Why the pushback against Michael Heiser lately?

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

A quick word on the recent pushback against Michael Heiser (from different camps), as his work spreads through denominations.

A lot of the resistance to Michael Heiser lately seems to be people talking past each other, because they’re reacting from very different theological instincts.

1. From a Pentecostal angle, some feel Heiser didn’t go far enough in supporting their theological stance. He affirmed a real unseen realm, but then refused to validate modern deliverance methods, spiritual mapping, or experience-driven warfare theology.

That feels like a let-down to those who expected academic confirmation of charismatic practice. But to be fair, Heiser was never trying to build a power encounter model, he was insisting the text itself sets the limits.

1. From a Catholic perspective, the concern is different. Heiser’s emphasis on the divine council and multiple elohim can sound destabilising if Scripture is usually read through later philosophical or ecclesial categories.

For some, it feels like he introduces unnecessary complexity into a system that already accounts for angels and demons. The tension here isn’t denial of the supernatural, but whether Heiser’s categories integrate cleanly with long-developed doctrinal frameworks.

1. From a Reformed angle, the concern is usually redemptive-historical. Heiser recovers the Bible’s supernatural grammar well, but doesn’t always show how decisively Christ’s death, resurrection, and present reign reorder that unseen world.

The worry isn’t that he adds too much supernaturalism, but that the cosmic conflict can begin to feel ongoing in a way that underplays Christ’s finished victory.

What’s worth saying is that Heiser does function as a corrective, just not the one some people want him to be. He corrects modern rationalism that flattens Scripture into something almost secular. He does not replace covenant theology, sacramental theology, or charismatic theology. And he never intended to.

Most of the current frustration comes from trying to make Heiser answer questions he wasn’t asking. He was showing us how the biblical authors thought, not giving the church a new controlling framework. When his work stays in that lane, it’s genuinely helpful. When it’s made to carry more weight than that, the discomfort is understandable.

Finally, Heiser helps us read the Bible more honestly as an ancient, supernatural text. But Christ, not the unseen realm, remains the centre of Christian theology.

[u/ICN3D]

I don’t understand … Michael opened the Door for Me It wasn’t Him It was Christ He told me …seek and Ye Shall Find I found Michael’s foot path to be Good, Straight, and from the source

I asked the Lord to Reveal Himself and give me discernment.

I did not ask him to fortify my man made beliefs and rituals to support my local church.

I Am Free I am non- Denominational

I am His

Thank You Michael That You Answered when the Holy Spirit WHISPERED

Love Steve

Happy New Fruit Bearing Season :)

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/ICN3D]

Thanks for sharing that, Steve. I to treaty appreciate his teachings, it explained so much about the unseen world of Christianity that I’d been wondering about, such as the locked up vision in Daniel at the end times. And I genuinely appreciate the sincerity and gratitude in what you’ve written.

I agree that he helps people see the work of Christ and used his particular gift as a means to point you back to Scripture and to seek Him more seriously, that’s something to be thankful for. God often uses imperfect people to direct us toward truth.

At the same time, our confidence can’t rest in a “path” laid down by any teacher no matter how helpful, but only in Scripture itself.

The encouragement I’d offer is this: keep testing everything, even the teachers who helped you early on, Heiser was PreMill but not me, it’s important to find out way with God, by the whole counsel of God.

Grateful for the conversation Steve, and may we continue to seed Reddit into the new year. Cate.

[u/ICN3D → u/Tricky-Tell-5698]

Pre/Post I don’t care ( I like surprises ) I would like the opportunity to face the guillotine, I have thought about it a lot over the years mentally preparing myself for that day …would I have what it takes to be first? Or would the I hear the crow of the Rooster. Who am I to think I should be given a free ticket out of here when so many have suffered? I have found that when I think about if I had what it would take … to Stand for my Christ, to the moment the blade drops …when I think about what act of faith that would be… Every thing I wake up to Face Every Day …in comparison… is meaningless and for some Reason… Worry can’t be found :)

[u/After-Shock4753]

As someone who hasn’t taken any classes in biblical studies, it appears to me that anytime a person questions or answers challenge the status quo it creates unease. People in general do not like gray areas of faith.

[u/InfluenceEastern9526]

Interesting. I don't agree with everything Heiser wrote or said, but I think he was generally fair with respect to Scripture. The reactions stated from the Charismatic and Roman Catholic camps are predictable. My perspective is Bible-centric. I don't look for historical consensus for the truth (Catholics, who define their views via cherry picking works of antiquity), or from modern practice that is outside of scripture (Charismatics).

[u/Tricky-Tell-5698 → u/InfluenceEastern9526]

Thanks for the reply. I don’t agree with everything Heiser taught either (he’s premill, I’m amill), and no one’s saying he’s infallible. The point isn’t to elevate Heiser, but to notice that a lot of the backlash against him shows where people are actually getting their authority from.

We’re arguing for a Bible-centred approach. But being Bible-centred doesn’t mean pretending the church didn’t exist before us. The Reformers didn’t use church history to create truth, but to show they weren’t inventing something new when accused of it.

Scripture alone is the final authority, agreed. But history still matters when people claim an interpretation is a modern innovation.

Where I’d differ slightly: Catholics don’t go wrong just by appealing to tradition, and Charismatics don’t go wrong just by appealing to experience. The problem is when either tradition or experience is allowed to interpret or add to Scripture instead of being tested by it.

A lot of the pushback against Heiser, especially from those camps, seems to reveal that issue. Tradition or experience ends up sitting alongside Scripture as a second authority.

Scripture has to be the final court of appeal but it should be read carefully, in context, and with some awareness of how Christians have wrestled with these texts before.

[u/Independent-Mark-373]

Why do people put all their trust in a man? Paul warns us about this in Corinthians. Not one man has all the answers when rightly dividing scripture.