Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part IIIb
April 27, 2012 373 Comments
[See also: Part I, The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Part II, Part IIIa and Part IV (Conclusion).]
1In the beginning was the Word [Logos.]
and the Word [Logos] was with God
and the Word [Logos] was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being by Him,
and apart from Him
nothing came into being
that has come into being
14And the Word [Logos] became flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we beheld His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
[John 1:1-3,14 NASB]
The prologue to the Gospel of John is among the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture. It is also one of the most theologically brilliant. Not only does John assert that the Logos was WITH God in the creation account of Genesis by paralleling the first few verses with those that begin the canon of Scripture, John states the Logos WAS God. He is illustrating the plurality of the Godhead, i.e. that God is monotheistic yet more than one ‘Person’ (John would describe the Person of the Holy Spirit later in 14:15-16:15). The Gospel writer makes it clear that God the Word/Logos became flesh, yet He was fully God in the flesh and not ‘merely’ human.
However, other groups claimed that John had different thoughts in mind for the Logos. Some Gnostics in the 2nd century (and later) claimed John’s Gospel has a dualistic Gnostic backdrop with his contrasts of light and darkness (v 1:5) and other dichotomies, and they interpreted John’s Christology as congruent with Gnostic redeemer myths117 (redemption through autosoterism, or self-salvation).
Some have claimed Hellenistic (ancient Greek) influence. According to NT scholar Craig Keener, Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher of the 6th century BC, “reportedly spoke of ‘Thought’ as guiding and ordering the universe” and his work refers to the Logos as being “eternal, omnipresent, the divine cause”.118 The Stoics took this further as Zeno “identified Socrates’ logos, or rational principle, with that of Heraclitus” calling this “the common law” or “natural law”.119 Apparently, these groups believed the Logos was present in all of creation, i.e. they had a panentheistic (God is in all) worldview.
Others asserted that it was Philo’s Logos that John had in mind. Philo combined aspects of Stoicism (including the Logos as the divine mind, or nous120) with his own theology which was influenced by Platonism (from the philosophy of Plato):
In Philo’s scheme, the Logos is directly below God and directly above the powers through which God rules creation; the powers appear as angels when related to OT imagery, but Philo elsewhere identifies them with Platonic ideas. The Logos, as God’s archangel and eldest offspring, functions as ambassador to humanity and separates the creature from the Creator; as such it is a mediator of God’s activity in the world and of revelation. The Logos is God’s image, through whom the universe was formed. In Platonic thought the sensory world is merely a copy of the real world of ideas, of eternal forms. The Stoics, by contrast, saw the Logos as immanent in the world of matter. Philo combines these strands of thought, following the syncretistic lead of middle Platonism in his day.121
Still others claim that John had in mind the Wisdom literature in Scripture [Proverbs 8, 9, etc] and extra-Biblical writings of the time including the Apocrypha (the Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible including “Wisdom of Solomon”, “Wisdom of Ben Sira”, etc.) and the Pseudepigrapha (literary works circa 200 BC to 200AD). This position asserts that John had envisioned Jesus as Wisdom personified given the many seeming parallels between his use of Logos and the way Sophia, the Greek word for Wisdom, is used in the Wisdom literature. Yet the Gospel writer never actually uses Sophia in reference to Jesus. Therefore, some scholars claim reliance on this motif while others may affirm perhaps partial influence.122
Andreas Kostenberger sees John’s intent more in line with personifying the Word of God in the OT noting the strong parallel of John 1 with Genesis 1, the parallels of John 1:14-18 with Exodus 33-34, and the Logos concept in Isaiah 55:9-11 (and other passages in Isaiah).123 In addition, Kostenberger seems to suggest the Logos concept was used as an apologetic against prevailing Greek thought:
…Though John does not elaborate on the precise way in which Jesus was made flesh, his contention that deity assumed human nature in Jesus would have been anathema for Greeks who held to a spirit/matter dualism and could hardly have imagined immaterial Reason becoming a physical being.124
It seems quite plausible that the Gospel writer, being well aware of current philosophical and religious thought, wrote the prologue and parts of the rest of the Gospel with a dual purpose – as both a Gospel and an apologetic against these threats. This is especially possible if one assumes a late date of authorship as do most scholars (between 90AD and 100AD).125 In fact, Irenaeus, in his Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), circa 180AD, makes the claim that the Gospel of John is an apologetic against the burgeoning Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) threat of John’s day.126 John’s Gospel (and, of course, his epistles, especially 1 John which contains elements of the Gospel’s prologue) can function as an apologetic against current Christological heresies as well since some of the concepts above are being perpetuated in slightly different forms today.
The Word Becoming Flesh
Christian orthodoxy affirms that Jesus Christ was/is the Word made flesh; i.e., the Word/Logos, the second Person of the eternal Triune God, added human flesh to Himself and became the unique God-man in the womb of the Virgin Mary. This hypostatic union retains throughout eternity, for Jesus Christ is yet still both human (with a glorified body) and divine as He sits at the Father’s right hand. However, Bill Johnson explicitly denies the uniqueness of the Word made flesh:
…It’s the Spirit of God that makes this thing [the Bible] come alive to where we actually have the privilege of the Word becoming flesh in us again, where we become the living illustration and manifestation of what God is saying.127
What does he mean by “the Word becoming flesh in us again”? Are we to be just like Jesus, i.e. divine? Or was Jesus not the second person the Trinity made flesh in the first place? Is this what Johnson means by “Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man”?128 Perhaps this is speaking of the false parousia as mentioned in part II? Or, is this a combination of some or all of these?
In yet another sermon, titled “Jesus is Our Model” – the same from which is the blasphemous ‘born again Jesus’ statement – we have Johnson speaking on the word Word yet again:
…Look at verse 3 [of Luke 4], “And, the devil said to Him, ‘IF you are the Son of God command this stone to become bread.’” Jesus answered Him saying, “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD of God.” What was the first temptation? It wasn’t to turn stone into bread, it was to question who He was…129
Not many theologians would agree with Johnson that the first temptation was “to question who He was” by emphasizing if. The majority of scholars assert it was a test to satisfy His hunger by miraculous power rather than relying on the Father for provision.130 But, more importantly, Johnson stresses Word having in mind the Word of Faith (WoF) “rhema” Word, i.e., ‘new revelation’ – NOT that Jesus is Himself the unique, second Person of the Trinity Word/Logos made flesh, although that is how it may appear at first. This will be evident as we continue on with Johnson:
…Jesus explains this later to the disciples in Matthew 13; I’ll just read the one phrase to you that’ll help that concept to make sense. He was talking about people who had no root in themselves; they hear the Word but there’s no depth in their person. They’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing…131
In applying Matthew 13 to both Jesus and mankind rather than just mankind, Johnson has reduced Jesus to a man who Himself is indwelt by (NOT in hypostatic union with) the “rhema” Word. Simultaneously, he’s reinterpreted this Scripture to pertain to those who either accept or reject the WoF “rhema” Word. [The Greek words rhema and logos are used interchangeably in the Bible although the Apostle John specifically refers to Jesus as the Logos made flesh (John 1:1,14).] Continuing on:
…It says, “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [3 second pause for emphasis] immediately they stumble. Persecution, difficulty, conflict arises because of the Word. The WORD of the Lord attracts CONFLICT. It’s not punishment. It’s not to humiliate. It’s for two basic reasons: it’s because the Lord wants to give reward and He wants to honor character. Character is not formed in the absence of options. There has to be two trees in the Garden where I am honored for a decision. Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not? Do I consider other options, other possibilities?132
Please note that the Scripture in Matthew 13 [13:21-22] refers to the Gospel message, not the “rhema” Word as Johnson would have us believe. Scripturally, either one accepts the Gospel message and stays true to the Faith (the true convert) or one drifts away when trials and tribulations arise, when persecution comes, or the message is choked out by the concerns of life (the false convert).
At this point we’ll compare to more text from Levi Dowling’s New Age book which was referenced in part IIIa:
The Christ is son, the only son begotten by Almighty God, the God of Force and God omniscient, the God of thought; and Christ is God, the God of Love.
…Through Christ all life was manifest; and so through him all things were done, and naught was done in forming worlds or peopling worlds without the Christ.
Christ is the Logos of Infinities and through the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest.133
This is obviously a perversion of the prologue in John’s Gospel. Both “Thought” and “Force” are capitalized in the original [“thought” is not capitalized the first time though]. This sure reads like WoF doctrine with “faith” as a ‘force’ and the “rhema” Word, ‘new, ongoing revelation’, coming into our thoughts. “Christ” here is in reference to a member of this false Trinity who also “pervades all spaces of infinity”134, as in panentheism, meaning that all matter contains a “seed” of “Christ”, including man, and it takes the “Christ Spirit” to activate these “seeds”:
Into the soil…these seeds, which were the Thoughts of God, were cast…and they who sowed the seeds, through Christ, ordained that they should grow…and each to be a perfection of its kind.135
To reiterate, this “Christ” is the occult version of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” [Col 1:27] with “Christ” being the dormant, non-activated seed as well as a member of this false Trinity who permeates all matter. This is evident in the following words of Levi’s “Jesus”:
…Look to the Christ within who will be formed in every one of you, as he is formed in me.136
Now, let’s pick up where we left off in the sermon of Johnson:
…This story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil. And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God. Think about it: the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe, is put into an environment that if we give attention to other IDEALS, other VOICES, other WORDS, we actually give them a place in our heart to take root and they choke out the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe. For a season, the Lord has allowed our choices to affect the power, the effect of the most powerful thing in the universe. It’s stunning…137
We’ll elaborate more on the “sperma of God” in the section below on “spiritual DNA”; but, it seems obvious that it’s analogous to Bob Jones’ “God sperm seed” from part II. This “sperma of God” compares remarkably well with Levi’s “seeds” account above, does it not? In addition, Levi’s statement “through the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest” seems akin to Johnson’s “rhema” Word made manifest in both Jesus and ‘believers’ as we consider Johnson’s words, “we actually have the privilege of the Word becoming flesh in us again, where we become the living illustration and manifestation of what God is saying.”
Also, note Johnson’s negative emphasis on ideals, voices, and words – is this a knock against Christian theological orthodoxy? Perhaps so, since later Johnson speaks of ‘religion’ as, “mowing down the seeds so that they all look the same”.138 Bill Johnson continues to make more parallels to Levi’s doctrine:
…The most powerful thing in the universe, the Word of God – that created the world, that spoke things into being, that Word has been planted in your heart.139
You’ve got to know the mind of the Lord if you’re gonna stand strong.140
Overall, Johnson appears to be making the point that to be strong, to grow in the faith, one must become more and more attuned to the ‘continuing revelation’ of the “rhema” word. This is instead of the Christian orthodox view of sanctification by submitting to the Holy Spirit’s leading rather than our own flesh, carnality.
Levi’s teachings are not unique to him as these are also common in Gnostic literature (as stated earlier, Gnosticism also informs New Age doctrine). In Benjamin Walker’s Gnosticism: Its History and Influence, he uses this same “seed” concept referencing Matthew 13 like Johnson. Walker notes how man may either “identify with the upper realm and be transformed by it, or with the lower and perish as a result.”141
This type of man hears the call, but whether he listens and responds, or not, lies entirely within himself. He is capable of receiving the seed sown by the sower. But he is fertile ground for both tares and wheat (Matt. 13:25). He must take care that the thorns of intellectualism and disbelief do not grow and choke the seed. He has free will and tends both to good and evil, and must make up his own mind in which direction he will move…142
Biblically, the parable of the wheat and the tares/weeds [Matt 13:24-30] is about true Christians and false Christians. The false Christians (tares/weeds) will be intertwined with the true (wheat) until the eschaton, the consummation, the end of all things.
This same false teaching is also in the Unity Church doctrine. The following is a portion of the Unity Church’s definition for “kingdom of God” in their Metaphysical Bible Dictionary which compares favorably with both the Gnostic account above and Johnson’s version of Matthew 13:
…Jesus likened the kingdom to a seed because a seed has unexpressed capacities, and needs to be planted in the soil best suited, and when planted in a receptive mind it brings forth the fruits of the Spirit. The life of the word is the spiritual idea it contains.
The kingdom of heaven is attained, first, by one’s establishing in one’s mind the consciousness of the truth of Being; second, by one’s outer life to Truth.
Jesus used many commonplace things to illustrate the establishing of the kingdom of heaven in consciousness in order that we might the more easily adjust all our thoughts and acts in harmony with the ideas that make heaven.
Jesus likened heaven to a man that sowed good seed in his field, but when he slept an enemy sowed tares there (Matt. 13:24-30). The explanation is this: The field is consciousness; the good seed are our true thoughts, which are sown when we express our mind positively. The tares are the error thoughts that drift in when the consciousness is negative or ignorant…143
For further comparison, here are two quotes from Constance Cumbey’s September, 1988 New Age Monitor in which are transcriptions of question and answer sessions with David Spangler and Michael Lindfield, both of Findhorn Foundation, an openly New Age organization (which has been around for 50 years and counting). Both individuals were taped at Boulder Episcopalian Church in Boulder, CO on October 26, 1987144 the day following an important series of meetings with Evangelicals and New Agers over the weekend. First is Spangler:
…Even today, you know, in meeting with people who are leaders of the evangelical and pentecostal community, it was quite evident they were saying, ‘you know, the Spirit of Christ is in the world.’ It is in all people. That is in scripture and as a consequence, people who have never encountered Christianity can still encounter Christ. And a number of these evangelicals came up with examples of this in their travels around the world, and pointed to scriptural passages to substantiate this…145
Spangler makes the claim that both Evangelical and Pentecostal leaders stated that ‘Christ’ is “in all people” such that even non-Christians can “encounter Christ.” Lindfield makes a similar claim about himself having his “own essential Christhood” and then makes a further claim about the “word made flesh”:
…I claim my right to freely explore my relationship with God and with Christ. And if that makes me a New Ager, I will proudly wear that label, if that makes me a fundamental Christian, I will proudly wear that label. Whatever it is that allows me to freely explore my relationship with God – my own essential Christhood – I will gladly take that on…There are many books and many writings purporting to express ‘this is the New Age.’ But in essence what I feel we are searching for is the word made flesh – not just the word made paper…146
Levi Dowling makes this concluding statement with respect to the “Word made flesh”:
…[A]fter thirty years of strenuous life the man [Jesus] made his body fit to be the temple of the holy breath [Holy Spirit] and Love [Christ] took full possession, and John well said when he declared: ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’147
Dowling’s point is that Jesus of Nazareth so demonstrated His worthiness to become ‘the Christ’, the World Teacher of the Piscean Age, that He was fully possessed by ‘the Christ’, the member of the false Trinity. That is, Jesus, like all others, had the seed within Him (‘Christ within’, the “Thoughts of God” which pervade “all spaces of infinity”) which was then activated by ‘the Christ’, the Son of the false Trinitarian Father, who eventually “took full possession” of Him. Once ‘the Christ’, the Logos of Infinities, the false Trinitarian Christ, took full possession of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus then became ‘the Word made flesh’. The now ascended Master Jesus, the “World Teacher” for the Age of Pisces, is now our example to follow towards our own ascension to godhood. To that end, we ourselves must also become “the Word made flesh”.
Given the earlier comparison (in part IIIa) of some Christological quotes of Bill Johnson to those of Levi and the comparisons in this particular section, it is entirely plausible that Johnson intends the same meaning as Levi with respect to “the Word made flesh”.
Interestingly, later in the “Jesus is our Model” sermon, Johnson comes close to correctly explaining Jesus’ first temptation as Him not succumbing to the Devil’s temptation to turn stone into bread: “He could have used the anointing that the Father had given Him through the Holy Spirit to turn the stone into bread. But, He would not prostitute the favor, the anointing, the power, for personal gain…He faced it; He quoted Scripture; He brought the Word back into focus.”148 However, note that He refrained from using “the anointing that the Father had given Him” rather than His own inherent divinity.
Yet, Johnson follows this up conflating Scripture with the “rhema” Word, then he proceeds to use an example of a personal predictive prophecy which purportedly came to pass years later thereby emphasizing the “rhema” Word and, hence, coming full circle. Subsequently, he closes his sermon and restates his original wrong exposition on Jesus’ first temptation.149
So, initially, Johnson goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ first temptation was to question who He was as the “rhema” Word made flesh; yet, he later claims that Jesus first temptation was to get Him to use the power of ‘the anointing’ “for personal gain” thereby contradicting his first interpretation. However, he asserts once again that Jesus’ first temptation was to “question His identity” near the very end of this sermon.150 This aptly illustrates Johnson’s duplicity.
The Word Becoming Spirit
In the following is another example of Johnson proclaiming Jesus as the “rhema” Word made flesh in yet another sermon. However, Bill Johnson goes a bit further. In this first bit, Johnson is making the point that most don’t have the full reality of what God ‘has already imparted into us’. By this, he apparently means we’ve not yet fully actualized the seed implanted in us:
…We take such small risks because we live with such ignorance of what we possess. I pray…that the ongoing revelation of God would come upon us as a people to discover what He has already been imparted to us; so that we can reasonably pursue the increase in what we’re lacking, what we’re missing…the real issue is that we live in ignorance of what has already been deposited into our lives.151
This “ongoing revelation”, this “rhema” Word, activated by “the sperma of God” will help us to literally release ‘the Word’ into the atmosphere – as it did for Jesus:
…Jesus said the Kingdom is within you. Now that Kingdom is released in many different ways. It is released through touch, it is released through the prophetic act, it is released through word. In John chapter 6, Jesus said, “My words to you are spirit and they are life.” Whenever Jesus spoke, He spoke what the Father was saying; so, nothing originated [from Him]…152
Johnson goes on with his usual kenotic motif of ‘Jesus did nothing of Himself being totally reliant on the Father in order to model a Spirit-filled life for the believer’. Then he continues, claiming that when Jesus, “the Word made flesh”, spoke, His Words literally became Spirit by taking John 6:63 out of context. He expounds on this proof-text by taking Romans 14:17 out of context as well which is followed by more Scripture twisting in order to make his esoteric point:
…So Jesus makes this declaration: “My words to you are spirit and they are life…Jesus is the Word of God made flesh; but, every time He spoke, the Word of God became Spirit – Word made flesh; Word made Spirit… Why is that important?
…Paul said this in Romans, that the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but it is righteousness, peace and joy IN the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, it’s righteousness, peace and joy IN the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is IN the Holy Spirit. When words become Spirit, the realms of God’s dominion are released over humanity. When we say what the Father is saying then we literally impart Presence through speech. It is not the volume. It is not the profundity. It is the source: Was it from the heart of the Father? If we tap the heart of the Father and we speak, then something is released and it is the person of the Holy Spirit who Himself contains the realm of the King-dom – King’s domain. The realm of God is contained in the realm of the Spirit. When we say what the Father is saying, we change the options of every hearer…
When Jesus said, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” He was letting them know ‘when I talk to you, a reality is released over you that changed your options’. And your answer is within reach. It’s at HAND.153
Is this Levi’s (God of) Force ‘made manifest’ “through the Word”? The similarities are striking indeed. Later in this same monologue, Johnson tells the audience the entire purpose of “all ministry” which is to literally “impart the Person of the Spirit of Christ”. Which “Spirit of Christ” is being imparted?
…It’s my conviction that all ministry can be summed up…can be boiled down to one thing: All ministry is actually imparting the Person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation. It’s actually imparting [ED: Johnson here points to his mouth] the person. “Freely you have received, freely give.” What have you received? Him.154
This doctrine is not found anywhere in the pages of the Holy Bible; however, this concept is remarkably similar to an occult teaching regarding the etheric realm. In Alice Bailey’s Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle, she describes the etheric realm as the panentheistic realm – that substance of ‘god’ which is within all matter. She uses the term omnipresence to describe its nature:
…Omnipresence has its basis in the substance of the universe, and in what the scientists call the ether; this word “ether” is a generic term covering the ocean of energies which are all inter-related and which constitute that one synthetic energy body of our planet.155
In panentheism, God is both transcendent (outside the cosmos) while simultaneously immanent, within all matter. This immanence is the ‘god within’ (or “Christ within”, seed, divine spark) which inter-connects with all others; i.e., the ‘god within’ one person or thing is of the same essence as the ‘god within’ another. This ‘divine immanence’ is the etheric realm, and omnipresence characterizes the nature of the entire etheric body. This then makes omniscience possible to all:
It is a fact that omnipresence, which is a law in nature and based on the fact that the etheric bodies of all forms constitute the world etheric body, makes omniscience possible. The etheric body of the planetary Logos is swept into activity by His directed will; energy is the result of His thoughtform playing in and through His energy body.156
Bailey asserts that this inter-connectness of the panentheistic, etheric realm makes collective omniscience possible since “divine thought” permeates this realm.157 Through “concentration and meditation”, individuals become “inspired Thinkers” with the power to direct this energy thereby acquiring “the clue to ultimate world salvation”:158
The thought-directing energy has for its source a Thinker Who can enter into the divine Mind, owing to His having transcended human limitation; the thought-directed receiver is the man, in exoteric expression, who has aligned his brain, his mind, and his soul.159
…Advanced humanity, the mystics and the knowers, are becoming increasingly aware of the mind which directs the evolutionary process. When this awareness is cultivated and the individual mind is brought consciously into contact with the mind of God as it expresses itself through the illumined mind of the Hierarchy of adepts, we shall have the steady growth of omniscience. This is the whole story of telepathic interplay in the true sense; it portrays the growth of that oligarchy of elect souls who will eventually rule the world, who will be chosen so to rule…160
Going back to Johnson, “The realm of God is contained in the realm of the Spirit”. And, “If we tap the heart of the Father and we speak, then something is released and it is the person of the Holy Spirit who Himself contains the realm of the King-dom – King’s domain”. So, in speaking the “rhema” Word (or through touch or the “prophetic act”), we release the “person of the Holy Spirit”, or, in other words of Johnson, we impart “the person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation”. This is the purpose of “all ministry” as per Johnson. In comparing to the Bailey concept above, it seems plausible that Johnson is releasing the ‘etheric realm’ into the atmosphere through the spoken “Word of God” via the omnipresence inherent in the ether. Let’s compare this to more words of Bailey from another book:
Instruction is being given at this time to a special group of people who have come into incarnation at this critical period of world’s history. They have come in, all at the same time, throughout the world, to do the work of linking up the two planes, the physical and the astral, via the etheric.161
It would be instructive to point out that occult / New Age / New Spirituality teachings are also expecting a “kingdom of god” as illustrated in Alice Bailey’s From Bethlehem to Calvary: The Initiations of Jesus, her 1937 work explaining how Jesus is ‘our model’:
It is time that the Church woke up to its true mission, which is to materialise the kingdom of God on earth, today, here and now…162
…A new kingdom is coming into being: the fifth kingdom in nature [ED: kingdom of God] is materialising, and already has a nucleus functioning on earth in physical bodies.163
Bailey explains this concept of bringing in the “kingdom of god” in yet another book, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, with the book’s title about the intent of ‘externalizing’ the “Spiritual Hierarchy” (of demons) onto the physical plane (the earth):
Hovering today within the aura of our planet are certain great spiritual Forces and Entities, awaiting the opportunity to participate actively in the work of world redemption, re-adjustment and reconstruction. Their Presence is sensed at times by the spiritually-minded people of the world, and Their reality is recognised by the mystics and occultists working in every land. Men and women express this recognition according to the trend of their religious and psychological training and the particular mental or emotional bias…164
The book goes on to note how the different religions await various messianic figures each according to its own particular religious views and how this can create a powerful “thoughtform”. This collusion of thought can hasten an event:
…[W]hen a thoughtform has been constructed of sufficient potency and has been built over a long period of time by the people of the world, a further and final stage becomes ever possible. The form can be rendered so magnetic that it can attract an Energy which will inform it and give it active potency; it can then become a vital link between the subjective world of energy and the objective world of forces and a thing of power, of impelling and guiding activity, and therefore the expression of a Life. This thoughtform, duly informed, becomes a mediating factor, constructed by humanity but animated by the will-to-good of some great and spiritual Entity… 165
Is this the method Johnson has in mind “to impart Presence through speech”? Is this what is meant by his conviction that the ultimate goal of ministry is “actually imparting the Person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation”? While Johnson does not make any explicit or implicit claims of omniscience in believers with his words above, he implies it in the following section (while Bob Jones does so explicitly).
We’ll close this section with additional words of Alice Bailey stating fairly concisely the intents and purposes of the “Spiritual Hierarchy” of which she communed indicating the needed cooperation of humanity:
Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection…man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control…The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….166
Getting Down to the DNA of Spiritual DNA
![dna-blue-helix[1]](https://notunlikelee.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dna-blue-helix1.jpg?w=77&h=82)
In his Shepherd’s Rod 2005, Bob Jones used this same concept of the ‘Word becoming flesh in us again’ with the ‘Word’ being the WoF “rhema” word, i.e. new, ongoing revelation, in referencing spiritual DNA:
The Living Word or Bread of life once again desires to be made flesh through a body of people joined with Him in a holy consummation. As we live not by natural bread alone but by the living Word proceeding from the mouth of God, the bread of abundant life, even so the hidden truth of godliness will become part of our spiritual DNA.
…Mysteries reserved deep in the heart of the Father, locked away in the mind of Christ, and dispersed by the Spirit who searches the deep things, await the passionate embrace of a latter-day company of overcoming, holy, victorious ones…167
Since Jesus identified Himself as the “Bread of Life” [John 6:35, 48], it is clear Jones is claiming that some believers will, at some point, be just like Jesus as “the Word made flesh”, thus mirroring Johnson above. Apparently, in living by the “living Word proceeding from the mouth of God” the spiritual DNA is expanded.
In part II it was shown how Bob Jones differentiated between the physical body which contains our DNA as compared to “His [God’s] genetics” / conscience / spirit within each person that has “authority over DNA”. This is subsequently added to the human body (clay). Jones’ teaching appears to be a ‘Christianized’ version of the esoteric/occult doctrine of reincarnation.
Apparently, “spiritual DNA” provides the means with which one can attain the literal mind of Christ (omniscience) as Jones also mentions in his teaching at the 2011 Piercing the Darkness prophetic conference:
…But there are Christians who are maturin’ now in their mind to where they’ll have the mind of Christ, and they’ll have the answers…168
This presumably occurs when one taps into “the Wisdom of the Ages” [see part II and below]. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that Jones has in mind ‘the Christ’ which is part of the false Trinity of Levi, i.e. the one which “took full possession” of Jesus of Nazareth (or a similar teaching). This then would mean that when Jones speaks of ‘Christ’ “coming IN my people” [see part II] – referencing the false parousia – he’s referring to this same false Christ.
To reiterate, and perhaps make clearer, here’s additional context of Jones’ “God sperm seed” statement in which his claim is that this “spirit of God” comes into everyone at conception:
…Everyone of you, when you were conceived in your mother’s womb, a spirit of God came into you. It’s your human spirit which is your conscience. When this came into you, this spirit was as mature as it’ll ever be because this spirit came from God. And, this is what’s been guiding your life – your conscience, your human spirit. Man is six things. He’s mind, will, and emotions. He is human spirit, Holy Spirit and Wisdom of the Ages. What happens if you begin to tap into the Wisdom of the Ages? In that little bitty God sperm seed – 1st Peter 1:23 is all the Wisdom of the Ages. That genetic thing – you have authority over DNA…169
When Jones speaks of those Christians “who are maturing’ now in their mind” he’s speaking of those who are in tune with this ‘spirit’ which has “been guiding your life”, a “spiritual guide” which is providing these ‘new revelations’. For those not familiar with New Age or esoteric/occult terminology, “spiritual guide” is the term used most commonly for a disincarnate spirit which guides the individual (which can seem like a ‘god within’). Jones adds more to the above (quoted in part II):
But what He put in here [ED: the body] was not DNA. It was His [God’s] genetics that has authority over DNA… For this conscience of yours is really your spiritual guide. God gave this to you to guide your lives. Don’t violate your conscience. In certain places it’s called your spirit. Especially in 2nd Corinthians 7:1 it’s called spirit and flesh.170
Jones is reiterating that it’s the spirit which is “as mature as it will ever be” which was “put in here [the body]” at conception. It seems Jones’ “God sperm seed” is the agent which activates “His [God’s] genetics”, “your conscience”, which allows one to “tap into the Wisdom of the Ages”. This “God sperm seed” is apparently what activates the “spiritual DNA” which “has authority over DNA”. This appears to be very similar to, if not the same as, Johnson’s teaching on the “sperma of God”.
Johnson sets up his account of the “sperma of God” by explaining that ‘God’s Word’ brings conflict; however, again, Johnson is not speaking of Scripture. He is referring to the “rhema” word as in the Word of Faith teachings as noted above:
…This story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil. And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God…171
Johnson’s point is essentially that other concerns “choke out” the ‘rhema Word’ preventing the “seed of God’s Word”, which is the “sperma of God”, from growing in the soil of the human. With this teaching, he may well be promoting, in a more subtle way, the same doctrine of reincarnation that Jones has explained a bit more explicitly in part II. The following quotes will help explain this a bit more.
In his book When Heaven Invades Earth, Bill Johnson speaks of “spiritual DNA” in two different passages. Bracketed comments are inserted for explanation:
God is our Father, and we inherit His genetic code [at conception]. Every believer has written into his or her spiritual DNA [activated by the “sperma of God”] the desire for the supernatural….172
It is abnormal for a Christian not to have an appetite for the impossible. It has been written into our spiritual DNA [activated by the “sperma of God”] to hunger for the impossibilities around us to bow at the name of Jesus.173
God’s “genetic code” is the not yet activated “spiritual DNA” that all receive at conception. This “spiritual DNA” is activated when one begins to listen to the ‘Word of God’, or “conscience” / ‘spirit’ as Jones would put it, thus beginning the ‘born again’ experience. Here are some additional quotes:
…Exposure to the supernatural works of God changes the capacity of leaders to lead, thereby changing the bent of the people of God to pursue Him.
Such exposure is the equivalent of a spiritual change of DNA. Something is altered in that person that enables him or her to lead in a way that the people of God inherit a heart for God through the leader’s influence.174
It is said that when a kernel of corn is planted, every kernel that grows has the exact same DNA as the original kernel in the ground. Jesus became the ultimate seed that was planted in death, and we were born again by the same Spirit that raised Him from the dead. Every born-again believer has the DNA of Christ. That is amazing!
This DNA of Christ in us is practical in that it enables the Godlike capacity to dream…He [Jesus] was planted to redeem people unto something. And that unto something involves accurately and fully representing who Jesus is on earth as in Heaven. We have His DNA and therefore manifest His face to the world…175
In this context, ‘born again’ refers to the point at which the ‘spiritual DNA’ is activated. Once again, Johnson stresses how Jesus was raised by the Spirit rather than by the Father AND Christ Himself as per orthodoxy. And this same ‘Spirit’ provides the ‘born again’ experience of every ‘believer’. Johnson stresses this elsewhere in the same book: “The Holy Spirit in us is the same Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. He is the Spirit of the resurrected Christ.”176 Johnson emphasizes ‘the Spirit’. Could Johnson be referring to the same “Christ Spirit” that Benjamin Crème had in mind as indicated at the end of part IIIa?
Also, his assertion that we should be “accurately and fully representing who Jesus is on earth as in Heaven” in this context has overtones of the heretical Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) teaching. And the ‘kernel of corn’ comparison reads much like the “seed of God’s Word”, “sperma of God” teaching above. Johnson reiterates this teaching in a Charisma piece from last year’s special issue featuring Bethel Church:
When the Spirit of the resurrected Christ took up residence in our bodies, all of heaven positioned itself to see what we would conquer in His name. Resurrection power is in our nature, in our spiritual DNA. When we were born again, we received the same spiritual DNA as Jesus. His resurrection power now is to dwell in us through the Holy Spirit…177
This “resurrection power” described above was discussed in Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part II illustrating likely roots in MSoG teaching which has a parallel teaching in the occult / New Age / New Spirituality which itself is predicated on the false doctrine of reincarnation.
Let’s compare Johnson’s teachings with those of Eternal Vision Ministries which adheres to the following creed: “We believe that all of creation was designed and set forth to fulfill God’s Eternal Purpose”.178 Their teachings are reminiscent of other hyper-charismatic ministries with a decidedly New Age bent. There’s no explicit mention of the Gospel while there’s a vague “Gospel of Eternity” promoted. The following is from their teaching “The Function of the Bride”:
It is clear that growth cannot be accurately measured by the number of doctrines we learn or the amount of knowledge we achieve. Spiritual growth is measured by the spiritual life we have received from Him. This is the Zoe Life that IS Christ in us. This is the Life that comes into us as the sperma of God when we are born again. This “sperma” is the living and abiding word of God. It is also called the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of His Son. The same “sperma” that was impregnated into Mary to develop into the Man Christ Jesus also comes into us. The growth of that “sperma” was the incarnation of God in a human body.
God’s goal for the church is the incarnation of Christ IN His body now on earth. For that reason God begins by infusing the “sperma” of God which is the living and abiding Word of God into each of us individually. Then individual “members” are assembled into a local body called the church. The corporate church is said to be the fullness of Him that fills all in all. In other words this church is the manifestation of Christ.
Jesus said if you have seen Me you have seen the Father because He was the manifestation of the Father on earth. Hopefully we will be able to say if you have seen me you have seen Christ, at least if we see His fulness we will see the “corporate Christ”. A “body with many members”.179
This looks a LOT like Bill Johnson’s teachings. Not surprisingly, Eternal Vision asserts that Jesus was formed from the same “sperma” that ‘infuses’ “each of us individually”. This correlates to Johnson’s teaching of Jesus as explained above regarding Jesus as the “rhema” Word made flesh by this “living and abiding word” indwelling Jesus rather than Jesus as the second Person of the Trinity made flesh via the hypostatic union. Of course, this also correlates with the teaching of Levi above.
In an article titled Creating Heaven on Earth, is an interview of New Ager Jean Adrienne by Asa Wulfe in which they discuss bodily ascension as a way of creating Heaven on Earth in the here and now. Note the similarity in title as compared with Johnson’s When Heaven Invades Earth. In the Adrienne/Wulfe interview, Adrienne describes the process of ascension as being “started by activating additional strands of DNA – the spiritual DNA”:
…[I]f additional strands are activated, we awaken new abilities, gifts, and powers that have been dormant…Perhaps our DNA could be a ladder into the Fifth Dimension…180
This “Fifth Dimension” is analogous to Bailey’s “Fifth Kingdom,” also known as the “Kingdom of God”, which is only accessed by achieving the fourth (and higher) initiations with the fourth initiation resulting in the attainment of a manifested son of God. [see “Christ” in the New Age article on this site]:
Certainly, everything that we are physically is encoded in the DNA. We have physical DNA in our cells, and spiritual DNA that is in our energy field. These two energies have to be connected, just as the left and right hemispheres of the brain must become integrated and balanced as we move into the Fifth Dimension.
All of our inner knowledge is stored in the DNA…When we become authentic, we no longer search outside ourselves for ‘true knowledge.’ It is within us.181
Bill Johnson’s friend Che Ahn of HRock Church has clearly defined spiritual DNA in an old Ministry Today article:
While no two of us are exactly alike physically, it would appear we have the same spiritual DNA, according to the Scriptures. Like Adam and all of humanity to follow him, the image of the Godhead has been passed down…
…[C]an we fathom the untold significance of having our Father’s DNA?
I no longer merely confess that I am the righteousness of Christ. I realize that with His DNA in me through His blood, I could be nothing else. I realize the attributes of His DNA reside in me—whether dormant or active.
No longer do I see the fruit of the Spirit as something we “will” by self-effort or following the law. Rather, I see that in my DNA, God has already placed genes of love, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. They are waiting to be activated by the Holy Spirit.182
This sounds much like what Bill Johnson is stating although it explains some aspects a bit more clearly. From another New Age / New Spirituality site we see, once again, the same concepts:
In our current DNA structure, we have two visible strands, which are called backbone DNA, but all the other 10 other strands are present…According to Esoteric teachings, the first two strands are Physical DNA, the other ten strands are Spiritual DNA.
…Activating your dormant DNA, which in time will also give you access to the secrets and mysteries of which you are and what your life-purpose is, will allow you to realize your full potential here on Earth.183
Divine Nature Activated
Bill Johnson’s friend Todd Bentley defined “DNA” as “Divine Nature Activated” under the Supernatural Training Center tab on his old Fresh Fire Canada site. This seems an apt way to define the activation of the “spiritual DNA”:
Christ wants us to know Him intimately by the power of the Holy Spirit and to catch His vision for our lives. His desire is to build godly character into our DNA – Divine Nature Activated….184

Also, his now-defunct Fresh Fire Canada site featured his “Joel’s Army Internship” in which was found the following quote from Jerame Nelson of Living at His Feet Ministries:
…I have experienced a true impartation of the Fire of God, as well as faith to see the divine nature of Jesus Christ manifest in the earth today…185
Do we have a divine nature? Scripture shows we have a fallen, sinful human nature but never does the Bible say or even allude to humans having a divine nature. Yes, the Holy Spirit is in the true believer which makes us “partakers of the divine nature” [2nd Peter 1:4 NKJV] but only through Him. The word partake does not mean become. Yes, we can say “Christ in us, the hope of glory” [Col 1:27]; but, this does not mean we become Christ or divine. Only the Trinitarian Godhead is divine.
However, as explained earlier, esoteric/occult teaching is such that man has a dual nature – one human and one inherent but latent divine nature which must be actualized through self-effort. Once an individual acknowledges their inherent divinity, then they can work towards actualizing it. This seems like the best explanation for Bill Johnson’s concepts of the “sperma of God”, “Word made flesh”, “spiritual DNA” and the other material brought forth in this article.
The significance of “Divine Nature Activated” is explained quite well by New Ager John Lewis of Age to Age Ministries:
Citizens of planet Earth, you have been incarnated in your present physical form at this time to witness and participate in the Transformation of human kind. This phase of human evolution is to bring him into full manifestation of his Divineness…
You are not here by accident, chance, or coincident. Your parents were only convenient for you arriving in the physical 3 dimensional existence you now experience. You came through your mother, but you came from God. Parents gave you the physical and biological stuff to house who you really are until the appointed time of the Divine Nature Activated. You are being summoned and wooed to an experience that transcends what is known as the human experience. Therefore, arise and shine because the Light within is coming to full expression and the glory of God will become more visible on your physical being.186
Once again, one can almost hear the refrain of the popular song by the soul/rock group The 5th Dimension “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In”. Clearly, this is very similar, if not the same as, Manifest Sons of God teaching. Continuing with Lewis in his subsection titled, “DIVINE NATURE ACTIVATED”:
‘We are partakers of his divine nature.’ 97% of our DNA is unused, not active; therefore, the science communities don’t understand it. I believe that the discovery of DNA at the time it was discovered was carefully orchestrated by God in man….
…The 97% of your DNA that’s not activated is GOD waiting to be activated in man. You have the information and intelligence of the Adam the son of God encoded in your DNA. Access and activation to this information will cause you to live as Adam the God-man in the Garden of your Be-ing….
One will only be able to fulfill the Divine purpose when he is walking in awareness of his own divinity. It is our belief system that hinders us from being the Gods we are…187
John Lewis’ teachings sure do resemble those of Johnson, Jones, Ahn and Bentley, do they not?
Part IV will discuss how some other teachings of Johnson resemble those of occult / New Age / New Spirituality and will conclude this series.
117Rudolph, Kurt; trans. R McLachlan Wilson Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism. © 1977 Koehler & Amelang; translation (from German) of second, revised and expanded version © 1984 T&T Clark Ltd, Edinburgh; 1987 (1st paperback), HarperCollins, New York, NY; pp 159-160, 305-306. Craig Keener, in his commentary on John [The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume One. 2003, 1st Softcover Ed, 2010, Hendrickson, Peabody, MA; pp 339-363], exhaustively covers the various possibilities for the Gospel writer’s reason for using the term Logos. Keener contends that any Gnostic influence on the Gospel writer is “not probable” [p 340].
118Keener; p 341
119Keener; p 341
120Keener; p 344
121Keener; p 345
122Keener; pp 347-363. While Keener is convinced of the parallel, Andreas Kostenberger [Kostenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Encountering Biblical Series). July 2009 (8th prtg (paperback), (1999)), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 52-57] is less so as he sees “Wisdom” as a divine attribute instead [p 53]. Kostenberger believes the parallel is not close enough and, “if no closer parallel can be found, it may be necessary to conclude that personified Wisdom constitutes at least a remote parallel to the characterization in John” [p 53].
123Kostenberger, Encountering John; pp 52-56
124Kostenberger, Andreas J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. July 2009 (4th prtg (2004)), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; p 41
125Keener; pp 140-142. Keener notes that “John’s literary freedom” [p 140] makes it easier to date the Gospel.
126Bercot, David W., Ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. © 1988 David Bercot, November 2000 (3rd prtg), Hendrickson, Peabody, MA; p 91
127“whizzpopping” YouTube video, Bill Johnson – Friendship with God. Uploaded November 1, 2009 , taken from Bethel Church in Redding, CA, <http://www.ibethel.tv/watch/399/open-heavens-conference/2009/10/14?session=113> Open Heavens Conference October 15, 2009, morning session, Bill Johnson <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZ_ctiwlE>; 1:24 – 1:37; as accessed 04/23/12. Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
128Johnson, Clark, The Essential Guide to Healing; p 75. Emphasis added.
129“ewenhuffman” Jesus is our Model- Sermon of the week 20 Dec 09. Posted December 23, 2009, “Bill Johnson sermons for downloading”, mp3 audio, taken from <http://www.ibethel.org/> December 20, 2009, original sermon titled “Jesus is Our Model” <http://ewenhuffman.podbean.com/2009/12/23/jesus-is-our-model-sermon-of-the-week-20-dec-09/> 24:07 – 24:24 (Johnson continues reiterating this thought until 24:57 at which he point he explains this via Matthew 13); as accessed 04/21/12. Emphasis added.
130Bock, Darrell L. Luke, Volume 1 – 1:1—9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). © 1994 Darrell L. Bock, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 372-374
131“ewenhuffman” 24:57 – 25:17. Emphasis added.
132“ewenhuffman” 25:17 – 26:18. Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
133Dowling; p 6
134Dowling; p 6
135Dowling; p 6
136Dowling; p 8
137“ewenhuffman” 26:19 – 27:11. Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
138“ewenhuffman” 27:30 – 27:48.
139“ewenhuffman” 29:11 – 29:28. Emphasis added.
140“ewenhuffman” 32:14 – 32:17. Emphasis added
141Walker, Benjamin Gnosticism: Its History and Influence. © 1983 Benjamin Walker, 1989 (1st published 1983 Aquarian Press), Crucible/Thorsons Publishing Group, Northamptonshire, England; p 62
142Walker; p 62
143Unity School of Christianity Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. 1931 (1955, 8th pr.), Unity School of Christianity (no publisher specified), Lee’s Summit, MO; p 388. Emphasis added.
144Cumbey, Constance E. “An Evening with David Spangler” New Age Monitor. September 1988, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pointe Publishers, Center Line, MI; p 8
145Cumbey, “Evening with Spangler”; p 10
146Cumbey, “Evening with Spangler”; p 12
147Dowling; p 8
148“ewenhuffman” 30:21 – 31:01. Importantly, Johnson indicates Jesus refrains from using the power of “the anointing” as opposed to stating Jesus refrained from using His inherent divinity which would be the predominate historical orthodox view.
149“ewenhuffman” 31:01 – 33:00
150“ewenhuffman” 35:03 – 36:04
151“ChasingRiver” YouTube video Bill Johnson – The Resting Place – VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE. Uploaded October 1, 2011, taken from GodTV <http://www.god.tv/node/503> and <http://www.god.tv/node/504> , venue: International Church of Las Vegas (ICLV), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQmLuG-Exo&feature=related> 11:17 – 12:04. Emphasis added. As accessed 04/23/12
152“ChasingRiver”; 12:14 – 12:39. Emphasis added.
153“ChasingRiver”; 13:09 – 15:08. Emphasis added.
154“ChasingRiver”; 34:40 – 35:08. Emphasis added.
155Bailey, Telepathy; p 2
156Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
157Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
158Bailey, Telepathy; p 6. Emphasis added.
159Bailey, Telepathy; pp 6-7
160Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
161Bailey, Alice A. Initiation, Human and Solar. © 1951 Lucis, NY, 4th paperback ed, 1980 (First printing 1922), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 67. Emphasis in original.
162Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 210
163Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 254
164Bailey, Externalisation; p 222
165Bailey, Externalisation; pp 222-223
166Bailey, Externalisation; p 588
167Jones, Bob & Paul Keith Davis Shepherd’s Rod 2005. © 2002 Bob Jones and Paul Keith Davis, Bynum Printing, Waynesboro, MS; pp 15-16. These “Shepherd’s Rods” are purportedly ‘prophetic words’ Jones receives each year on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. What is the significance of Yom Kippur as the Day of Atonement to the Christian when Jesus’ blood sacrifice IS the Day of Atonement and the fulfillment of this Jewish holy day? The year of Jones’ “Shepherd’s Rods” is always the year following Yom Kippur, in this case the actual date was September 25, 2004 (from page 1 of the booklet). Paul Keith Davis is of White Dove Ministries.
168Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 5:02 – 5:11. Emphasis added.
169Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 10:53 – 11:59. Emphasis added.
170Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 24:48 – 25:30. Emphasis added.
171Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 26:19 – 26:38. Emphasis added.
172Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 81. Emphasis added.
173Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 25. Emphasis added.
174Johnson, Release Power of Jesus; p 140. Emphasis added.
175Johnson, Clark, Essential Guide to Healing; p 147. Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
176Johnson, Clark, Essential Guide to Healing; p 135. Emphasis in original.
177Johnson, Bill, “Super-Natural by Nature” Charisma. June 09, 2011, online version <http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/component/content/article/1571-features/31221-super-natural-by-nature> par 13. As accessed 4/26/12.
178Eternal Vision Ministries, home page <http://www.eternalvisionministries.com>. As accessed 4/27/12.
179Eternal Vision Ministries “The Function of the Bride”, <http://www.eternalvisionministries.com/_writings/writings/10022_bride_function.html> par 4-6. Emphasis added. As accessed 4/27/12.
180“The Spirit of Ma’at” website by Asa Wulfe “Creating Heaven on Earth with Jean Adrienne”, Vol 4, No 5, n.d. <http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/dec4/adrienne.htm> par 13. As accessed 4/27/12.
181Wulfe; par 14-17. Emphasis added. As accessed 4/27/12.
182Ahn, Che “Spiritual DNA” Column: First Priority, Ministry Today; June 30, 2007, online version <http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/first-priority/15390-spiritual-dna>; par 4-8. Emphasis added.
183Humanity Healing Network website, ‘hhteam’, “Spiritual DNA”, <http://humanityhealing.net/2010/08/spiritual-dna/>; par 6-7, 15. Emphasis added. As accessed 4/27/12.
184Fresh Fire Canada website, Todd Bentley, “Supernatural Training Center” courtesy Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine),<http://web.archive.org/web/20070826155456/www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=4&pid=994>; par 3. Emphasis in original. As accessed 4/27/12.
185Fresh Fire Canada website, Todd Bentley, “Joel’s Army Internship” ‘Testimonies’, courtesy Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine), <http://web.archive.org/web/20070825050149/www.freshfire.ca/?Id=943&pid=994>; emphasis added. As accessed 4/27/12
186Age to Age Ministries, John Lewis, “DNA 2002: Divine Nature Activated” <http://www.atam.org/DNA.html>; par 1-2. Emphasis added. As accessed 4/27/12.
187Age to Age Ministries, John Lewis; par 21, 24, 32. Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added. As accessed 4/27/12
No don’t have any documentation. Think I read about it somewhere, and it is stuck in my brain. So that may not be factual.
This is what I read somewhere: There are 7 Mountains of Influence in Culture…
In 1975, Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, and Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission, had lunch together in Colorado. God simultaneously gave each of these change agents a message to give to the other. During that same time frame Francis Schaeffer was given a similar message. That message was that if we are to impact any nation for Jesus Christ, then we would have to affect the seven spheres, or mountains of society that are the pillars of any society.
Found here: http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/
So that is someone claiming he made reference to that. So they are claiming he referenced it but I have not seen a citation or know for fact that he did. Just that he is claimed to have done so. And it would not shock me. It does not shock me one bit r/t Bill Bright and Loren Cunningham given varied threads and interconnections. There is a lot of flawed theology within modern evangelicalism.
Arwen and Peacebringer…I was not referencing anyone in particular in my post. I’m sorry I was not clear on that. It was generally to the in-exhaustive supply of C.S.Lewis’ idolatrous groupies who hang on his words as if he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, those referenced by Steve: Hundreds of writers and reviewers have written countless books demonstrating that there are lots of ways to interpret Lewis’ work, including from a deeply occult viewpoint.
I myself have ignored to some extent the admonition to avoid those who bring in damnable heresies…and have been awakened to my oversight by the Herescope Quantum series.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
There are men who have slipped in among the end time prophecy teachers that I have listened to for years, who were once Biblically oriented and have gradually introduced mythology under the guise of research into the mix. Do we need the so called deep secrets of Satan and occult dogmas to figure out how to use these tools to overcome the enemy? I think not. We must be very careful in discerning the difference between research for the exposition of error and the introduction of science falsely so called, giving promotion and credibility to the likes of mythology.
In the case of C.S. Lewis…do we need to see the teachings of Christ clarified to us through the medium of mythology? Is that a good foundation on which to build our Christian faith?
1 Timothy 6:19-21 (King James Version)
19Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely? so called:
21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
As for suggesting that you are followers of C.S.Lewis…I have no idea.
My defence has been to uphold the supreme authority of the Scriptures and I see in the writings of Lewis, a departure from that, as I have referenced above. If you disagree, you wouldn’t be the first. But as for my part:
2 Corinthians 11:12-14 (New International Version)
12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
BTW – what is the best method of apologetics? I submit our own reasoning is no match for the genius of a demon. My brand of apologetics is to hold the teachings of men up to the light of Scripture. If it passes the test I will listen to them, I will acknowledge them. But if I hold their teachings up to Scripture and they do not pass the test then I will avoid them. C.S.Lewis does not pass the test as he continues to cast doubt on the Word, at times, in a very imaginative, playful and flippant way, much like, IMO, I would expect from a doctrine proffered by demon. Lewis, therefore, has nothing further to say to me.
Isaiah 8:20
Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Carolyn, All I was saying is we need to be careful. Call what is, what it is. There is much that is difficult to sift through. Take my recent comment r/t Schaeffer and 7 mountains. I do not know for a fact that he made such as statement. I do know he is claimed. There is much that is good and much that is ill. Even within one author. For example Oswald Chamber is considered largely orthodox. But in his book Christian Psychology make references to some things not biblical and states them as fact (r/t satan). Martin Luther is a noted anti-semetic. There is much that is broken and ill. The bible directs us to be sober minded and alert. We are to sort all and test all in accordance with the scripture and grasp hold of that which is good.
Peacebringer – And all I’m saying is that there are absolutes. I’ve talked to many non-Christians who can talk to me forever as long as I will agree that there are no absolutes when it comes to ANY religious faith. The conversation becomes ultra tense whenever it becomes apparent that I believe there is an absolute.
Same thing with false teachers. As long as you are willing to give the false teacher some leeway in doubtful disputations, they will continue to spout their heresies. But the Scripture is full of “absolute” language that cuts the ground from under them. For example:
Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
My sphere of teachers would be ever so great if I could only accept the good things they say and ignore the bad, but Scripture clearly tells us that once we have identified error, spoken to it and confronted it and the teacher still persists in it, we are to have nothing more to do with them.
I am well versed in the original source materials as well as numerous reviews, opinions and commentaries on the works in question. So, at the risk of being called a bogart, I’ll add this one last piece as my final offering on this subject. I do have other responsibilities which I have been neglecting so I won’t be back here for awhile. Lord willing, I will check back in down the road as I really want to read what others might have to say and am also very much looking forward to Craig’s next installment.
In the original 1977 Star Wars debut film, (curiously titled Episode IV: “A New Hope”), the master teacher, Obi-Wan-Kenobi, willingly sacrifices himself so that LUKE (a christian name chosen NOT by coincidence) can escape from the clutches of the evil Darth Vader. And just like Aslan does, Obi-Wan is resurrected, appearing in numerous sequels, sometimes as a ghostly figure, mentoring and instructing, and other times as a younger man (due to the odd chronology of the series).
Although all these works may contain numerous readily identifiable allusions to the gospel, as Craig pointed out none of these are on par with or promote sound Biblical doctrine. The whole purpose of any discernment ministry is to instruct and warn believers that just because someone labels something “Christian” or “good” doesn’t make it so. Kudos to those who take the time to study the original works or teachings of someone like BIll Johnson, or C.S. Lewis, in order to then share their insight and conclusions for the edification and protection of their brethren.
The readers here are certainly justified and wise not to take my word for any of this. None here really know me. But when a Christian who has a long track record of demonstrating exceptional wisdom and discernment, i.e. Berit Kjos, publishes tons of info warning us about something, i.e. C.S. Lewis, we should consider their viewpoint very seriously. The “I have to see everything for myself before I believe” attitude was common even among the disciples. Thomas did not trust the discernment of his own brothers and sisters. Yet he was still loved by Jesus, who did not leave him in ignorance and doubt but bade him “touch me”.
To wrap this up, I am certain that the Bethel ministry team will likely offer some delicious version of Turkish Delight to the kids at Camp Narnia. Will it taste good? Sure. Will they label it “God candy” or something equally spiritual sounding? Uh huh, yep. But they won’t be feeding those kids the flesh of Jesus Christ, of that I am absolutely positive. Call me harsh, call me judgmental, but that’s how I see it. And I’ll only change my mind if Jesus takes me to Camp Narnia himself and says, “eat, for this IS indeed my flesh”.
Carolyn,
Absolutely there are absolutes. And there also areas we get messed up in due to our own thoughts or setting an absolute (calvanism/Armianism) that is not set that way. Even the approach to sacraments is of that nature. There are a couple of errors that can happen. One we know readily. Lacking discernment. It is the equivalent with AIDS in the body. No immune system. There is also an other error. THat error is where folks (not saying you just to be clear or anyone here) look at everything and treat it as a threat and attack parts of the body. Couple that with the Ephesus church where they examine for truth but miss out on the love portion. We need to treat as threat that which is a threat and examine. There is problematic stuff with CS Lewis. He did purposefully incorporate pagan thought into the Narnia Chronicles. It in all essence is double minded. CS Lewis should be approached with caution and is one of many that is heightened to high heights from the view of man. So of it his own doing or own flawed thinking. I cannot judge or determine if he was thorn or wheat. I can list others with positve impacts on many such as the already mentioned Oswald Chamber and Martin Luther. Everyone needs examination. All of us our flawed. Now that being said there are sure deceivers out there as well actively engaging in deception. The webs of deception in mordern evangelicalism is wide. It cast aspersions on the whole of the modern church. It has lead to many leaving the church as a whole as see the varied tentacles and webs of deceit. One such example is even the idolotary of USA and the political nature. IWTT posted a poignant quote on the dialectism that is prevelant which adequeately describes the iron/clay existence. We are all growing. I really appreciate Craig’s work and effort as he looks into the details when way to often (even on my end) it can be a quick decision without the established facts.
Each us need to grow in our relationship with God. One concerning aspect that is sitting with me at the moment, is given all the twists and turns and the neo-gnostic stuff out there, any relating with God can be viewed as suspect. Some may hold the view of read the Bible only when the Holy Spirit does have a role. We worship in spirit and truth. They go together but it has been so twisted and ways of man embraced and those that elevate man and self pursued rather than surrender to the King of Kings. The lust of flesh, lust of eyes, and pride of life is pervasive. And yet, the state of church is either chasing after the titalating or engaging in the ongoing recycling of thoughts, songs and words meant for one time and place. It is amazing that anyone truely follows the King of Kings, and yet, each faction of the church has those that follow and repent when made aware of the errors (in time.) God is refining each of us. There is falsehood out there, but rest assured if you pursue God and love truth, you will find the truth.
And yes, we are to expose that which is faulty. There are some that you know are teaching what is contray to sound doctrine and have nothing to do with them. I will have nothing to do with Bill Johnson. I have nothing to do with TBN Crowd and others. Now others, I cast aside. What do I do with Martin Luther, for example. He has written much that is sound. Since he was a sinful antisemite, have nothing to do with any of his words thoughts, or do I examine for what can teach. How about watchman nee? Oswald Chambers? And so on?
It was good to take a closer look at Romans 16:17 even in this. Love the imagery being used there.
1st direction is to make a through examination. We are to attend to those threats. We are to examine throughly (like at Craig is doing) and then attend those there engaging in specific actions. Well those that are causing two things. Leading you down a different path (division) and impeding growth down the right path. So in other words, those that point to a different way and impede growing in God, stay away from. Remember we also are to follow 1 Thessalonians 5:21 test everything, cling to what is good.
My point is not that there is not error in CS Lewis. In fact I agree there is error. Rather, we need to examine throughly. It is to readily easy to accept something as stated. I love that there are those that do identify errors, even if they do so in ways I don’t agree, because there are things that exist on examination. Sadly, there have been many deviations and different paths taken and I believe the apostles would be horrified over what is considered “church” today. Those are my thoughts and they are not about any here, but rather talking truthfully about matters. It is all connected and the webs are vast. It is no wonder that many people retreat and live in isolation. It is no wonder folks go way off another path. And I think I have rambled far to long and perhaps getting a bit off track, but God has his intent and purpose in the discussion, so take from it what you will.
Steve, please do not take my posts and indicating a lack of value or a “Seeing it for myself.” I already know of the problems and dangers of CS Lewis and varied theological bents and what he has written and done. I have said that and given caution. I have commented on the danger of making broad statements that are twisting even of the persons position such as CS lewis teaches “universalism” when he comes from a whole different tact. Berit is good for some stuff, but a person who has flaws none the less. I agree totally of the danger of the Narnia camp and even the line of thinking that exists. And for Craig and Berit and others who do work giving details, great. I would also though give warning not to discourage anyone from examining for self, throughly, as we are all to do that. Each and every one. We all need to rightly divide word of truth. Even in this discussion the fact that Francis Schaeffer is attributed to the 7 mountains but there is no documenation indicating same.
You refenence star wars and I remember at the time many books that point out “Christianity” in the force or star wars. I remember it at the time. Sacrifice is used in many stories of the world. You even find that element fleshed out more in the newer 3, as it is centered in the core world system with roots in the eastern and theosophic lines of thought. It is throughout the stories in the world at large. Certianly I appreciate the things you have pointed out and give much to examine and pray and sort out. Sadly, the more the webs of deception are pulled the more connected they are and the sad state of the modern church is laid bare. It brings pain and weeping over where things have stepped off. So please Steve do not take the comments as throwing water on what you have to say. Not the intent. Just a call for accuracy in examination and discussion of what is wrong. I wouldn’t even have known to point out certain differences if not aware of difficulities as well.
Also noteworthy that Berit Kjos does have a lot of useful information on the problematic stuff with CS Lewis and certainly stuff never run across in limited exposure. I think I have read Narnia, the Space Trilogy, Great Divorce, and Abolition of Pain. Interesting the lust for the occult described as well as the theosophy roots.
Okay some fascinating thoughts or things to examine as went back over to Berit sites and review so of her examination. And while I do not agree with some of Berit’s views on things (such as USA perspective) she does an excellent job of giving some details. One thing that caught my attention was that of the mention of Lillith. She referenced “George McDonald’s fiction” and CS Lewis praise for his writing. The white witch is reportd to be a descendent of “Lillith” and one of Jinn (Fyi Jinn are a very pronounced part of Muslim belief) in Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe. Well, besides the muslim connection, Lillith is a significant element of Kabbalah. She is described as demon who was adams 1st wife and Jinn are her children. Well, the female demon and the varied twists at some level point to some connection with Bethel in particular. I am not sure what exactly but there is something there. Also thinking and praying over things I do note that I never read the entirity of Narania as a child. I read space trilogy as a pre-teen. Not reread as an adult. I do remember when reading LWW and doing so as part of educaiton in private christian school as an elementary student. I didn’t understand why some of symbols were used like a witch, but since was part of Christian curriculum figured it “okay.” At any rate, I digress a bit. Just wonder if there is some deeper “Lilith connection” in the views of BJ, bethel and others… no idea why but hope something is triggered and more sorted out.
Steve,
I know you didn’t say that Wiccans worship Lucifer. I was referring to your comment here:
“The guiding force in Lewis’ work, Aslan, can be viewed as either Christ or Lucifer. That fact explains why the books are popular among both Christians and Wiccans. Likewise the White Witch can be viewed as the embodiment of evil, Lucifer, or as a representation of the ruling authority of the God of the Bible. These double meanings were fully intended by the author himself. They are a true demonstration of C.S. Lewis intellectual, theological, and literary brilliance. Yet the scriptures tell us that, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).”
I was trying to say that since Wiccans didn’t intentionally worship Lucifer, it is hard for me to imagine how they would conceive of Aslan as Lucifer.
Okay, you wrote:
“Arwen, I did not say that Wiccans worship Lucifer. Again, you seem to have missed the main point that Craig surmised so succinctly. Wiccans acknowledge duality, two sides of “the force”, the “Yin/Yang” concept. Practitioners of “the craft” accept the concept of both white and black “magic”. They define good and evil as a perpetual dance, a balancing act, that sometimes swings one way, sometimes another. They also acknowledge that both good and evil, darkness and light, are inherent in each individual. This is exemplified in the Narnia character you have used as an example, Edmund.”
My response:
All right — I can see your point with this, but I don’t see Lewis as portraying good and evil in such a way here. When I read the Narnia books, it seems that good and evil is pretty clear cut. Aslan is always understood to be the final winner. It is never a question. I don’t see this as being a Star Wars force concept with Edmund.
You wrote:
“Surely you realize that by no stretch of the imagination is Edmund saved by the blood of Aslan, but by his own efforts at rebalancing his own innate inner nature. Aslan merely confronts Edmund, then offers encouragement and advice, finally welcoming Edmund as he swings back to the “good” side of the force.”
My response:
Actually, I do think that Lewis was trying to say that Edmund was saved by the blood of Aslan. Otherwise, why have Aslan suffer and die in Edmund’s place? Even the Disney version of it in the movie kept this part of the story. In the script, I’m pretty sure it is something like “life for a life.” Clearly, blood needed to be spilled in order to pay the price of what Edmund did in joining with the White Witch and for betraying his siblings. Aslan considered his behavior to be treason. Aslan died instead of Edmund. The law of Narnia demanded death for treason against Aslan.
If all Edmund needed to do was “rebalance his own innate inner nature” then Aslan wouldn’t have needed to die in Edmund’s place. It is true that Aslan confronted Edmund, and seemed to offer encouragement and advice — but it is also true that Edmund felt truly sorry about what he had done and knew that it was wrong. He knew that he’d sinned against Aslan. Aslan did welcome Edmund back, but not without the price of Edmund’s sin needing to be paid in full. It was just that Aslan paid the price instead of Edmund.
You wrote:
“While I certainly acknowledge the fact that you can see features of “Christlikeness” in Aslan, I am pointing out the danger of Christians who jump on the “sacrificial” aspects of the noble lion character while denying all the other aspects of Lewis’ allegory. Lewis’ depiction of Aslan is more like that of a master teacher than a savior. In this regard, Aslan exemplifies the exact same philosophical and spiritual leadership defined as the “good” side of the force, just as the Obiwankenobi character does in Star Wars or Percy Jackson’s teacher “Chiron”, does in “The Lightning Thief”.
Just like Obiwan, Aslan is depicted as the spiritual leader of a rebellion against the ruling authority. I need cite no other source than this:
Jer 28:16 – “Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.”
My response:
That is perfectly fine and right to point out dangers of Lewis’ work to Christians. I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you that Aslan was simply meant to be a master teacher more than he was supposed to be a savior.
To say that both Obi-Wan Kenobi and Aslan are meant to be spiritual leaders of a rebellion against the ruling authority is to over simplify both stories. The Empire in Star Wars was evil, and it was portrayed as an unjust government that oppressed individuals across the galaxy. The White Witch and her minions were also clearly an evil government, and hers was evil because she had rebelled against Aslan long ago. The government in both cases is evil and corrupt.
You wrote:
“In my Bible, Satan leads the rebellion. What does it say in yours? Was Jesus the leader of a rebellion against the forces of darkness? Was His incarnation merely an attempt to restore some sort of cosmic balance? To restore Eden? Or is Jesus the Light that utterly destroys darkness? Fact: The White Witch is not destroyed in “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe”, but lives on as a perpetual foil in the volumes which follow. The balance must be maintained.”
My response:
This is over simplification. Yes, Satan led a rebellion in heaven and was kicked out. Yes, he opposes God now and still rebels against Him and incites others to do so as well. However, the Bible also portrays Jesus coming back in the end to defeat those who were opposed to Him.
The White Witch is like Satan here because she rebelled long ago. She took possession of land that rightfully belonged to Aslan. So, in reality, she was acting in rebellion against him during her entire reign as queen of Narnia.
I don’t think that Aslan was rebelling against the White Queen, but rather, that he was taking his rightful place. No, Jesus was not the leader of a rebellion against the forces of darkness. His incarnation was not merely an attempt to restore some sort of cosmic balance.
I don’t see Narnia as being a story about restoring balance between good and evil. I’m going to have to finish responding to your comment later.
Peacebringer: I’m not wishing to offend you, but I can’t agree that we need to use so much “caution” in dealing with false apostles. They don’t use caution in their approach to the truth, so why should we deal so tenderly with their false views and whisper silently around their occult themes? It’s quite apparent to one who compares their teaching with Scripture and if it isn’t, then prove it not by your own actual analysis of what he’s saying.
You are very vague and imprecise in your critique of us. We have given hard evidence of what he has actually said. And we have backed up and taken a second look. But in your “cautions”, there is little substantial evidence that you are making your point on his actual words. You seem to be cautioning us around the psychology of it more than talking about concrete and factual references to his teaching. And when you infer that “someone” is painting with broad strokes, please tell us the specifics so that we can also be informed.
You said: “My point is not that there is not error in CS Lewis. In fact I agree there is error. Rather, we need to examine throroughly.”
My answer: There is a time for testing and a time to make a decision. The time for testing C.S.Lewis is over for me, but it may not be for you. I don’t have to read everything that C.S.Lewis has ever written to make a decision on his error. My criteria has been explained.
Now…your criteria seems to be more along cautionary lines…so that ball is in your court. For me personally, there is enough and plenty of reason for me not to be listening to C.S.Lewis, so, we should leave our discussion there, I think…
On a different subject: I just went back and read IWTT’s comment on Hegelian Dialectic. Good post! As we see all things coming together in these end times, there is an obvious planned convergence of all religions, isolating true Christianity as the “odd ball out”. Consensus rules, collective thought imagines a vain thing and we are all of one mind…these are the things that Baphomet represents, the fusing together of opposites; the transformation where heaven and earth, light and darkness, male and female come together so there is no difference, there is no separation…bringing into focus the Satanic doctrines of compromise for the sake of unity.
Interesting times.
Carolyn, I think you missed my point. The specific I referenced was referring to CS Lewis as a universalist and other ways of twisting. Personally I am always examining and re-examine. My criterion is right and righteous discernment. Period. It is not the “attacking” of everything like a immune system out of whack. FYI- the immune system analogy is an important one as the immune system does correspond to discernment. I am well aware of the impact in body of an out of what immune system that attacks things should not. It is not our elevating things to the point of our determining who is wheat and who is tare. CS Lewis is one of 2 things. An artful deceiver meaning to bring people into ways of falsehood and introducing that to them or he is a fallen and broken man of intellect who wrote and spoke the duality of his ways with one foot in each plain. He may well have been a man, fallible and broken. Not able to fully repent of the sins that beset him and having that color everything he said and did. Yet, a man who spoke of such knowledgeable sounding words and logic that appears to illustrate one thing when it does include the full duality that he lived. Not fully committed. This is fleshed out in his life as his “wife” was an adulterous relationship at the start. In my examination and prayer lean more to latter, but his history and influences certainly suggest the 1st could be true as well. That is up to God.
Also just to let you know I am not nor ever been a person gifted at fleshing out the details. I see patterns and big pictures of things. I appreciate the folks like Craig who break down details. I follow patterns and connections and examine the truth. So While I can try and communicate in ways contrary to how my brain works it is not easy for me to do so and takes work. I have other gifts. It is always a shame if folks through not hearing and understanding fully one another, shut down over such as it cuts off the iron sharpen iron. My posts have apparently been taken as an attack, whereas, it is an encouragement to walk and communicate in that which is sound. Please do reread some of what I said and hear what I am saying without looking at an attack. Sorry my communication comes off the way it has. You are right to want to stay away from CS Lewis. Not saying anything different. As I have stated he has been wrongly elevated in modern Christendom. There is a blending that is also pervasive in church as whole. And ultimately, we are all at some level double minded as well and have areas we struggle to let go of and repent.
Steve,
You wrote:
“Fact: The White Witch is not destroyed in “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe”, but lives on as a perpetual foil in the volumes which follow. The balance must be maintained.”
My response:
Actually, it is true that she doesn’t die in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” However, the Witch does actually die in “The Silver Chair.”
Read Chapter 12 The Queen of Underland
You wrote:
“Again, you can pick out numerous examples from Narnia that support the White Witch as the one in rebellion, exemplifying the dark side of the force, actively working against all that is considered “good”. But you must be very careful of your definition of “good”. Hundreds of writers and reviewers have written countless books demonstrating that there are lots of ways to interpret Lewis’ work, including from a deeply occult viewpoint.”
My response:
Just because a work of writing can be interpreted different ways does not necessarily mean that those views were what the writer intended. One of the ideas of post modernism is that nothing has any meaning in and of itself, and that any piece of writing can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. There is no objective meaning — everything is subjective. However, that is, of course, a false viewpoint. Anyone can take the Bible and make it mean whatever they want it to. I’ve had conversations with people who were deeply into the occult, and they take the Bible completely out of context and read occult meanings into it. That doesn’t mean that they are being faithful to the text, or reading it how God intended it to be understood. Certainly if the Bible — the very book that contains the only inspired text by God and the only book without error can be twisted, then certainly any piece of fallible human writing can be twisted.
You wrote:
“The question remains, against whom is the rebellion in Lewis’ allegory targeted? Whom is the false god of this world, the White Witch or Aslan? Be very careful with you answer. Lewis was a genius at depicting two sides of the very same coin.”
My response:
Even though Lewis has serious flaws and theological errors, Aslan is clearly considered to be the creator of Narnia. The White Witch had initially destroyed the world that she came from, and had rebelled against Aslan back then. She was evil before she even set food in Narnia. (See “The Magician’s Nephew”). I believe there is enough evidence that Aslan is supposed to be Jesus in the series. Therefore, anyone rebelling against him or going against him would be in the wrong. Aslan is never portrayed as being evil or anything other than good.
Carolyn,
Thank you for your response and clarification
It is true that some people do make C.S. Lewis into some kind of idol or someone that the depend far too much upon.
There are indeed false prophets and teachers in the Christian world — both in the past and in the present. We must be careful to examine all speakers, pastors, and authors, and hold their words to Scripture.
We certainly do not need any deep secrets of Satan and the occult dogmas to figure out how to use any sort of tool to overcome the enemy. Scripture itself is sufficient for this. If we stand in the truth of what Jesus has done for us, and what God says in His Word, we need nothing else.
Now, I am of the opinion that mythology, in and of itself can be simply entertainment as long as we do not put any faith in it. All fiction is a kind of fantasy because it isn’t a real world. I like fiction — all sorts of fiction. As long as I can separate reality from fiction, I personally have no issue with it. Other Christians would disagree with me here – or would think that only certain kinds of fiction are okay. That is fine. I certainly don’t get my truth from any work of fiction. I do think that all fiction needs to be assessed theologically.
You wrote:
“In the case of C.S. Lewis…do we need to see the teachings of Christ clarified to us through the medium of mythology? Is that a good foundation on which to build our Christian faith?”
My response:
It isn’t that anyone needs to see the teachings of Christ clarified to us through fiction. Certainly, we have the Bible, and we know the truth from that. However, sometimes it is nice to have a story that reminds us of Christian concepts. For example, I really like the “Love Comes Softly” movies and books. I am not getting my theology from those stories, but I do enjoy them because they are nice clean stories that do speak of faith subjects.
I will say this again — I do like a good story. I like adventures with good plots. I like to read creative stories. However, I certainly do not build my faith on any work of fiction or anything contained in the stories. That would be a horrible foundation.
You wrote:
“My defence has been to uphold the supreme authority of the Scriptures and I see in the writings of Lewis, a departure from that, as I have referenced above. If you disagree, you wouldn’t be the first.”
My response:
I know — that is what I want too, and that is what I seek to do as well. The only thing is that I want to make sure that I’m fairly representing the viewpoint of those that I critique. I don’t always succeed in this, but I do want to try.
Yes, Lewis does depart in some areas, and those departures are serious. You have no argument from me on the contrary.
At the same time, though, all of us are fallible, and there is not one writer that I agree with 100%. This does not excuse error. I certainly do not think of Lewis how I once did before I had read those chapters from Mere Christianity. I had always assumed him to be a great Christian apologist who clearly stated the Christian faith. Such is not the case. It is RIGHT to point out Lewis’ error where he does have it. I certainly will not be looking to Lewis for great theological wisdom. In fact, I probably won’t read much more of him.
You wrote:
“BTW – what is the best method of apologetics? I submit our own reasoning is no match for the genius of a demon. My brand of apologetics is to hold the teachings of men up to the light of Scripture. If it passes the test I will listen to them, I will acknowledge them. But if I hold their teachings up to Scripture and they do not pass the test then I will avoid them. C.S.Lewis does not pass the test as he continues to cast doubt on the Word, at times, in a very imaginative, playful and flippant way, much like, IMO, I would expect from a doctrine proffered by demon. Lewis, therefore, has nothing further to say to me.”
My response:
First, thing is that we compare their teachings with Scripture. If we see a piece of their writing or what they’ve said that doesn’t line up with Scripture, then we should definitely take some steps.
Well, I think it is extremely important that when we do apologetics that we are careful to faithfully represent the author’s words in the context they were intended. Thus, if we suspect someone isn’t being faithful to Scripture, we need to go back to the original source of their writing and make sure that we have understood them clearly. This is only being fair to them. Perhaps someone misquoted them deliberately or by accident, or we misunderstood their intention.
It isn’t right to criticize someone for a viewpoint they don’t hold, or to only quote part of what they’ve said in order to make it sound more like they hold to a view we want to criticize them for. We also need to be careful that we do not paint too broad a stroke.
After we’re sure that what they are saying really is what we thought they were saying, we can then compare it with Scripture and make our case that their position clearly violates Scripture.
I just have learned not to take what someone says of someone’s teachings at face value. I want to make sure that they really are guilty of what they are accused of, on all accounts.
@ Steve,
You wrote:
“I am well versed in the original source materials as well as numerous reviews, opinions and commentaries on the works in question. So, at the risk of being called a bogart, I’ll add this one last piece as my final offering on this subject. I do have other responsibilities which I have been neglecting so I won’t be back here for awhile. Lord willing, I will check back in down the road as I really want to read what others might have to say and am also very much looking forward to Craig’s next installment.”
All right then — I will take your word for it. I apologize for making the assumption that you had perhaps not looked into the original source material.
You wrote:
“In the original 1977 Star Wars debut film, (curiously titled Episode IV: “A New Hope”), the master teacher, Obi-Wan-Kenobi, willingly sacrifices himself so that LUKE (a christian name chosen NOT by coincidence) can escape from the clutches of the evil Darth Vader. And just like Aslan does, Obi-Wan is resurrected, appearing in numerous sequels, sometimes as a ghostly figure, mentoring and instructing, and other times as a younger man (due to the odd chronology of the series).”
My response:
I know the Star Wars fandom well. When I was in junior high and high school, the movies were my favorite. I even used to write Star Wars fanfiction, and I would talk to other Star Wars fans online. I wasn’t aware of what the New Age was or that there was any real belief system that was similar to what was going on in the Star Wars world. I didn’t realize that Lucas actually intended for an occult viewpoint until later, when I was reading some people’s fanfiction that disturbed me. I then started researching what was behind Star Wars, and I haven’t watched any Star Wars movie since, and I haven’t been involved in the fandom since then either.
I stopped reading and writing fanfiction.
Before that point, I hadn’t seen the force in a New Age way. I just thought of it as a plot device.
I will say, though, that Lucas had always intended that Episode IV would have prequels to it. He had the whole story planned out before making the movie. He had the idea of Anakin falling to the Dark Side already there. With him turning, it seemed to Obi-Wan and Yoda that all hope was lost. Then, Luke comes into the picture, and there is once again hope for the universe — a new hope. I think that’s why it was titled that way. I could be wrong, though…as Lucas was heavily influenced by the occult, and there is no denying that. I know that now.
Anyway, I have to say that even before I understood the occult nature of the films, I never saw Obi-Wan’s death as sacrificing himself for Luke. I’m pretty sure that Obi-Wan fully intended to be killed by Vader, and it wouldn’t have mattered if Luke had been there or not. Luke was not exactly in immediate danger. Sure, he happened to stop when he saw Obi-Wan and Vader fighting, but no one seemed to even notice that he was there until he yelled, “No” when Obi-Wan was killed. All of the stormtroopers had their attention on the fight. His death wasn’t a sacrifice. I don’t see it as a sacrifice now, either.
Perhaps, it COULD be considered a sacrifice if Obi-Wan gave up his life in order to become part of the force and help Luke the way that he does. Maybe. But it certainly isn’t the kind of sacrifice that saves another person’s life or that takes the punishment that someone deserves upon themselves, and it certainly wasn’t dying in Luke’s place. There was no payment for sin.
If I had to guess, I would say that Luke was probably named Luke because of George Lucas’ last name. I don’t know this for sure, but this is what I’ve always assumed.
Actually, Obi-Wan doesn’t really resurrect from the dead. He just becomes a part of the force, and kind of lives on in a kind of spirit form. This isn’t a true resurrection. It’s simply the afterlife in Star Wars land. It’s very similar to the New Age idea of becoming one with the impersonal god, only it seems that Obi-Wan still maintains his self.
Obi-Wan being younger has nothing to do with the death in Episode 4. The younger version of him is because those movies are prequels — they are Episodes 1, 2, and 3. They are supposed to take place before episode 4 — thus before Obi-Wan’s death. Lucas didn’t have enough money to make all the movies at first. He didn’t know if he’d make any besides Episode 4 because he didn’t know if it would work out — if it would be popular enough or not. He made the movies out of order.
Aslan, actually has a real physical resurrection. Aslan was dead, totally dead. Afterwards, he is dead no more.
You wrote:
“Although all these works may contain numerous readily identifiable allusions to the gospel, as Craig pointed out none of these are on par with or promote sound Biblical doctrine. The whole purpose of any discernment ministry is to instruct and warn believers that just because someone labels something “Christian” or “good” doesn’t make it so. Kudos to those who take the time to study the original works or teachings of someone like BIll Johnson, or C.S. Lewis, in order to then share their insight and conclusions for the edification and protection of their brethren.
The readers here are certainly justified and wise not to take my word for any of this. None here really know me. But when a Christian who has a long track record of demonstrating exceptional wisdom and discernment, i.e. Berit Kjos, publishes tons of info warning us about something, i.e. C.S. Lewis, we should consider their viewpoint very seriously. The “I have to see everything for myself before I believe” attitude was common even among the disciples. Thomas did not trust the discernment of his own brothers and sisters. Yet he was still loved by Jesus, who did not leave him in ignorance and doubt but bade him “touch me”.
To wrap this up, I am certain that the Bethel ministry team will likely offer some delicious version of Turkish Delight to the kids at Camp Narnia. Will it taste good? Sure. Will they label it “God candy” or something equally spiritual sounding? Uh huh, yep. But they won’t be feeding those kids the flesh of Jesus Christ, of that I am absolutely positive. Call me harsh, call me judgmental, but that’s how I see it. And I’ll only change my mind if Jesus takes me to Camp Narnia himself and says, “eat, for this IS indeed my flesh”.
My response:
I’m sorry, but I don’t know Berit Kjos. I have never read any of that person’s work before. I have no reason to think that this person has exceptional wisdom and discernment. He/she may, but I haven’t come to that conclusion myself. The person has no credibility with me yet. If you find the works credible, that is great. However, you can’t assume that everyone else will. I need to be exposed to someone’s writings before I decide that they are credible.
Sure, if someone warns me against Lewis, or anyone else, I will definitely take the time to read what they wrote and try to figure out whether or not I agree with their assessment. I may agree in part and disagree in other parts, or come to the conclusion that they have gone too far with a particular line of thought.
I personally agree with your assessment in regard to Bethel’s Camp Narnia. The reason — well, anything coming out of Bethel is suspect, and is going to be riddled with error. I have no doubt that they will twist Lewis’ works in order to make it line up with their theology. The issue here is Bethel, not necessarily Lewis.
I’m not calling you harsh or judgmental. You are doing what you’re supposed to do — you are evaluating Lewis’ works based on what you believe he is teaching. That is perfectly right.
I do not think that Lewis is perfect. He is far from it — he has much error in his theology.
Arwen-
This discussion on Lewis is certainly relevant to Bethel and the false gospel promoted by Bill Johnson. I found an interesting article here: http://www.seekgod.ca/narnia.htm that documents how the Narnia movie was marketed to and received by the “Christian community”. The article gets more interesting as you scroll down.
Here are a few excerpts (in quotes) and my comments:
“Lewis insisted the Narnia books were not allegory — where things are meant to represent something else — but were a supposal of how it might have gone if Christ had come to a world of talking animals and become one of them.”
Indeed, the author has stated numerous times in interviews and letters that Narnia ia NOT allegory. Lewis himself writes, “I did not say to myself ‘Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia’; I said, ‘Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.’”
I remember when The Shack first came out that it was hailed as the “second coming of Pilgrim’s Progress”. It was termed, “a new allegory of Christ for the 21st Century”. The term “allegory” means that something fictional represents or reflects truth (reality) by use of symbolic characters, fictional events, etc. Obviously The Shack does not represent a retelling of gospel truth by any stretch of the imagination, yet people claimed it did.
“In an interview with Christianity Today, Douglas Gresham [stepson of C.S. Lewis and co-producer of the movie version] stated the following when asked about the Christian content of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:”
“You have to bear in mind that Hinduism has a dying god who dies for his people, then comes back. Norse mythology has the dying god. Greek mythology has the dying god. This myth is not new and it’s not unique to Christianity. Yes, Christians who watch the movie or read the book will look for Christian symbolism. But I think that’s the wrong way to approach it. I think it’s far better to read the book or see the movie and try to find out where you fit into Narnia.”
One of the things we have to remember is that Aslan is a mythological creature. The author himself tells us that Narnia is not an allegory, or retelling of the gospel, but something entirely new. It is all a figment of the imagination of a twentieth century writer heavily influenced by the occult. Aslan is not a faithful representation of the Jesus of the Bible, therefore he does not represent Christ any more than say Mithras, or Horus, or any of the other mythological pagan deities who were said to have died only to rise again. Nor does Narnia represent a fallen earth. Lewis imagined an entirely different world, with it’s own set of sentient beings, its own nature, its own rules, its own problem, and most importantly, its own solution.
The story goes that Edmund betrayed Aslan and sold his siblings for a few pieces of Turkish Delight, to please the ruling authority, and to obtain a false promise of a position of honor and authority in Narnia. If Aslan died in order to save this traitor, Edmund, then you Christian reader who wish to say this is a reflection of Christ, must also accept that Jesus died to save his betrayer, Judas. Now perhaps Judas would indeed have been saved had he repented, (as the fictional Edmund did), of his treachery. We’ll never know because it didn’t happen that way.
There are no parallels in the scriptures where two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve must act to save the whole world. Nowhere in scripture is Jesus stabbed to death on a stone alter by Satan himself in order to satisfy the deep magic. Jesus does not raise himself up from death by the power of an incantation, or by the power of an even deeper magic. Only in Narnia do we see Satan parading around wearing the mane of the Lion of Judah. All these so-called “allusions” to the Gospel are an abomination to the God of the Bible. If we try to fit Christ into Lewis’ fictional created world, we are guilty of promoting a lie, creating an alternative reality, preaching another gospel, another Christ.
Aslan saved no one. He couldn’t. He doesn’t exist. Lewis’ fictional Narnia was saved by a re-balancing of the force, nothing more. This is proved by the fact that Narnia goes out of balance again in subsequent works, and our heroes have to return and overcome new problems, sometimes thousands of years later, in order to continue the charade. Lewis created a purely occult worldview that cannot be Christianized.
Peacebringer: No what I don’t understand is why you are cautioning us to do what we are already doing and I was defecting your cautions back into your own court. I too relate to things more in conceptual terms than details. I don’t have a problem with that.
BTW, I got your point the first time around…and “attack” never entered my mind. I’m not opting out of the iron sharpening iron, just the circular path always leading back to instructions on being cautious about pinpointing error. We have to end the circuit sometime…
Arwen, it’s a blog. My comments are not that important that you need to dissect them all individually and feed them back to me. They were boring enough the first time around. Although I do appreciate the individual attention, my comments were not the subject of the debate…C.S.Lewis was the subject. Let’s stick to pulling his comments apart. And Arwen…please don’t be offended. I really like you, you have a lot of interesting things to say. It’s just something that I wanted to bring to your attention from my personal preference in blogging.
Okay, not meaning to keep circleing back and admittedly probably got off and running tangentially. I have tendencies to do both.
I need your help. My pastor told us all today the definition of good. According to him, it is the “negation of evil”. Sure sounds gnostic to me. I have done some initial cursory internet research, but I don’t have a lot of my own source material.
Can anyone here give me some quotes with verifiable sources as to where this idea is found? I’d like to compare it to what I’ve found.
Also, how would you answer this Biblically? I have my thoughts–I would like to hear yours as well.
And in case you’re wondering, I’ve known for some time now that our pastor is waaayyy off the deep end theologically. That is not in question. Believe me, I get an exercise in rightly dividing the word of truth every Sunday because I have to come home and study and refute him. But today, I thought I’d ask for your input.
Blessings All!
Yes, it sounds both Gnostic and New Age. Gnostic for the duality; New Age for the implication of works-based effort to ‘negate the evil’ and actualize the internal ‘good’, or ‘god’.
I’m not familiar with this phrase, but I found the following (which you may well have found by now):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/levi/phs/phs00.htm
The Paradoxes of the Highest Science by Eliphas Levi (not to be confused with Levi Dowling who is referenced in part IIIa & b here).
The fourth ‘paradox’ references the “negation of evil” as the path to “good” via ‘knowledge’ (gnosis):
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/levi/phs/phs07.htm
“Knowledge is the first power of the intelligent Universe. God is the master of infinite knowledge. He who knows is naturally the master of him who knows not. It is necessary to know, in order to be. He who does not know how to be rich, is not rich; he who does not know how to be good, is not good, Knowledge is proportional to being, and in philosophy, as Kant remarked, being is identical with knowing.”
Here are some Scriptures that may help:
1 John 1:5-6, NIV 1984:
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.
1 Corinthians 4:4-5, NIV 1984:
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
John 1:5, NIV 1984:
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Yes, I also found the references from Eliphas Levi (a French occultist who drew and made the symbol of Baphomet infamous). Additionally I found references from Nietzsche. And I thought about the yin/yang.
The Scriptures that came to my mind–Luke 18:19, “So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.”
I also thought of times that the Scriptures refer to God repenting of the evil that he had purposed on various people (ex. Jer. 26:13). Romans 9 is a particularly difficult passage in which we are told that God created Pharaoh for the very purpose of the Passover events to make His name great. Truly God’s ways are above our ways. Who are we, as created beings to question the Creator?
My point is that we cannot say that “good” is the “negation of evil” because neither of those terms is clearly defined. Jeremiah 17 tells us that the heart is deceitful above all and desperately wicked. We are sinful to our very core, so how can we define “good” by our own standard. If I believe God has called me as a young 18 year old new graduate (–how I wish!LOL) to be a doctor and practice medicine among the lepers of India, but, I become pregnant out of wedlock, would it be “good” for me to abort the baby so that I can continue my schooling to achieve my lofty goals?
God alone defines what is good and what is evil by His standards. My pastor never mentioned the Bible or God’s standards. In fact he never put anything into the context of salvation at all in any part of anything he said this morning. Surely outside of the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Does that not make man’s supposed “good” evil in itself as it defines the basis of our standing before God?
What my pastor has done is open the door for the sheep to define their own sense of righteousness. Woe to him who calls good evil and evil good.
Thanks for your response. I’m eager to hear what some of the other post-ers have to say.
Seems to me your pastor googled “good is the negation of evil” and got his answers from the different links. Catholic on down to atheist. Gen 2:17 tells us that we “ate of the fruit of the KNOWLEDGE of good AND evil…”. Matthew Henry has an good commentary on BlueLetterBible. I am sure there are other places to get a good explanation.
@ Yes Na: What is a corrupt tree?
Gill’s Exposition Isaiah 5:19-21
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,…. A man that is unprincipled with the grace of God, has an experimental acquaintance with the Gospel of Christ, and is guided by the Spirit of God into all truth, as it is in Jesus, cannot knowingly deliver, maintain, and abide by any doctrine that is contrary to the glory of God’s grace, and the person of Christ, the work of the Spirit, the fundamental doctrines of the Bible; or what is repugnant to the experiences of God’s people, and prejudicial to their souls.
Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. A corrupt preacher, one destitute of the truth of the Gospel, reprobate concerning the faith, who never had any experience of the doctrines of grace, and denies them in the theory of them, cannot, consistent with himself, and his own principles, deliver, or preach good doctrine; or that which tends to produce any good fruit, either in the experience or lives of men. It is true, a corrupt man, that is, an unregenerate man, may preach sound doctrine, it being what he believes, though he has no experience of it: but then this man is not a corrupt tree, that is, a corrupt preacher, though a corrupt man. As our Lord means by “a good tree”, not a good man, barely, or one that is made so by the grace of God; but a good minister, one that is furnished by the Spirit of God, and is well instructed in the kingdom of heaven: so by “a corrupt tree” he does not mean a corrupt man, a man that is in a state of nature, habitually and practically evil; but a corrupt preacher, a false prophet or teacher, that has sucked in corrupt principles, and has nothing else in him, and therefore can bring forth no other.
Having said that, going back to your pastor’s original definition of good…which he said is the negation of evil. I’m thinking of a verse that says, Don’t be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. So overcoming evil is prevailing and conquering by the Spirit and the Word.
In reverse: Those corrupt teachers that try to conquer in the Spirit without the Word, will end up negating the “good” gospel and will be overcome by evil.
Baphomet is Satan’s complex symbolism for what he has in mind for the elevation of himself into the temple of God. The Latin terms solve and coagula are written upon Baphomet’s arms, which translate to dissolve and coagulate, which are opposing alchemical processes. Through out the mystery religions and masonic teachings, Lucifer teaches that what is needed is to dissolve the present order of things so that he can rebuild, rebirth, restructure and reinvent. He continues to tear down old dogmas, creeds and paradigms so that the New Order can be set up. It is what we are watching today in religious alliances as well as global economic and political spheres.
1 John 2:14
I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
It’s the Christians who still carry a Bible and regard it as the authority for their lives over and above the speculations of men, those who will be found believing and trusting the Word when Christ returns. We may suffer as outcasts, but:
John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
YesNa – one of the responses that is given whenever the prophetic/apostolic movement is questioned is ‘test all things and hold on to what is good’…(as if the movement is doing all good stuff) well, we truly need to define ‘good’ with the same definition as God does. We cannot judge something good merely by emotion, experience, opinion, etc.
Jesus rebuked Satan when Peter tried to keep Jesus from going into the city (Peter thinking he was keeping Jesus safe, when in actuality, Jesus had to go to the cross – as that is why He came). Matthew 7:22 speaks of people who are prophesying, casting out demons, doing many wonders, etc., all in Jesus’ name – but Jesus tells them He never knew them.
Churches rarely, if ever, mention man’s sin, the cross, salvation, etc., anymore – it’s all about expanding the kingdom – which in reality, they still are not doing because you have to realize you are a sinner in need of a savior and be born-again to get into the kingdom – those that haven’t done that remain dead in their sin.
There are plenty of groups who do ‘good’ things and treat each other well, etc., but it IS more than that.
Yes Na…another thought. To say that the definition of good is the negation of evil is just plain silly. When you think about it…the definition of good is God and the definition of evil is everything that revolts God, everything that rebels against him and his creation. For instance, when we read more into what is in the Word than is actually said, we rebelling…That’s evil.
In agreement with Craig’s theme of light and darkness….God has plainly spoken. That is light. And the darkness has not comprehended it. That is evil.
Mary, I agree with you. simple ethical conduct and high standards of morality do not complete the essence of good. They are not the dividing line between good and evil. The gospel is the dividing line between good and evil. Salvation by any medium, be it works or wisdom, other than Christ is evil.
YesNa…..based on your previous comments concerning your church and the`direction they’re headed it sounds to me like the Pastor may be laying the foundation for “Dominion” theology, it couldnt be described more succinctly then he put it…everything takes on an aggressive, even warfare like nature (even prayer and worship!) …..and when good becomes evil and evil is called good,our enemies may be those of our own “household”.
There are different thought systems of panentheism. Without going into the confusing array of panentheistic types (if even I could determine and explicate them all), the important one here is the one mentioned in this article:
In panentheism, God is both transcendent (outside the cosmos) while simultaneously immanent, within all matter. This immanence is the ‘god within’ (or “Christ within”, seed, divine spark) which inter-connects with all others; i.e., the ‘god within’ one person or thing is of the same essence as the ‘god within’ another. This ‘divine immanence’ is the etheric realm, and omnipresence characterizes the nature of the entire etheric body. This then makes omniscience possible to all
I can understand if some may not necessarily agree with this or comprehend this concept. However, just today at lunch I picked up Richard Smoley’s Inner Christianity [2002, Shambhalla, Boston] (endorsed by such as astrologist Jean Houston {who used to have a daily horoscope} and David Spangler {referenced in this CrossWise article}). Here’s a portion [pp 134-135]:
The Father is the ineffable, transcendent aspect of God; the Son is God’s immanent aspect. This divine spark or Logos is the first sounding-forth of existence from the depths of infinity: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3-4). Christ is the embodiment of the immanent aspect of God.
So are we. “Without him was not anything made that was made.” Nothing comes from existence unless this divine spark of consciousness, no matter how faint or dim, lies at the center. This was true of Jesus, it is true of me, and it is true of you…We may not be as exalted as Christ or the other great beings of the cosmos; we not be as good or as wise. But at the core we are the same.
We are identical “at the core” but the outer shell, our bodies, and all matter, is not. I keep seeing reference to panentheism as a thought system incorporating pantheism (all is God), yet from what I read in Theosophy/New Age/New Spirituality, pantheism is not part of the ideology. Matter will eventually be destroyed. Green-earthers only care about the “core” of the earth as they are of the belief that it is a living, breathing organism which MUST be protected at all costs. That’s because our ‘inner cores’ will eventually unite – including the ‘inner cores’, or divine sparks, in all of creation.
There ya have it!
Craig,
“Nothing comes from existence unless this divine spark of consciousness, no matter how faint or dim, lies at the center. This was true of Jesus, it is true of me, and it is true of you…We may not be as exalted as Christ or the other great beings of the cosmos; we not be as good or as wise. But at the core we are the same.”
Here’s another quote that conveys a similar idea:
“The belief of the Incarnation of God in the human form of Christ is an acknowledgment and acceptance of the possibility of the highest (God) and the lowest (human) being united.”
This second quote is from: “The Unfundamental C. S. Lewis- Key Components of Lewis’s View of Scripture” by Duncan Sprague.
http://www.leaderu.com/marshill/mhr02/lewis1.html
Depending on how they are interpreted, either of these quotes could be made to sound orthodox Christian, i.e. “we are created in the image of God”, or they could be made to sound as if they were taken directly from The Secret Doctrine.
I don’t know anything about Duncan Sprague, but as I was reading his essay on Lewis, [originally published in the Mars Hill Review- 1995], I began picking out numerous theosophical themes. This is another quote that caught my attention:
“Perhaps, never in the history of Christendom has one man bridged so many levels of understanding to the story of Christianity. As Garry Friesen, friend and former professor says, ‘C. S. Lewis became all things to all readers.’”
Here’s another interesting quote from “The Christian Expositor” webpage……which I believe also ties in with the subject at hand….
“The famous writer C.S. Lewis, while not noted for personal doctrinal orthodoxy, recognised that in the final conflict between religions, Hinduism and Christianity would be the only viable options because Hinduism absorbs all other religions and Christianity excludes all other religions because of the supremacy of the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page95.html
Indeed, Lewis made no bones about the fact that his own conversion from an atheistic worldview to belief in God came down to a choice between adopting Hinduism or Christianity.
A search of the Theosophical Society library database includes 18 entries for C.S. Lewis. The fact that Lewis is still highly esteemed among theosophists should set off alarm bells for the discerning Christian.
http://magicdb.dupagels.lib.il.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi/?ps=J0QvtRuvnl/TO/221670236/123
One can read Lewis with a view of supporting various doctrines of Christianity, or Theosophy, or even to support of the deistic (panentheistic/universalist) tenants of Freemasonry if one so chooses. Here’s the concluding two paragraphs from Chapter 12, Part 1 of “God in the Dock- Essays on Theology and Ehtics”, where Lewis attempts to answer the question “Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?”
“Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.”
“’When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.’ The idea of reaching “a good life” without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up ‘a good life’ as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are ‘done away’ and the rest is a matter of flying.”
[God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics by C.S. Lewis- Chapter 12]
.
Steve,
Yes, the C S Lewis quotes can be construed either way.
The magicdb page needs to be refreshed, as a result your 18 entries are not showing up.
I’ve also thought of a (hopefully) helpful analogy with respect to panentheism:
Imagine our universe as one large aquarium with all the space in between the created parts as the water in the aquarium. Taking just human beings for the moment: all humans are made up in large part of water. Now, imagine that all the rest of creation similarly has water inside. In this analogy, the water both outside and inside creation within the aquarium is the omnipresent and immanent god (say, ‘god1′) while god simultaneously is also transcendent, i.e. outside the aquarium (‘god2′). Therefore, god1 is interconnected within the universe/aquarium being both wholly outside and wholly inside creation; and, eventually, the created portion will be destroyed with god1 reuniting himself with god2. Then, god will be one and all will be god once again.
There are varying theories on how god became ‘separated’, or ‘diffused’ within creation in the first place – Kabbalah and Gnosticism have differing accounts, for example.
OK, while the above analogy will work with at least one Hindu sect, it’s not really applicable here. So, scratch that and instead here’s another:
Imagine our universe as one large aquarium with all the space in between the created parts as the water in the aquarium. Inside each and every aspect of creation within this aquarium is a divine spark/seed. The sparks/seeds collectively make up the immanent, knowable god, which we’ll deem ‘god1′. These sparks/seeds are all interconnected akin to an invisible string running from one part of creation to the next illustrating god1′s omnipresent characteristic. In addition, outside the aquarium is the transcendent, unknowable (ineffable) god, which we’ll call ‘god2′, enveloping the entire aquarium/universe. Thus we have god1 within all things and god2 outside of all. Eventually, all of god1 will come together once the created portion of the universe is annihilated (which will include the water/space), and god1 will reunite with god2 and return to the state of things prior to the advent of creation. Then, god will be one and all will be god once again.
The link timed out, which is probably a good thing. One can go to the Theosophical Society main page (one of many) and click on Library, catalog, and search same as in any library.
http://www.theosophical.org/library
I tried briefly to navigate the site from where the link (yesterday) took me but I couldn’t get anywhere. I’m somewhat technologically challenged…
Pingback: Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part IV (Conclusion) « CrossWise
As noted, Bill Johnson is certainly not alone in worshiping a “God of Forces” as described by Levi Dowling. Seemingly diverse and unconnected groups, i.e. New Agers, Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans, Freemasons, Theosophists, Mormons, etc…all worship this same false “god”.
Individuals or groups of people who set out to experience the supernatural by engaging in practices and rituals designed to break the barrier between that “which is above” and that “which is below” will eventually succeed.
Any shaman or wiccan worth the moniker understands that “ritual” or “ceremony”, is extremely important. While a typical Bethel service may seem relatively spontaneous, every moment is planned, staged and focused on obtaining favorable conditions for these so-called break through “manifestations”.
Bill Johnson claims Bethel’s “glory clouds”, “gold dust”, and “gem” manifestations are a sign of the “presence”. How curious that this “presence” only manifests itself after the crowds have been mentally “prepared”, or spiritually “opened” by long sets of mesmerizing sensually pleasing music, repetitive incantations, and seemingly endless pleadings by the worship leaders.
“When humans participate in ceremony [ritual], they enter a sacred space. Everything outside of that space shrivels in importance. Time takes on a different dimension. Emotions flow more freely. The bodies of participants become filled with the energy of life, and this energy reaches out and blesses the creation around them. All is made new everything becomes sacred.”
["Sun Bear", a.k.a. Vincent La Duke, Chippewa shaman]
In Freemasonry, learning the “craft” (obtaining power) through the practice of ceremony and ritual is the highest goal. James Lloyd has published an excellent article on the Christian Media Research website:entititled “The God of Forces” in which he quotes Manly P. Hall:
“The lost key…places the energy of the universe at their disposal. When the mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply [this] energy.”
[Manly P. Hall, "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry", 1923, pg 47, 48]
http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-65.html
We cannot acquiesce to those who equate the God of the Bible with the “God of Forces”.
This false “god”, whom may indeed manifest his presence through signs and wonders, was spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Worship of this false god is a sign of antichrist.
“But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” [Dan 11:38]
“But the LORD shall endure forever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment.” [Ps 9:7]
Of course, there’s also “the Force” of Star Wars.
Star Wars for sure!
Most Bible versions translate the Daniel passage as, “God of Fortresses”, meaning a “stronghold” or “place of refuge”. James Lloyd points out that the root word “mauzzim” can also be translated “munitions”, which has the same meaning as “armaments”, or “weapons”. I like how the KJV puts it, “God of Forces”, which implies both physical and spiritual might. Regardless of the word used to describe this “god”, it’s clear he is a powerful and very well armed enemy.
According to the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge on my Blue Letter Bible page, worship of this “God of Forces” equates with the worship of “Saints and angels, who were invoked as intercessors and protectors, had miracles ascribed to them, their relics worshipped, and their shrines and images adorned with costly offerings.”
Not only are they excited about “feathers”, “gold dust” and “precious gems” being manifested at Bethel and other hyper-charismatic “churches” around the world, but now they’re talking about “angel orbs”. They are begging the “God of Forces” to manifest his “presence”.
As we enter these last days, followers of Jesus Christ are expected to “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” We are supposed to wrestle against and resist the “God of Forces”, not let down our guard and invite him into our sanctuaries.
It would seem to me that the “God of Forces” is inspiring all those misguided souls who are intent on creating the “kingdom” on earth through force of arms, or force of will, which would include BM Hubbard’s “One New Man” crowd. These folks are saber rattling and ready to fall in line when “the presence” manifests and gives them their marching orders.
I am inclined to think the “god of forces” to be a better translation in view of the context.
This whole worship of icons seems to be the same problem Paul warns about to the church at Colossae – a dangerous syncretism, which is not, at root, Christian but pagan (specifically in Colossians asceticism, with a bit of Judaizing/Jewish mysticism including angel worship for good measure) adaptation of Christianity.
I’m copying the following comment by Steve B (omots) since it directly pertains to this post. The info in the video of Osteen should be compared to his friend Che Ahn’s words in the post. The second one is from Humanity Healing Network of which I quoted material in this post:
_________________________
I pulled the plug on my TV awhile ago, but there are several videos about “spiritual DNA” on Youtube- (Which means it must be true, right?)
Even that paragon of love and righteousness, Joel Osteen, says we are endowed by our creator with a latent “spiritual” DNA sequence that lies dormant within our genetic code. Osteen preaches that this encoded spiritual cosmic burst resides in everyone just waiting for the right moment to be “released”:
Another “proof” video informs us that there are several kinds of “spiritual” or “shadow DNA”. There’s “psychic DNA”, “esoteric DNA”, “anima DNA”, “cosmic DNA”, even DNA that contains information about our “past lives stored in holographic format”.
Wow! Who knew?
According to the intro quote attributed to Carl Jung, spiritual DNA is:
“..that dark, unused part of our self that is, in fact, light that is unconscious of itself.”
Now if Damon Thompson, Bob Jones, Joel Osteen, Carl Jung, and every new age nut on the planet are all in agreement about “spiritual DNA”, what more proof do we need? Maybe we should go find an “anointing”, or walk through a “fire tunnel” or do something really spiritual and powerful to activate our “born again” latent “god gene” so we can make the transition to a higher level of cosmic consciousness. Having the ability to get away with crime would just be an added bonus.
New Ager…Activating your dormant DNA, which in time will also give you access to the secrets and mysteries of which you are and what your life-purpose is, will allow you to realize your full potential here on Earth.183
Che Ahn“I no longer merely confess that I am the righteousness of Christ. I realize that with His DNA in me through His blood, I could be nothing else. I realize the attributes of His DNA reside in me—whether dormant or active.
No longer do I see the fruit of the Spirit as something we “will” by self-effort or following the law. Rather, I see that in my DNA, God has already placed genes of love, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. They are waiting to be activated by the Holy Spirit.182
Joel Osteen“Just like the physical, some genes lie dormant waiting to be activated. I believe everyone of us has potential that has not yet been released.”
New Ager “All of our inner knowledge is stored in the DNA…When we become authentic, we no longer search outside ourselves for ‘true knowledge.’ It is within us.181″
Notice that both New Agers and New Prophets are using the same words…activated, released, potential, dormant. They are becoming alive through a kundalini, inner awakening, birthing, activating process. This from a Gnostic Bishop…his definition of Gnosis is the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means.
Contrast this Gnosis with the John 3
3 Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.
The difference is…one birth is internal/earthly nature (releasing the coiled serpent within) and the other birth is from above/external (originating from the Spirit who is outside of man’s nature). Careful which one you activate or partake of….one brings death, one brings life…
The following article adds some depth to the introduction of this CrossWise article:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Parker-IncarnationJohn-CTR.pdf
…For whatever may have been the teachings about the Logos in the first Christian century, it is John’s first and distinctive teaching that Jesus, not another, is the divine hypostasis who had been with God from all eternity, who was God, and who took on human form by incarnation, appearing on earth for the saving revelation of the Father, and that the Logos, in spite of contemporary teaching and the philosophical speculations attaching to it, is only to be found in this historical personage and at this moment in history in which He made His person known [p 37 / 7 of pdf]
Interestingly, the author notes that the Stoics, contemporaries of the Gospel writer, had a ‘sperma of God’ concept – like Bill Johnson and Bob Jones ["God-sperm seed"] – known as the logos spermatikos:
Heraclitus’ successors–to the extent they understood fire as the primordial source of all things–were the Stoics. This creative fire was called the logos spermatikos (i.e., Seminal Reason). E. Bevan asserted that “the orderly working of nature was its operation: organic beings grew according to regular types, because the Divine Reason was in them as [Gr. transliterated] ‘logos spermatikos’, a formula of life developing from a germ.”4 This, in turn, led the Stoics into a warm “theoretical pantheism, “as seen in the Hymn to Zeus of Cleanthes of Epictetus’ Discourses.5 The Stoic logos is not parallel to the Logos of John, as Bevan observes: “It is sometimes said that the Stoic [translit.] ‘spermatikos logos’ was parallel to the cosmic Logos of Philo or the Fourth Gospel, but in the fragments of the old Stoic books the word is habitually used in the plural, [tr.] ‘spermatikoi logoi’, for the multitude of specific types reproduced by propagation. Stoicism knew of no cosmic Logos distinct from God or the Divine fire: where they speak of the [tr.] ‘logos’ of the world in the singular they generally mean the ‘scheme’ of the world.” [p 32 / 2 of pdf]
This is not a “theoretical pantheism” as the author quotes Bevan above but, rather, more correctly, a theoretical panentheism. That is, instead of “all is god” (pantheism) it is “all is in god and god is in all” (panentheism).
Psalm 113:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory ABOVE the heavens.
5 Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,
6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!
The God of this New Breed of Apostles is not like our God…Their God is not ABOVE the heavens…he is only IN the heavens…
a God of Fire Power, one like Akasha, the energy of the kundalini, the pure spirit or 5th element of the Wiccans
or one like the Logos of the Stoics…the Creative fire called logos spermatikos,
or one who promotes the “more fire” of Pensecola and Todd Bentley revivals
or one who promotes “fire tunnels”….shiver…
Fire in the Bible is judgement and the vengeance of God…not a good thing.
In Pentecostal and Charismatic circles This is the passage of Scripture, I believe that leads charismatics to believe that “the baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire” is a good thing but in context….it is not.
Matthew 3:10-12 (KJV)
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Au contraire…Biblically speaking, fire is a judgement and not a blessing of power to be called down…as they are doing…
Excerpt from Barnes notes on this passage:
With fire – This expression has been variously understood. Some have supposed that John refers to the afflictions and persecutions with which men would be tried under the Gospel; others, that the word “fire” means judgment or wrath. According to this latter interpretation, the meaning is that he would baptize a portion of mankind – those who were willing to be his followers – with the Holy Spirit, but the rest of mankind – the wicked – with fire; that is, with judgment and wrath. Fire is a symbol of vengeance. See Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 61:2; Isaiah 66:24. If this is the meaning, as seems to be probable, then John says that the ministry of the Messiah would be far more powerful than his was. It would be more searching and testing; and they who were not suited to abide the test would be cast into eternal fire. Others have supposed, however, that by fire, here, John intends to express the idea that the preaching of the Messiah would be refining, powerful, purifying, as fire is sometimes an emblem of purity, Malachi 3:2. It is difficult to ascertain the precise meaning further than that his ministry would be very trying, purifying, searching. Multitudes would be converted; and those who were not true penitents would not be able to abide the trial, and would be driven away.
Our God, the Logos, on the other hand, has incarnated to bring us Salvation. The fact that Satanic entities are trying to replicate the signs and wonders that Christ showed to disclose his deity while on the earth as in John 1:51 KJV
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Does this sound like what is happening in the Bill Johnson books and meetings?
Satan has counterfeited this today in that he has “opened the heavens and there really are angels ascending and descending”….which brings us BACK to the importance of the message of the Incarnation.
1 John 4:1-3
King James Version (KJV)
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
This is the test. The only test. How else could we know the difference between the real and the counterfeit. Anyone who does not say that God has come in the flesh is anti-christ.
Bill Johnson and his counterfeiting spirits fail the test. As I read the Scriptures for myself, this truth is evident.
Carolyn,
That is how God kept me out of the Healing Room Ministries: the woman running the ministry couldn’t confess Jesus Christ as God or Jesus Christ having come in the flesh. She just stumbled around with a different answer, which is no answer at all.
It is a good reminder to all Christian’s walking in this day: test those spirits. If you aren’t sure, ask them directly, “Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?”
If they stumble around, talk about “born again” or “received the anointing at baptism”, use the word “smeared”, or any response short of a resounding “YES!”; you have your answer. Have nothing to do with them. Do not be shy about asking this question. Any true born again believer in Jesus Christ will never be offended by it.
Just1ofhis
I believe these workers of healings and miracles are very confused as to exactly what the Incarnation means…because they have had so much teaching on the “anointing” as the reason for Christ coming…(so that we could be anointed in the same way as he is and do the same works). This what the demons are up to…they want to promote the need and the opportunity for themselves to manifest their works and their doctrines. So when asked “is Christ, God come in the flesh?”…some are not even sure what that means…but interesting the way they stumble around for words…that’s the first clue…
There are some wiser witches around who have been brought up in the church and they know the jargon. So believe it or not, they can say the words that “Jesus came in the flesh”. I had one come and stay with me for 3 months. She exhibited every New Apostolic Reformation sign and wonder, saw demons behind every thing that moved and everything that didn’t and her and her 3 boys had visions, dreams and occult manifestations in my house!!! And at one point, she said to me, “the test for knowing whether prophets are false or true is if they can say that “God is come in the flesh”.
But there came a time when I gave God the glory for what he does for us apart from our works…and it was then that the spirit in her manifested. She was shaking visibly and screaming at me that I was undermining everything she said and stood for!
I went to my room, fell to my knees and cried out to God, saying “what have I done?” The real Holy Spirit said…”test the spirits”.
That may sound like a contradiction to what you have said, but it’s not. I’m just saying, some can actually say the words, but when it comes to the real meaning of the incarnation, that Christ came as God, worked miracles by the eternal power and nature that is inherent in his deity and that everyone that denies this is a liar, I’m silencing the spirits.
The truth is that demonic spirits are trying to make the work of Christ trivial, inconsequential or negate it altogether. If we only have to ask God for what we need which was Christ’s instruction to us, then the spirits don’t get to manifest any more works, exalt flesh and draw attention to themselves.
And just as Bill Johnson dances around the subject saying out of one side of his mouth that Jesus is eternally God, out of the other side of his mouth he is saying that Christ left his deity behind when he was incarnated. You can’t have it both ways. That’s the bottom line.
I recall reading in a book by Earl Paulk (don’t recall the title, but I have it) in which he claims that he and his ilk are all “Christs” and, as such, they are all ‘Jesus in the flesh’; and, if anyone denies this they are antichrist!
The witch that made the claim that the test is “God is come in the flesh” may be using a semantic play similar to Paulk’s. However, the test is two-fold and more exacting. One must confess 1) that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22-23), i.e, the one unique Messiah; and, 2) that Jesus Christ (as opposed to ‘God’) has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2).
Judith M. Lieu [I, II & III John: A Commentary. 2008, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY] expounds on 1 John 2:22-23:
It appears that what sounds like the traditional formula of belief in Jesus as Messiah has taken on a new dimension of sonship…This confirms that the force of the correct confession is ‘that Jesus is the Christ,’ and not, as is grammatically possible, ‘that the Christ [about whom we know] is Jesus [rather than someone else or as not yet appeared]’…The author’s logic is simple and can be understood within its immediate context. His strategy is to start from what matters: the real charge is not about ‘the Christ,’…Rather, it is that the antichrist denies the Father and the Son: this is no longer denial of belief about (‘that’) but a refusal to acknowledge…it is ultimately a question of acknowledging, or denying the Son…the Son is Son only in relation to the Father, and the Father is Father only in relation to the Son; to reject the Son is to reject both, even if this was not the intention [p 106].
For more, see “Orthodox Definition of the Antichrist Spirit” here:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-christ-anointing-and-the-antichrist-spirit/
Awesome clarification (Carolyn and Craig)…
I would also add that there are many church websites that will claim “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” and present a very orthodox sounding doctrine, but the actual confessions of the pastors and others in the church will be “off” (as will other doctrines of the church). I think Craig’s point about a semantic play on words is also really telling. satan has been playing this game for a long time, we need to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth (as He did for Carolyn!).
satan is the ultimate twister of scripture and always has been. If an answer to the question is twisted in any way, one can be certain that he is behind it.
Craig:
So what you are saying is that to test the spirits, there must be acknowledgement of the Father and Son together in relationship…the only begotten Son, coming from the Father and with the Father even while on earth…proving his eternal divinity…
John 3:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
If the “spirit” in a person cannot acknowledge Christ’s unity with the Father, it is an anti-christ spirit.
I’m thinking of New Age Christs which are many and have no need to be related to the Father. This is definitely an example of a anti-christ spirit. That would include spirit behind the witch…that didn’t like me bringing glory to God and thereby connecting the Son with the Father. Her Christ spirit is separate or divorced from the Father…it works on it’s own without having to acknowledge the One True Christ.
That’s interesting because when you think of it, the biggest arguments between the Pharisees and Jesus were about his relationship with the Father. Their acknowledgement of Christ coming down from the Father would have demonstrated their acceptance of the Messiah foretold in the OT.
John 5:43
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Carolyn,
Yes, it boils down to affirming that Jesus is the Son of Father God. By asserting that Jesus is the Christ who came in the flesh, one is: 1) affirming that Jesus is God (Jesus is the Christ) and, hence, the Son of the Father; and, 2) acknowledging that Jesus is/was the unique theanthropos, the God-man, God in the flesh from the Incarnation and forward. At the miraculous conception in the womb of the virgin Mary, the Word takes on a new mode of existence from that point forward (from our temporal perspective). He is still the Word, the Son of God; but, now He is Word made flesh and is yet so at the Father’s right hand.
This then precludes anyone from claiming that “the Christ anointing” came upon the human Jesus and/or “the Christ anointing” is available to mankind in general.
Craig, I know that I’ve read your post on the anti-christ spirit a while back…but now that I go back I find new information that is relevant to what we are discussing at the moment.
Such as…from Bill Johnson’s “When Heaven Invades Earth”
The antichrist spirit has a goal for the Church – embrace Jesus apart from the anointing. Without the anointing, He becomes a safe religious figure who is sure not to offend us…How can people who love God be offended by the anointing of the Holy Spirit?19
Ha! Speaking of twisting things, Just1ofhis……. Bill J’s definition is exactly the opposite of the definition given in Scripture. He replaces the Father with the false anointing spirit. What an obvious perversion of truth!
From http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-christ-anointing-and-the-antichrist-spirit/
Orthodox Definition of the Antichrist Spirit
Here are the Apostle John’s words in his first epistle defining the antichrist spirit:
22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. [1 John 2:22-23, NASB]
Bill Johnson is the ultimate scripture twister, isn’t he?
If Jesus “laid aside his divinity” and walked on earth as a man “smeared with the Holy Spirit” at his baptism; how does BJ explain 12 year old Jesus sitting in the temple?
“After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking questions. EVERYONE WHO HEARD HIM WAS AMAZED AT HIS UNDERSTANDING AND HIS ANSWERS.” (Luke 2:46-47, my emphasis)
How did Jesus respond when His mother asked Him why He had treated them so?
“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “DIDN’T YOU KNOW I HAD TO BE IN MY FATHER’S HOUSE?” (Luke 2:49)
Jesus, at 12, declared God to be His Father and amazed everyone with His understanding and answers in the temple. This occurs almost 2 decades BEFORE His baptism and public ministry, at which time BJ believes he was “smeared with the Holy Spirit” like peanut butter.
No wonder BJ teaches his followers not to study scripture too much or they might become bound by a “religious spirit”. BJ is a worshiper of “the anointing”, which is the antichrist spirit.
just1ofhis,
You bring out something I mentioned in a footnote in part one of the “New Age Christ?” article:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-age-christ/
At footnote 27:
This creates a logical fallacy within the Johnson theology: if Jesus could only see/hear the Father by virtue of the “Christ anointing” He received at John’s baptism, how could He know to ‘be about His Father’s business’ [Luke 2:49] as a 12 year old?
I must say that I’m delighted that there are individuals reading through the series, including even clicking on the urls in the footnotes. I myself have been rereading this series recently; and, since I’m self-critical I noticed some things I would have done differently including rephrasing, perhaps moving some things around a bit, etc. One of the things I noticed was that I didn’t go into enough detail about panentheism in “The Word Becoming Spirit” section, including not providing any footnotes. This got me on a search to double-check my work. In reviewing my sources, I have confirmed the position expressed in the article is correct, i.e. this IS what Bailey teaches.
I’m referring to the paragraph which begins “In panentheism, God is both transcendent (outside the cosmos) while simultaneously immanent, within all matter.” This is very important as there are a number of different varieties of panentheism, some which speak only of a ‘god within’, or ‘god’ immanent, to the exclusion of a ‘god’ transcendent. That would not work well as a quasi-/pseudo-Christian doctrine. Therefore, it’s important to couple immanence with transcendence in order to appear more ‘Christian’.
Unfortunately, the critiques I’ve read by Christian apologists of individuals who seem to be promoting panentheism discuss only the immanent aspect. I’m not sure if this is because the individual/s being critiqued DO in fact present an immanent but not transcendent ‘god’, or if the apologist didn’t specifically look for transcendence. Let me use the words of Alice Bailey in order to explain the importance of both aspects:
The Eastern faiths have ever emphasised God Immanent, deep within the human heart, “nearer than hands and feet,” the Self, the One, the Atma, smaller than the small, yet all-comprehensive. The Western faiths have presented God Transcendent, outside His universe, an Onlooker. God transcendent, first of all, conditioned men’s concept of Deity, for the action of this transcendent God appeared in the processes of nature; later in Jewish dispensation, God appeared as the tribal Jehovah, as the soul (a rather unpleasant soul) of a nation… [Bailey The Reappearance of the Christ. (c) 1948 by Lucis Trust; renewed 1976 by Lucis Trust (9th prtg 1979 (4th pprbk)), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 144-45]
Obviously Bailey is referring to ‘the God of the OT’, and next you’ll see that she contrasts Him with the ‘God of the NT’, as if they are different ‘gods’. This is exactly what 1st/2nd century Gnosticism had done. As we continue with Bailey, we’ll see that she (actually the demon which channeled through her) wishes to combine the two by describing Jesus as a ‘perfected man’, i.e. a man who worked His way to perfection by the “Christ within”:
…Next, God was seen as a perfected man, and the divine God-man walked the Earth in the Person of Christ. Today we have a rapidly growing emphasis upon God immanent in every human being and in every created form [ED: the immanence portion of panentheism]. Today, these two ideas which have been summed up for us in The Bhagavad Gita: “Having pervaded this whole Universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain”…. [p 145]
This quote in The Bhagavad Gita very closely approximates the doctrine found in most forms of the Kabbalah, which is a form of Jewish mysticism. To put simply, the transcendent ‘god’ (in the Kabbalah of Isaac Luria, the Ein Sof) diffused a part of Himself throughout all of creation leaving divine sparks, thus making a ‘god immanent’ in creation. The end goal is to reunite these divine sparks into one by shedding and destroying the unnecessary ‘shells’ which house the sparks, and, in turn reunite this resulting large formerly ‘immanent god’ with the transcendent god so that all is One once again. This is the same end goal of Alice Bailey’s Theosophy. This is the “plan for our world”:
…God, greater than the created whole, yet God present also in the part; God Transcendent guarantees the plan for our world and is the Purpose, conditioning all lives from the minutest atoms, up through all the kingdoms of nature, to man. [p 145]
Also, according to Bailey’s Theosophy, the ‘transcendent god’ is referred to as ‘The Ineffable One’ (Unknowable One) and ‘THE ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT CAN BE SAID’.
Here’s more:
…The divinity of man cannot be explained away. It is either a fact or it is not. God can be known in the flesh through the medium of His children or He cannot. All rests back on God, the Father, the Creator, the One in Whom we live and move and have our being. God is immanent in all His creatures, or He is not. God is transcendent and beyond manifestation, or else there is no basic reality, purpose or origin. Probably the growing recognition in men’s minds that He is both immanent and transcendent is true, and we can take our stand upon His Fatherhood, knowing ourselves to be divine because Christ and the Church of all ages have borne testimony to it. [Bailey, From Bethlehem to Calvary: The Initations of Jesus. © 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 159]
Lewis Part 1
Lewis Part 2
Leigha,
I released your C.S. Lewis videos; however, please note that in the Before You Comment tab at the top of the site, the commenter is (implicitly) asked to provide some sort of reason as to why the link, video, etc. is posted. I presume you’ve posted this in response to the earlier discussion on C.S. Lewis?
Yes Craig, thats the reason. I am sorry that I didnt read the “before you comment” section first.
No problem. Did you want to make a specific comment about the video?
No, just that the videos are very self explanatory. There is also a link to a PDF on the description of the videos, and it documents a lot of these claims against Lewis. My only comment is that a lot of people have a hard time accepting Lewis and Tolkien being deceivers, because 1. they’re both dead and unable to defend themselves and 2. they’re writings and stories are so accepted as “christian”. But what people seem to forget is Billy Graham, who has been seemingly “Christian” has been proven to be a compromiser and ecumenist. Rick Warren too. What makes Lewis or Tolkien, or any other christian writer of past, any less in error. Anything “christian” that is so heavily embraced by the world is a red flag with some sort of error. Narnia tales and comparisons are real big in a lot of these “christian” movements, cant help but smell a bad stench of error accompanying that, again, if the world accepts it, theres something wrong. I digress. God bless you Craig and thank you so much for your research and exposing these false doctrines. Take care.
Thanks for your comment.
As to #1: that notion is refutable. Whether alive or dead, we have their material as reference. Assuming it’s viewed in proper context, if the material goes outside Scripture, then it must be called into question.
… if the world accepts it, theres something wrong. Absolutely!
I’m not sure when I’ll find the time to view the videos. Hopefully, OMOTS is still reading here and will comment.
I’m 52:42 into the first video right now, and I need to go do something else. I’ll finish listening to it later. Below are my thoughts so far.
I’m listening to the first video right now. I’ve read all of The Chronicles of Narnia (Lewis) and all of The Lord Of The Rings, the Hobbit, and The Silmarillion (Tolkien).
I do appreciate the fact that someone has brought these videos forward, and as Christians we do need to talk about popular shows and stories and whatnot. We should have discussions.
I’d like to clear up a few things here:
Neither of these series’ were supposed to be a substitute for the gospel. These are stories — fantasy. They are not real, nor are they meant to explain reality. However, both stories do have sort of a retelling of the gospel in them (again, not a replacement for, but more of an allegory).
Furthermore, the Hobbits are not portrayed as evil beings. Frodo is not an evil character. There are good and evil characters in Lord of the Rings for sure, but there are good and evil characters in every story. Even true stories have this.
So what I’m saying is that some of the “connections” that are made in this video are over done.
Tolkien never saw himself as a savior for mankind.
The speaker in the video is correct about witchcraft being evil, etc. So I do appreciate what he says about that.
True, Tolkien was Roman Catholic.
In Tolkien’s world, the elves are more like humans. They are not supposed to be evil beings. I say they are like humans is because they are the loved creatures that were created sort of in the image of the God in their world. They were the things that the evil angel type being in the series tempted and corrupted in order to make the orcs/goblins.
I think that the guy doing this video took some of Tolkien’s words out of context to say that he channeled the stories. That can’t really be because there were a lot of other writings that he wrote when he was putting together this story. I mean he had drafts and edited stories, etc. These are available in other books that his son helped put out.
There is no instruction in doing witchcraft in the books. There are wizards as characters, but these are clearly fantasy wizards.
___________________________________________
As for The Lion, The Witch, And the Wardrobe………has this person doing the video ever read it?
I’d never use either of these stories as Sunday School material for teaching kids because they are not the biblical stories. It shouldn’t be part of church or the church service. So, it is too bad that churches preached on Narnia rather than the Bible. (assuming the sources used were correct).
I don’t remember a mirror playing a huge role in the story at all.
Aslan is supposed to be a Jesus type figure, yes. But again, this is allegory…not a substitute for Jesus or the gospel.
I don’t agree with the speaker’s KJV only stance.
C.S. Lewis was an atheist to start out with. I don’t know about whether or not his stuff is required reading for witches, but if it is, then these witches don’t understand the Christian allegory. That’s too bad, but it doesn’t make Lewis’ writings occult.
I don’t know when C.S. Lewis made the comment that he supposedly said about there being an embarrassing verse in the Bible was before or after Lewis came to Christ, or where he was in his walk with Christ when he made it.
@Arwen4CJ I think Lewis made the comment on the embarrassment part in Reflections from the Psalms book. If you look at the videos description, it gives a link to a couple more links to Lewis. One I did listen to that is way shorter (by a Lawrence Justice -its a youtube video) and he gives reference to each quote.
I agree with you on the KJO stance!
From what I gather of this expose, is their (Lewis’ and Tolkien’s) occult affiliations and connections. As far as the stories, I think the main point is that as alleged christians, them using occult symbolism (wizards etc.) that God clearly forbids in scripture is an oxymoron.
Anyway, thats my take on it, there are other sources that expose Lewis and Tolkien, this video is just simpler -in my opinion than a bunch of links.
Take care and God bless you!
Arwen4CJ, thank you for your clarifications and observations. I agree.
I skimmed through this article here:
http://www.seekgod.ca/narnia.htm
…on Narnia, and, while I don’t agree with all the author’s conclusions, I see enough to have my eyebrows raised. I’ve never read any C.S. Lewis before, nor did I see the movie; so, it’s all new to me. It seems that the things attributed to Aslan could well be attributed to the coming Antichrist (a connection the author does not make).
In Lewis’ work, Aslan the lion is a Jesus Christ figure (of course, Jesus is seen as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” [Rev 5:5] post-Ascension); in Scripture Satan “prowls around like a roaring lion” and “masquerades as an angel of light” [2 Cor 11:14]. And, the beast has the mouth of a lion [Rev 13:2] which gets its power from the dragon (Satan).
The author states Aslan is described as “King of the wood and the son of the great Emperor-beyond-the-Sea.” Certainly, we can view the Antichrist as the ‘son’ of Satan, “the Emperor-beyond-the-Sea”, or perhaps the “beast coming out of the sea” [Rev 13:1].
In addition, Aslan died but was raised from the dead. In Scripture we have: “3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed” [Rev 13:3].
I didn’t really want to discuss this again, but I was interested to see what the seekgod website said about it. So I’m not getting drawn into a discussion, but I’ll made a comment.
From http://www.seekgod.ca/narnia.htm posted by Craig:
“According to a report in USA Today, the author of The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis, stated there was no intent of a Gospel message or intent to win anyone to Christ by Lewis, which incidentally, goes against what we are called to do when we receive Jesus Christ as Savior:
“…He [Lewis] set out to write a children’s book that would be exciting and adventurous.
“He was not trying to win anyone to Christianity with this story. And I think you can tell that by the way so many people can read it and love it without having any idea of the biblical connection.” 10
That report also noted, “Lewis, who was Anglican, is an unlikely hero for evangelicals in some respects. He smoked and drank and lived for 30 years with an older woman who was not his wife.” That in spite of his writings being embraced and taught in seminaries and Lewis viewed as one of the greatest Christian apologists by many advocates. J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint.”, in an article observing the 100th anniversary of Lewis’s birth in Christianity Today and also stated that Lewis ”has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” 10b”
At best, it’s not the gospel, at worst, It’s another gospel.
Is Aslan a New Age Christ? According to Lewis, he was a imaginative figure. According to many Evangelicals, he represents Christ. Who do you believe? When added together, I get New Age Christ.
Leigha,
I haven’t finished the videos yet, so I haven’t listened to all the connections that the person who wrote the video made.
Am I against real life wizards? Of course. Real life witchcraft is evil, etc.
However, I am willing to give a little leeway for fiction & fantasy, as long as the wizards and such are clearly portrayed as fantasy. I don’t see wizards and magical creatures and the like as being necessarily occult. I see it simply as part of the world of fantasy and fiction. In these stories, there is no instruction of the characters into magic, no encouragement for people to participate in them, etc.. In Lord of the Rings, a wizard is simply a race of beings. A person in LOTR can’t become a wizard unless the person was born into the wizard race. It’s like wizards are a species in the series.
As far as Aslan in Narnia, I haven’t looked at the seekgod article yet, but I will. What I will say here, though, is that “the Emperor across the sea” can be understood as God the Father. Also, Edmund betraying his brothers and sisters is portrayed in the book as a sin against Aslan, and his very act gives the White Witch (who can be seen as Satan) the right to him. Thus, Edmund must die. Except that Aslan chooses to die in Edmund’s place, and take the punishment upon himself, and then is raised from the dead.
I’m not sure about the sources that say Lewis never meant for it to be a Christian story, as it is pretty clear to me that there was an intention to make some kind of Christian theological statements.
I personally do not see any occult or New Age ideas being promoted in either of these stories.
However, I can say that there is another series that does have clear connections with the occult — and that is Star Wars. I was a huge fan of Star Wars for a long time, before I learned about the existence of the New Age, and the like. However, when I started reading aplogetics and learned about the New Age, I saw how deeply steeped Star Wars was in this stuff.
A person can still enjoy watching the story itself — but if a Christian watches SW, that person must confront the occult elements in the movies, and must be firmly against the spirituality presented in the movies. This takes maturity, and I do not think that all Christians should watch SW, especially children, or those who have been involved in the occult before.
Now, as to Narnia and LOTR, if an individual was involved in the occult, or was into something else that had wizards, elves, etc. in it, and these things were portrayed as being occult in the fandom the person was into…..then seeing other fantasy/fiction movies or shows might cause a stumbling block to them. Those Christians shouldn’t see the movies.
Fantasy/fiction/science fiction isn’t for everyone. For some Christians, they clearly cannot get passed the fact that some of these races/species/whatever you want to call them are present in some occult literature too. I would say that these Christians shouldn’t watch or read these types of things then.
For other Christians, I think it is okay for them to watch or read these things.
As Carolyn said, I don’t want to debate this whole thing again, however, I did want to address what was in the videos posted. The guy has made some good points so far, but I also felt that he has gone a little far with what he said about Tolkien/Lewis.
I will say that I do enjoy a good story, and I do tend to like fiction. I like all kinds — historical, Christian, fantasy, science fiction, romance (as long as the characters in it are moral) etc. The only kind I don’t like is horror.
I will refuse to watch horror because I personally see it as glorifying the demonic. Now, I can understand if other people see fantasy doing the same thing. That’s fine. It’s perfectly reasonable. For some Christians, they would have no problem watching horror movies. So it all comes down to our individual convictions about the things that we read or watch.
I realize now why Craig suggested I further coment on why I posted the videos.
I really am not trying to reconjure up a debate, my motive for posting these videos was just to shed light on the topic of Lewis, nothing more.
My health is quite bad, so even if I wanted to, I really wouldnt’t have the energy to debate anyway.
God bless you!
Let me take a look at the http://www.seekgod.ca/narnia.htm article.
As Christians, I think we need to practice critical thinking when we read apologetic articles that make claims about something. Yes, take the claims seriously, but also use critical thinking. God gave us brains, and we can’t just accept all information just because it comes from a Christian source. Of course this isn’t just true when it comes to reading apologetic articles, but also holds true when we read or hear anything.
I do generally like the articles on seekgod.ca, but I take issue with some of the statements made in this article.
First, a reader must understand the genre from which Lewis wrote from — and this was fantasy. Again, I contend that the Narnia stories he wrote were meant to be allegory, not a replacement for the gospel. Aslan is supposed to represent Jesus in the story, not be a replacement for Jesus for us. Fantasy is clearly fiction, so we shouldn’t read it in the same way that we read non-fiction.
Now, perhaps Lewis denied that Narnia is meant to be an allegory, as the article suggests. If that is the case, then I think Lewis was in error here by saying that it wasn’t allegory, but was meant to be Jesus in this other world. I would take issue with his statement and his intention here, but it wouldn’t make it an occult story.
I think it is good to point out possible theological problems with it, including the idea that some things could be seen in an occult way. That’s great. As Christians, we should always be alert, and we should discuss these possible problems. If we dialogued more with one another on theological issues, maybe more people would see theology as being relevant.
Anyway, so the notion that anything that is magical in a fantasy story is necessarily occult isn’t always true. Fantasy magic is more like a literary device used in the story, rather than making the claim that it is like the magic that people use in real life. The way that Lewis used it in the story isn’t really occult — things just happen. No one is conjuring up any magic or tap into some unseen power source, etc. Lucy simply walks into a wardrobe and discovers another world.
I can’t remember any actual spirits in the Narnia world. All I remember is talking animals — something that is clearly fictional. We know that animals don’t talk, but they can in fiction/fantasy stories. In fiction/fantasy anything is possible.
Yes, I admit that some of the creatures are mythological, and are creatures that are used in pagan stories, etc. But at the same time, fantasy is fantasy. Not all stories that have mythological creatures in them are occult in nature, nor are the creatures themselves necessarily occult. They are simply characters in the story.
Now, I just looked at my copy of The Lion, “The Witch, and the Wardrobe,” and in the actual book, there are no words said at the coronation. It just says, “Aslan solemnly crowned them and led them to the four thrones amid deafening shouts of “Long live King Peter! Long live Queen Susan! Long Live King Edmund! Long Live Queen Lucy!”
So the bit about them being crowned in the names of the four winds is actually incorrect, at least as far as Lewis is concerned. Perhaps the movie script originally added that in, and then decided to delete it before writing the final script.
I’m certainly not one to defend Disney, so they certainly could have changed the story or script any number of times to include whatever content they wanted to. We all know that they tend to do that with stories when they make movies. So those issues would be with the movie itself, and not with Lewis’ original work.
And I’m sure that they did try to purposely target faith groups, especially Christian ones, before the movie came out.
In the same way that I can’t defend Disney here, I also can’t defend those who were responsible for marketing the movie. From the article, it seems that they had a business model in mind — make as much money as they could. So what these people said or didn’t say doesn’t really have to do with Lewis itself, but rather with the motives of those who did the movie.
I first read the book “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” when I was in 4th or 5th grade, in school. I think it was 4th grade. Anyway….I remember my teacher talking about Turkish Delights as being an English kind of treat. We’d have to ask someone from the UK for clarification, but I’m pretty sure it’s just a dessert. Since Lewis was from England, he would have been familiar with this. I really don’t think that Lewis purposely wrote about a drug called Turkish Delight. Now, I don’t know anything about this hashish ingredient, so I would have to research that information. But if we are calling desserts drugs because of ingredients they contain, then we’d have to raise an alarm about chocolate, as it contains a drug.
Obviously, if anyone actually worshiped or worships Aslan, then that is a huge problem — as he isn’t the real Jesus. I’m guessing, though, that it is people who are way out on the fringes who are doing this — not the majority of the readers of the books or the viewers of the films.
“Deeper magic” in the book referred to the sacrificial death and resurrection of Aslan, not real magic. However, instead of using the language of the book, those telling people to focus on the “deeper magic” should have told the people to focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection, not Aslan’s. They shouldn’t have used the phrase “deeper magic,” as it is confusing to people not familiar with the story, and could be confusing to those who are familiar with it, too.
As I said before, no church service, no sermon, no Sunday School, etc should be teaching about Aslan or Narnia. Rather, they should be teach people about Jesus Christ, and they need to teach people from the Scriptures. Fantasy/fiction does not belong in church. Now, I could see someone mentioning (but not focusing on) Narnia being allegory for the gospel. Fine, mention that once and move on. So, I think these churches that focused on Narnia or Aslan were wrong.
Now as for the intent by C.S. Lewis — a person would need to read the actual words of Lewis to see what he himself said about his work. I think my parents have a copy of some of his statements somewhere in their house. We need to see what Lewis himself said, not what someone else thinks Lewis’ intentions were. It makes sense for secular newspapers would deny any Christian content or intention behind Lewis’ work. So, again, we need to read what Lewis himself wrote about his work. We need to go to the source of it.
It is true that in The Last Battle, Lewis suggests that for people who are part of another faith, and never had the opportunity to hear the gospel (in Narnia world, this would be Aslan) were still allowed to enter into heaven because they were faithful to what they thought they knew. They honored Aslan even though they didn’t know his name. They were faithful to how they knew it, and Aslan accepted them. That’s basically the gist of that.
However, this isn’t quite the same thing as universalism, as not everyone gets into heaven. Those who knew Aslan at one time, and drifted away from him, or who didn’t remain faithful to him, or heard of him and rejected him, etc. do not get in. Susan doesn’t make it into heaven because she lost faith and drifted away.
So, yes, Lewis apparently believed that those in other faiths could get into heaven, if they were ignorant of the gospel and had never heard of Jesus, and yet were faithful to who they believed was God. I agree and acknowledge that this view is not supported by Scripture. However, holding to this view doesn’t mean someone is not a Christian, or that someone is into the occult.
Once again, the author of the article is incorrect. Aslan, in the story, was not raised back to life by incantations. It simply just happened. And anyone who uses the name Aslan instead of Jesus is in error.
As for other movie versions of the story, I have nothing to say about those. These were other companies, writing their own scripts, etc. Again, not really Lewis, but rather the way that the people behind these movies wanted to portray things.
It is right to talk about the creatures and whatnot and share concerns about these things. So I’m glad that the article brings those up. However, I don’t believe that Lewis used these beings in an occult way.
We should be critical of stories that claim to be Christian, and check them carefully. At the same time, I think that the author of the article has gone too far.
But, if fantasy/fictional characters bother a particular Christian, then that person shouldn’t be reading or watch stories involving these themes. I would have respect for a Christian who chose not to have anything to do with these stories because of how it affected his or her conscious. At the same time, I would hope that this person would not condemn me for choosing to watch fiction/fantasy, for the reason that it doesn’t affect my conscious.
That’s all I’m saying about this article.
Leigha,
Sorry about your health issues. I’m thankful to remain, at present, in very good health; but, this past viral infection from a couple weeks ago really threw me for a loop. I couldn’t imagine the resulting symptoms (extreme fatigue, no endurance, sleeping more than usual, brain foggy) to have continued on. You have my empathy and prayers.
Leigha says,
No problem. I’m glad that you did bring up the videos, and they are good discussion points.
Again, I think as Christians we need to discuss things like this. Not all of us will be in agreement, especially when we start talking about things within culture. But it is good for people in the church to talk about various topics and positions. That’s how we learn from one another, and it helps us understand other points of view.
If we aren’t discussing these things, then Christian discussion doesn’t happen. I really wish that more Christians dared to bring up things that they thought about or ideas that they had, especially theological topics. I like good discussions.
The videos are thought provoking, even if I disagree with the conclusions of the authors
I’m sorry that you are not feeling well. You will be in my prayers. I hope that you start feeling better soon.
In any event, I agree — no more debate on the topic. I won’t post my additional thoughts on the rest of the videos (when I do watch them), as I’ve stated my position thus far fairly clearly.
I wish you well.