In this piece, Elizabeth Prata of The End Time answers these questions. Romantic eroticism is the term she uses to describe the way in which some professing Christian women describe an encounter they supposedly had with God. Beth Moore claims she had an experience with God where she felt as if He was enfolding her; likewise, Sarah Young had a feeling of being enveloped by a warm mist and becoming aware of a lovely Presence. In her writing, Ann Voskamp promotes pagan nature religion or mysticism. So it should come as no surprise that she expresses romantic feelings about Jesus and is looking for satisfaction.
Now listen as Elizabeth Prata sheds light on romantic eroticism:
In 2005, Beth Moore was interviewed by Today’s Christian Woman magazine. They asked Moore:
Q. What led you to Jesus?
A. Beth Moore’s [2005] answer:
My Sunday-school teacher would hold up pictures of Jesus, and he looked so nice. I needed a hero, and Jesus seemed like one. I’d lie on the grass, stare up at the sky, and wonder what Jesus was like. Even as a child, I fell in love with him.
After my freshman year in college, I was a camp counselor for sixth-grade girls. Early one morning, as the girls were sleeping, I sensed God’s presence enfold me. There were no audible words, no bright lights. But suddenly I knew, without a doubt, my future was entirely his. You are now mine, he told me. (source)
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is very much like many other false teachers’ conversion stories.
It’s a testimony devoid of essential Gospel elements such as sin or repentance, but rife with romantic eroticism. Sarah Young describes her experience this way:
Suddenly I felt as if a warm mist enveloped me. I became aware of a lovely Presence, and my involuntary response was to whisper, ‘Sweet Jesus.’ This utterance was totally uncharacteristic of me, and I was shocked to hear myself speaking so tenderly to Jesus. As I pondered this brief communication, I realized it was the response of a converted heart; at that moment I knew I belonged to Him. (source)
Bob Dewaay explains the problems with such erotic romanticism.
The Bible speaks of the church as the Bride of Christ but does not describe the universal call of the gospel in sensual terms of a lover pursuing His love interest (who may have no interest in return). God is commanding sinners to repent. The gospel calls for repentance and faith, not romantic feelings looking for satisfaction. Voskamp’s romanticism is enhanced by her skill at describing things in a most sensual manner. The sensual terminology is designed to create a mood, a feeling, a sense of romantic mystery that longs for discovery and fulfillment. Those like me who relish clear description of theological concepts meant to be understood and discerned, will be horribly frustrated by the book. Her book is not meant to be a theological text filled with ideas to be judged true or false, but is instead a literary piece filled with feelings to be relished.
Conversion and life in Christ is not the fulfillment from a young girl’s romantic heart, yearning for a boyfriend. It’s the majestic gift of grace from a powerful but merciful God who draws people to Himself and forgives sin, making them a new creation. Moore’s yearning for a heroic boyfriend is not the same as Godly reconciliation and peace from the spiritual battle in which all are engaged. Sadly, Moore has built a career on the false premise, and many millions have followed her down that path.
Sounds pagant, I’m sure if we dig deep enough we’ll find parallels to ancient cults, possibly in which a woman is wed to deity, such as the Greek cults of Aphrodite and Adonis or Babylonian cults.
Or this very troubling tidbit:
http://www.cybelians.org/cybelianism-today/4536639342
You know, if these people would just follow God’s manual for life, they’d be better off! But hey it’s easier to fleece the sheep with fantasies and lies than The Truth!
Hi Manny1962:
Wow! THAT IS DISTURBING INDEED!! The ideas she is promoting are NOT spiritually healthy, to say the least! It goes to show you just how lost this world is! Thank God we Christians are dead to the world, crucified with Christ.
Some of her claims — WOW! Here’s five of them (including 1 correct one):
“The movement is a secular organisation and as such is perfectly able to co-exist with established religions and philosophies, in exactly the same way as does Humanism.”
She may THINK it can co-exist with “established religions” and maybe it can with some of them, but NOT Christianity which would NEVER advocate the superiority of one gender over another. Yes, Christians(and NOT Christ) did for much of the last (nearly) 2000 years, but that had little if anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus and everything to do with the cultures of those times. Admittingly, even Paul advocated some questionable advice with regard to the role of women in the First Century church, but those were the accepted standards of the Middle East and Mediterranean region AT THAT TIME. It was NEVER meant to be a standard to be observed FOR ALL TIME in ALL NATIONS!
“The only difference is that the modern Cybelian cult exists in the enlightened society of today wherein almost any type of behaviour is tolerated.”
Uhmm, yeah. That’s the problem alright and why Christianity is dead to the world. Again, thank God!
Good afternoon Stephen,
It is very disturbing, there are so many movements with the right catch phrases, but when you peel back the veneer, demonic to the core.
“Discounting the “big-bang” theory, which doesn’t hold water as being the primary event in the Universe, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that nothing can come from nothing.”
This is the most rational thing that this Cybele states. Of course, the “Big Bang” isn’t the PRIMARY event of the PHYSICAL universe; it’s just how it started. The PRIMARY “event” is the fact that God exists and always has, since He was the one that caused the “Big Bang” to happen 13.7 billion years ago in the first place, just as the first three chapters of Genesis tells us. And she is right that nothing can come out of nothing.
“Whatever gender we apply to the Creator – male, female or asexual – really doesn’t matter. If there is indeed a God, he/she/it is above gender.”
I tend to agree, although Jesus was certainly male. However, there are two very good reasons why Jews, Christians, and Muslims refer to God as a “He”. First off, languages don’t tend to have a word that refers to a living being without gender, and “It” is certainly a disrespectful way to describe God. Second, ALL LIFE BEGINS with the male, at least on this planet. As to the virtually uncountable number of worlds located throughout the universe that have intelligent life, I don’t know — it would depend on the physiology of the life forms on whichever planet. If you want to describe a feminine component to life, that would be the universe, and since I’m reasonably sure that the universe is NOT self-aware, “feminine” wouldn’t apply.
“In a way, somewhat ironic – in that whereas humans are supposed to be made in the Deity’s image, humanity has strived to make the Deity in its own image. Cybelians lean towards the concept of the Deity being female.”
As with most humans, she makes the mistake of thinking humanity is made in God’s image. The Bible dies NOT say that, as far as I am aware, nor do practicing Jews teach that the Hebrew Scriptures say that. Yes, it says that ADAM AND EVE were made in God’s image, as in BEFORE they fell from grace by eating the “fruit” of the “Tree” of the knowledge of good and evil — NOT that their descendants born AFTER their fall from grace are made in God’s image.
Perhaps her most preposterous claim is that, if women had been in charge, they could have done a better job running things, as if any human beings, flawed and imperfect as we are, could have done better with what we knew at the time. There is a reason why there is the saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”!
The writer is correct that true salvation comes as a result of repentance from the worship of the false god and the works that go with that(sin), belief in the resurrection, and confession of Jesus as Lord. Rom.10:9,10.
But, what we see here in “romantic eroticism” is another example of what comes from a legalistic understanding of salvation that results in a natural event and not a spiritual one. Because the law only cleanses or has an effect on the flesh and not the spirit.
This comes through doctrine developed from the foundational belief that man has a “sin nature”. Because when salvation includes the works of the law in any way, then this salvation is by those works. And is then by definition a natural event. Not a spiritual one.
Paul, who fought this thinking during much of his ministry, said that “no flesh will be justified(delivered) by the works of the law”. But, many teach that Jesus kept the law specifically for that purpose.
That it was to satisfy God’s requirement for being such a sacrifice. The unblemished lamb, He had to because we could not, etc….
The problem with this is that the law is a “carnal commandment”. Heb.7:16. Which means it only has power to “cleanse the flesh”. Heb.9:13. Yet, we are in need of a spiritual birth.John3:3-8. And a resurrected body. Rom.8:23. Not the cleansing of the old one. The old one is to be considered dead.
These people who are experiencing these things do so through natural means. And so it is with everyone who is ‘saved’ by means that include the works of the law.
That is why they speak of it as “erotic”. Erotic is natural. They have never been born of the spirit and this proves it. And all because their foundation is a salvation that is based upon the works of the law.
Everything they experience after that is natural. Not spiritual. Sad:-(
But, if they will believe what God has given us in the scriptures they can be delivered from their deception. 😀
Blessings:-}
Hi Edwitness:
You have it right! Christians, Jews, and Muslims routinely get the spiritual and physical confused, and forget that the God of Abraham, the Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Quoran, the one same supreme God that we all worship is a spiritual being and NOT a physical one.
It is the same when Paul writes the instruction of Romans 10:9 in which he makes clear that one has to BOTH believe in your heart and profess with your mouth. Two different things! A Christian who does NOT confess (profess) Jesus to others in ADDITION TO having faith is NOT saved. The grace of God will NOT remain within them just as the tree that does NOT produce “good fruit” (good works), which in and of themselves cannot bring salvation, will be chopped down.
What’s even more significant in Romans 10:9 is that Paul is NOT talking about our physical heart beating in our chest but our spiritual heart and it makes sense therefore that he is speaking about our spiritual mouth, and so Jesus pays attention NOT TO JUST what we say with our physical mouths but what our souls say with our spiritual mouths.
It comes down to the sayings that:
“Talk is cheap” and “Actions speak louder than words”.
God bless and keep you and your family, my friend!
The ignorance on here is astounding. The compartmentalization of your beings is extreme, do you all forget of David? The one man in the whole bible who is said to be a man after God’s own heart, or John who laid his head on Yeshua’s chest? The planks in your eye are that you dont have the Father’s love in your heart so of course you condemn and judge just as the world condemns and judges which is from ignorance. So tell me who’s fruiting are you showing? Love or legalism? And which did Yeshua say fulfilled the law?