarnation, which is the Atonement, is totally submerged into the “Change the World” view that Rick Warren and those who emulate him teach. Paul rejoiced when others preached Christ, but that’s not what this is since the gospel they preach is “another gospel” and the Jesus they preach is “another Jesus.”…

In the film "The Bible", the bible is mishandled, period. It removes sin, the cross, the need for the cross, changes verses, inserts events, takes liberties, and puts man at the center of a feel-good social Gospel. Anything that is this grossly man-centered is bad, a different gospel, and to be avoided. But let me give just a few examples of how the producers and writers and paid 'Christian' consultants have put forward a Gnostic gospel of man to the dilution of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Remember, in the Gnostic series I had written a few months ago, the Gnostic will always seek to change the emphasis of the gospel away from the work of Jesus to the worth of man. Always.

An early example is Noah. As he tried to comfort his family on the ark, we listen to the voice-over tell us something that is simply not true. We hear the reason for the flood was: "Wrong choices, wrong decisions, that's why this [the flood] is happening."

In the pre-flood world according to the movie "The Bible", man didn’t sin but simply made mistakes. An entire world was drowned because some people made a bad choice? The bible says, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." They diminish the rebellion of sinful man against Holy God by making it sound like someone picked sauerkraut for their hot dog instead of ketchup. God didn't send the flood because of an "oops." He sent it because He determined to wipe out man due to his continual evil. (Genesis 6:7).

The truth is, after the fall, all humans born on earth were born with a total sin-nature. In the Gnostic world they tell us that we still have the capacity to do right by simply deciding to make good choices and avoiding bad decisions. Without faith in Jesus and His indwelling Holy Spirit, we don't have that capacity. We see this incapacity and total sin-nature right away, when the son of Adam and Eve, Cain, became a murderer. (Genesis 4:8). We see it when David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5). And again, Solomon knows, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). It has nothing to do with man's choices but all to do with man's evil.

Next: When we hear in the film that God 'cleansed the land' by sending the flood, it shifts the emphasis away from man's sin to the oopsies he did. If I poured out milk onto the floor, the analogy would be that in the real bible I would own up to spilling the milk (man is culpable for his actions.) In the film version of The Bible, God just cleansed the land, so the focus becomes the mess and the mop that wipes up the mess, not the man who made it. It changes from focus on the sin of the sinner to the consequence of his sin, which, after all, was just a little dirt to be cleaned up. Just by saying 'cleansed' it removes man's participation in the reason for the flood. But look at what the real bible has to say--

"for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:12b-13)

In another example, in the film series "The Bible," we hear the narrator say after the flood: "it was a new beginning for Noah’s descendants & a chance to restore the relationship between God and humanity."

They would have you believe that the restoration and reconciliation between Holy God and sinful man was up to Noah and his progeny. There was no mention of God's promise of a Messiah to redeem us. According to "The Bible" filmmaker's Gnosticism, it is up to man to make that reconciliation. A Gnostic always changes the emphasis away from the work of Jesus to the worth of man. Always.

In another example, we hear the narrator say the "Covenant between Abraham and God." The covenant was not between man first and God second. The covenant wasn't even between God and man, it was between God and God because it was an unconditional promise of a sovereign God to sinful man, who simply received it.

The truth of that covenant is, "This unconditional covenant, first made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, promised God’s blessing upon Abraham, to make his name great and to make his progeny into a great nation. The covenant also promised blessing to those who blessed Abraham and cursing to those who cursed him. Further, God vowed to bless the entire world through Abraham’s seed. Circumcision was the sign that Abraham believed the covenant (Romans 4:11). The fulfillment of this covenant is seen in the history of Abraham’s descendants and in the creation of the nation of Israel. The worldwide blessing came through Jesus Christ, who was of Abraham’s family line." (source "The Covenants of the Bible").

But when it came time to mention the covenant, "The Bible" writers put man first and made it sound like man cut a deal with God and God capitulated. That is a Gnostic tactic.

Then there is what Mike Ratliff mentioned, the "Change the World" theology. This is most troublesome.

When Peter is called; he is told that he "will change the world."

When Paul is converted and baptized, he is told the reason for his baptism is so he may "change the world in [Jesus'] name."

When the man playing Jesus emerges out of the water, he says he is going to "change the world."

This 'change the world' theology' is a repeated message in the film and one that the Gnostic loves. Why? They love it for two reasons. First, because it is man-centered. Who is going to change the world? Man. Jesus is a footnote in this world-changing. It elevates man's worth above the work of Jesus, something the Gnostic always likes to do. A Gnostic loves himself more than God, who is enemy to Him. And second because it focuses on this world and all the temptations that the Gnostic offers and wants.

Ratliff said,

The scene that sealed this for me was in Peter’s boat after Jesus had him catch all those fish after he had fished all night and caught nothing. The stuff that went on in that scene is found nowhere in Scripture. Instead of Peter saying, “Depart from me Lord for I am a sinful man!” he asked Jesus what he is going to do if he follows him. Jesus replied, “Change the world!”

I have news for you. This world is going to melt. (Matthew 24:35). It is a temporary world. The SOULS on this world are eternal. Yet the 'change the world' mentality is simply another name for social gospel, and social gospelers say that the kingdom of God is to be realized by social improvement. They would have you believe this is why Jesus came. It is a different gospel, and if it is a different gospel, it is false. (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8; Mark 7:9).

The encroachment of the Social Gospel is a tactic and a barometer at the same time. Dr. Paul Hiebert was a Doctor of Missiology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and missionary for 6 years under the Mennonite Brethren Board of Missions. Art Azurdia explained in a lecture on the series, Drive By Discernment,

"Hiebert said that the first generation of Mennonites were a people preoccupied with the Gospel and concerned with some social responsibility. The second generation of Mennonites assumed the Gospel, and became increasingly absorbed with social responsibility. The third generation of Mennonites abandoned the Gospel and was consequently altogether was completely preoccupied with social responsibility. Preoccupied. Assumed. Abandoned."

Over the last century, theological liberals were increasingly defined by the social gospel accompanied by their view of the kingdom. To the liberals the “kingdom was not future or otherworldly, but ‘here and now.’ " (source)

We want to do good for others but the reason we are called to the Kingdom by grace to go out is not to change the world. Often, that is the result. But the reason we go is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ.

I heard one of the pastors I listen to say that if there is an adjective in front of "Gospel" it is not the real Gospel. We see this split between Gospel and social gospel in David Platt's book Radical.

"A similar voice is David Platt’s and his book Radical. Platt offers better balance than Chan but still propagates a two-tiered gospel composed of the true gospel of redemption and the social gospel. While Platt is careful to elevate the true gospel, the social gospel of feeding the hungry and giving to the poor is the primary focus of the book and accounts for its popularity. He writes, “As we meet needs on earth, we are proclaiming a gospel that transforms lives for eternity.” The author does not advocate the social agenda as opposed to true evangelism, as mentioned above, but he does say that caring for the poor is evidence of salvation. As a matter of fact “rich people who neglect the poor are not the people of God.” However, when we turn to the New Testament, we find that, while Christians are to be loving and generous to all people, they are never told to attempt to remedy the consequences of the sin of unbelieving humanity through social action. Instead, they are instructed to meet the needs of brothers and sisters in Christ, something Platt admits in a footnote (p. 225). In fact, the church is never commissioned to rectify injustices by dealing with the symptoms of sins but to “radically” uproot sin itself through the gospel." (source)

Do you see how insidious The Bible series is and its evil 'change the world' gospel? It shifts the emphasis away from the work of Jesus on the cross to the worth of man, so that he may boast. "Look what I did! I changed the world!"

No...that was Jesus, our beloved and holy Savior.

The Bible miniseries on The History Channel is not worth your time or energy. The Lord is too Good, too Pure, too Precious to waste even a moment on the darkness and corruption of that show. I am personally convinced that the show is a pivot point in the deepening apostasy of the church. The show sows error, confusion, and corruption.

Like Chris Rosebrough said, lol, don't watch the movie, the book is so much better!

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

 Part one here