On Michael S. Heiser

[An email...]

I've been reading Michael Heiser (not just on the Divine Council subject), and he's basically a theological liberal. The usual type found in academia. He defends the thoroughly indefensible Peter Enns. He's got a deficient view of the Bible as the very word of God.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/06/beginning-a-serious-discussion-about-inerrancy/

He also is an ANE (Ancient Near East) scholar (like Enns), and their overriding idiocy is to *have* to see ANE literature as *influencing the Bible* rather than the biblical narrative as it has echoed down through the ages influencing ANE literature.

Ultimately he's a shallow scholar and not a Bible-believing Christian, though he does give some lip service to being conservative on biblical issues.

It's not surprising that Mormons use his books to bolster their science fiction novel theology.

One thing he does that is lunatic (and that people like Peter Enns does) is he talks about the 'need' to rethink the entire biblical 'story' based on what scholars 'now know' regarding ANE this and that (and Enns would also include what is now known regarding evolution, which he swallows hook, line, and sinker). I.e. there is a *scale* thing going on here in their minds (i.e. they can't discern scale). They think the wide and strong river of history and theology can be redefined by their little books and theories and 'PhDs' and that everybody will just have to come along with them. This is Happy Hills Mental Disorder Hospital realm stuff. - C.

* * * * * * *

[An earlier email...]
I haven't looked at this person's [Michael S. Heiser] website or the links yet, but a good question to ask when approaching such a type is does he present good armor? Does he have effective armor? Does he present real biblical armor? - C.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't know the power of biblical doctrine. He doesn't have a parts-in-relation-to-the-whole understanding of the Bible. He's a scholar. An academic. A fool. Before he's a Christian. Ironically he's a rare case of someone being off-the-mark due in part to a *deficient* doctrine on angels. That's just an aside. He's got bigger problems than that. He, to mention maybe the biggest, doesn't seem to connect the orthodox understanding of the Trinity with salvation and the plan of God itself. I.e. he doesn't fear treading blithely on that ground. Again, a fool. We want armor of God. Real armor. That armor cast in the Reformation is real and celestial armor.