Book Review: Bill Johnson’s ‘When Heaven Invades Earth’
September 9, 2012 195 Comments
In his book, When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles [Treasure House/Destiny Image, 2003, Shippensburg, PA], Bill Johnson teaches New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) doctrine, a teaching denounced as heresy by the Assemblies of God (A/G) in 1948. This teaching includes Dominionism – that Adam lost dominion of the world to Satan, Jesus won it back, and it’s up to the church to wrestle it from Satan [pp 31-33 (all page #s from 1st edition)]. Integral to NOLR doctrine is the Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) teaching which includes diminishing Jesus Christ to a mere man having surrendered His divinity when the Word became flesh (at the Incarnation) and subsequently re-attaining His deity at the Resurrection. This is by virtue of the heretical kenosis doctrine (self-emptying) using Philippians 2:5-7 as a proof-text [pp 79, 85 fn. 3].
In “His self-imposed restriction to live as a man” [p 29], Johnson claims that Jesus “had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” [p 29] clearly reducing Jesus to a man given that God is in very essence supernatural. Even though Johnson makes the statement, “[w]hile He is 100 percent God, He chose to live with the same limitations that man would face once He [sic?] was redeemed” [p 29] Johnson negates this with “He had No supernatural capabilities whatsoever” and “He laid his [sic] divinity aside as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father…” [p 79]. One could construe Johnson’s “while He is 100 percent God” statement as present tense as opposed to past tense (i.e., during the Incarnation) especially in light of his numerous statements pronouncing Christ’s humanity at the expense of His deity including “the anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil” [p 79].
This diminution of Jesus Christ’s deity is crucial to MSoG doctrine as Jesus “became the model” [p 29] for all to follow “to do as He did and become as He was” [p 138] in order to attain our own divinity as fully manifested sons (and daughters) of God. This glorification of mankind is spoken of by distorting I John 4:17, “As a sculptor looks at a model and fashions the clay into its likeness, so the Holy Spirit looks to the glorified Son and shapes us into His image. As He is, so are we in this world” [p 145]. According to NOLR doctrine, Jesus can only return once the ‘church’ body receives this perfection as his tweet on August 20, 2011 illustrates: “Jesus is returning for a bride whose body is in equal proportion to her head.”
Bill Johnson also claims that Jesus did not receive the title of Christ until His baptism by John in the Jordan [p 79] which is at odds with Luke 1:35/2:11. And, while at the very beginning of chapter 7 he states correctly that “Christ” means “Anointed One” or “Messiah” [p 79], he subsequently changes “Christ” to mean simply “the anointing” – an anointing that all can receive [pp 80, 133-35] even describing it as tangible and transferable [p 135]. He is more explicit in his book Face to Face with God describing Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan as the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ [pp 21-22, 58, 77-80]: “The baptism of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him” [p 77, Face to Face]. To be clear, Johnson is referring to this as a second ‘baptism.’
While the Greek word Christos is translated primarily as anointed in the Old Testament, in the New Testament Christos is translated each and every time as “Christ” referring exclusively to the person of Jesus Christ our Savior. To change the definition of “Christ”, as in the person of Jesus Christ, to “anointing” is to pave the way for all to be “Christed” as the “Christ anointing” quote above in Face to Face with God makes clear.
Johnson goes on to claim that all those against ‘the anointing’ – i.e., ‘the anointing’ as he defines it – are antichrist. This is illustrated in the following two statements: “The spirits of hell are against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion” [p 80] and, “The spirit of antichrist is at work today, attempting to influence believers to reject everything that has to do with the Holy Spirit’s anointing” [p 81] (see here for more details).
Bill Johnson is leading many into apostasy and my heart grieves for these. May the Lord have mercy upon us all.
Joseph/all,
This much we do know:
1) Jesus Christ was both fully/truly God and fully/truly man. His deity was not diminished nor was He anything less than fully human while He walked this earth.
2) God (Jesus Christ) cannot sin, cannot be sin, and God cannot die (known as immutability).
3) Yet Jesus Christ “became sin” (2 Cor 5:21) so that we might become the “righteousness of God”.
4) Yet Jesus Christ died on the Cross.
How do we reconcile all that? See here (and follow the links):
http://carm.org/can-god-die
Joseph,
Who’s will was it that Jesus suffer death on a cross?
If you read Isaiah 53, God answers the question in His own words:
“Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:10)
Jesus, himself, answered the question:
“I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I LOVE THE FATHER AND THAT I DO EXACTLY WHAT MY FATHER HAS COMMANDED ME.” (John 14: 30-31)
In your take on things, Paul must erroneously be forcing this belief on Christians when he says in Romans 5:9-10:
“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him THROUGH THE DEATH OF HIS SON, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
John the Baptist must have held a similar view of things. How strange that Jesus didn’t correct him at His baptism.
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, FOR GOD’S WRATH REMAINS ON HIM.” (John 3:36)
Hebrews:
“Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy THROUGH THE SACRIFICE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL.” (Hebrews 10:9-10)
Why do you think Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God? We are set free by the sacrifice of His blood to become the children of God. That was absolutely God’s will, and Jesus fulfilled it willingly. You make an assumption that for this to occur, Father and Son were no longer one. Yet the Bible is perfectly clear that it is God who is our Savior.
“I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
God, Himself, provided the sacrifice that would redeem all He calls and chooses among men. The fullness of the diety in the bodily form of Jesus fully submitted to the will of God the Father to save us Himself….God among us…the Word made flesh….that flesh given for us for the forgiveness of our sins.
This is the gospel 101.
Joseph said: “This belief makes our Abba (Father) look like a hateful monster who abandoned His Son in His worst moment, therefore He should not be trusted because “if we sin” (or when we sin), He might just to the same He did to His “beloved” Son.”
This is a word-of-faith type teaching that is misleading and renders the cross useless. It is a view that is also being propigated by the emergents to lead people away from repentance and acceptance of the gift of salvation through the blood of the spotless Lamb, Jesus Christ. It is the “good god” false “gospel”. It completely misses the truth of salvation.
God is good and there is not any darkness in Him. He is Holy, and sin cannot dwell with Him. The Bible tells us that the punishment for sin is death. In light of the fact that we have all sinned, then we all are due the punishment for sin which is death. In His goodness and righteousness, God would be just in destroying us all. But, God loves us so much, that He refused to simply leave it that way.
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrigheousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” (1 John 1: 8-10)
“For God so loved the world THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
Peter wanted to save Jesus, but Jesus rebuked him:
Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! SHALL I NOT DRINK THE CUP THE FATHER HAS GIVEN ME?” (John 18: 11)
I would encourage you to read Isaiah 43 (which clearly establishes God as our Savior) and Isaiah 52 and 53 (which clearly establish the suffering and glory of the Servant whom God would crush to heal us).
What a beautiful story of compassion and love!
Joseph,
You quoted Colossians twice, yet Colossians clearly states the substitutionary nature of the death of Jesus:
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, BUT MAKING PEACE THROUGH HIS BLOOD, SHED ON THE CROSS.” (Col 1:20)
This also answers your question of how could God satisfy His wrath through Jesus and yet still have them be one…because all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus! God, Himself is our Savior through Christ.
1. Joseph, you wrote, “However, to believe that Jesus worked His miracles because He was God is a grave error because it makes Him look like He was playing a pretending game. Either He lived as a real Man in subjection to the Law of Moses and in complete submission to His Father’s will, or He didn’t.”
Let’s let Scripture determine the answer:
11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. [John 2:11, NASB]
Manifested whose glory? The Holy Spirit’s or Jesus Christ’s own glory?
Joseph <> Also, in John 5:19 we see:
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. [NASB]
The Son sees the Father? Can we see the Father?
Joseph << Perhaps you missed what Jesus was saying here. He “sees” the Father because the Father showed Him what to do, whether in a vision, a word or a “sudden knowing.”
The “seeing” is an internal kind of seeing where He perfectly understood what Father wanted to do.
We do that too Craig but in a far lesser way. The Lord might give us a word of wisdom or a dream in the night to speak to us about a particular issue, or He might simply put a word in our hearts and suddenly we know something without a shadow of a doubt, although we don’t know why we know.
God is the speaking God and has never ceased to communicate with His body. To believe otherwise would be to deny our relationship with Him.
Craig << And, then John 5:21:
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. [NASB]
Given your theory, then Jesus must have given (eternal) life to whom He wished by the power of the Holy Spirit. Can we give eternal life to whom we want by the Holy Spirit?
Joseph << I don’t have a theory. You do. I can’t believe that we have a mutation of a God-man-man-God sometimes and when it’s convenient. Either Jesus acted as 100% Man or He didn’t. You tell me.
Second, your question above does not make any sense. I’m not the covenant representative of mankind. Jesus is.
Craig << Going further, so you believe God the Word, The Word made flesh, God the Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity was born with the sinful human condition of all mankind post-Fall? Could God (Jesus Christ) have sinnned?
Joseph << Please hear me. I believe in God incarnate, the Word made flesh, God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. Yes, I do believe that. What I say and I gave you scripture (Ro 8:2-3). Jesus lived in a body like any one of us (no difference), except that He was born without sin.
I’m saying that He saw His world through Adam’s eyes (after the fall) just like we all do, thus perfectly identified with our horrific plight, yet every choice He made was in perfect sync with His Father’s will.
He was also tempted in every possible way just as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15). Do you believe the Lord was pretending to be tempted? Do you think He was pretending feeling the illusion of separation when He cried out, “My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?” What about Gethsemane when He sweated drops of blood? Was that a put on or was the REAL MAN facing agony that He wished it didn’t have to happen?
In your opinion, which was it?
Graig << Since you believe God the Word “had to lay aside all divine privileges and walk in life like any other Jew without any advantage whatsoever”, I suggest you read this:
Joseph << Scriptures tells us that He did just that…
NAU Phil 2:5-8 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself (margin “He laid aside His privileges), taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Graig << In this two-part article are quotes from theologians far more learned than myself.
Joseph, you wrote: “When Jesus died, we died; when Jesus rose from the dead, we rose from the dead (this is where the term “born again” makes sense). When He ascended to the throne we ascended with Him. When He entered into the heavenly Holy of holies (Heb 9:12, 24), He did it AS us to the point that we are called now His body.”
While I don’t disagree with the basic thrust of what you’re conveying, I will not ever concede that the term “born again” should ever apply to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior for two reasons:
Joseph << I didn’t say that at all, nor did I implied it… lol! That would be blasphemy in my opinion. I was speaking about “us” being born again not the Lord.
I appreciate the time where we both can share what we have learned in the secret place.
Please clarify what you are saying. You did not follow my reasoning but went on an tangent and accused me of following the “Word of Faith” doctrines, which I personally detest.
What part of my explanation you did not understand? Let’s start from there…
Joseph >> I don’t understand why you feel the need to teach others what they already know…
Please state clearly, which particular part of what I said you don’t agree.
Joseph,
You’ve still not answered the question regarding John 2:11.
The fundamental issue is how you understand/exegete Philippians 2:5-8; see the two part article to which I referred earlier.
Jesus Christ was fully functioning as God while He walked the earth. This is how He was able to sustain the cosmos (see Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). The Incarnation is a divine mystery which we cannot fully comprehend. Paul said this himself:
16 Beyond all comprehension, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached from the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory. [I Timothy 3:16, NIV 1984]
As to Jesus’ temptation: He never had the ability to actually sin; yet, He could entirely feel the temptations as He was fully/completely human. His divinity would NEVER allow Him to have sinned. God does not sin!
So, how do you explain John 5:21, i.e. how do explain that Jesus was able to give life to whom He chose to give it if it wasn’t by His own divine initiate and authority rather than the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t this verse state explicitly that Jesus used His own divine attributes rather than having ‘laid them aside’?
Hi Craig, I did but for some reason when I copied and pasted my answer from Word, a portion got lost. Now, before I answer, I would like to know about the possibility of editing our responses when we catch some grammar errors. Will that be available?
OK, now to my answer. You asked how did Jesus show His glory in John 2:11. My response was that the glory of the Lord has always been His love. In this case, He revealed His compassion to a young couple of hillbillies who were in a bind. The celebration had gone on but in the middle of their wedding party, when suddenly they ran out of wine.
The issue at hand was something that Jesus had nothing to do with, yet their tradition insisted that if they didn’t have wine their marriage would be without joy. So, at insistence of His mother, the Lord did what Father told Him and turned 180 gallons of water into fresh, delicious wine.
His love for this couple who we don’t even know their names was demonstrated in a lavish miracle that overflowed beyond measure. Think about it, 180 gallons of wine!!! How long did it last?
The miracle pointed to the goodness of God that promised them years and years of love in His Son who gave them much more than what they needed! Nothing but a symbol of God’s riches that never end.
What did Paul say in Gal 6:14? He gloried in the cross of Christ (KJV), who is the most amazing demonstration of God’s love to us, although it looks like complete stupidity to the people of this world.
So, the glory of God was amply demonstrated when the blind man was healed despite the opposition of the religious tyrants that didn’t give a fig how long this man had been healed.
Joseph,
Unfortunately, there’s no way for the commentator to edit his/her comment once posted. I will sometimes correct obvious errors as I see them, however. If you see an error just after you submit your comment and that comment has not yet been released live on the site, just post a follow up comment with the corrections. But, once a comment is released, the best course of action is to just post a followup with the corrections. I still may correct the original comment, but it will depend on the nature of the correctsion(how much?, theological signficance, etc.).
As re: John 2:11, my larger point is that Jesus must have done this Himself as the Scripture specifically states it was to reveal His (Jesus’) glory. But, this is not the only case in which Jesus clearly utilized His divine attributes; Jesus also raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19/John 10:17-18).
Yes, Jesus was fully man; but, He was also fully God and His divinity was not diminished by the addition of His human nature/body. Of course, Jesus, in His physical human body was not omnipresent; however, in His divine nature He sustained the cosmos (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17) thereby using His omnipotence, omniscience and (I argue) omnipresence.
This doctrine has been firmly established since 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon and has been nearly unanimously affirmed by the Church universal since then.
Well, we disagree on this one. My belief will not be changed, otherwise I have to ask myself the question whether Jesus pretended to be tempted or worse, whether there was any reality in the fact that He could not sin… If He could not sin, then the whole thing was a sham, a game, a put on.
Man walked into death and lost His glory, became darkness (Eph 5:8) and entered into the world of the un-being, where everything was turned upside down. In fact He broke the covenant (Hosea 6:7) and became a self for self being where he was the center of his world. This was the total opposite of what God had meant for him. Instead of walking with the Lord and fill His earth with the glory of His love, he became a grasping, needy, egotistical creature that lived in a mirror of distorted pictures.
Man did it, man had to to undo it, otherwise all would be lost. If Jesus acted just once as God, He would have forfeited His place as our covenant representative, and the enemy would had called His bluff.
The fact that Paul called the Lord the last Adam (1Cor 15:45), tells me that Jesus was in the process of undoing the sin of Adam by reliving humanity one all over again. But this time, this Man did it the right way and reversed the curse for good because as creator He was worth His entire creation.
Yes, He was God but God in humiliation, always depending on his Father to do the right thing because He was mankind’s representative. So, when He won, we won. his history is now our history, His victory is our victory.
No wonder He called Himself , “The Son of Man” or perhaps for better understanding, “the Son of mankind.”
Unfortunately, your view is in the extreme minority. But, more importantly, it violates Scripture as I’ve clearly shown.
Jesus’ favorite self-designation was “Son of Man”, yet He also referred to Himself as Son of God. He was/is the unique God-man – fully/truly God and fully/truly man.
Atonement had to made by a perfect, sinless man; however, no man could be perfect or sinless. This is why it take God in human form to effect Atonement. Jesus was the Lamb who laid down His life for the whole world.
Hi Joseph. I used to have a one-dimensional thinking versus trying to comprehend that Christ was inseparable from the Trinity, from eternity which included when he was a man… He never left his divinity behind. Philippians does not say that he left his divinity behind. It says he left his attitude about being God behind and humbled himself putting himself into the place of a servant. He came to serve man, to seek and to save that which was lost.
As far as his being One with the Father and the Spirit even when he was a man, it is without question. His glory was unveiled when he was transfigured in front of his disciples. Up to that time, his glory had remained veiled. And even as his glory was manifested, he didn’t allow his disciples to say anything ahead of time.
The demons also were silenced by Jesus, because they knew who he was and his power…and they were terrified at his presence. Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
The thing I have come to understand is that the Trinity is indivisible. Christ didn’t leave the Trinity when he came down to Earth. They still worked as a unit. Everywhere you saw Christ, you saw the Father and the Holy Spirit i.e.: the baptism, the transfiguration, the cross. They worked together to accomplish the act of redeeming fallen man from his captive state of sin and death.
So much to learn…
To Justoneofhis from Joseph:
Hi, please show me where in the bible does it say that God poured out His wrath against His own Son. Chapter and verse will suffice.
Now, please let me clarify somethings before we get all confused. In order to do this I have to go back to my last post for a moment. I said among other words the following,
“This belief (that God poured out His wrath on His own Son) makes our Abba (Father) look like a hateful monster who abandoned His OWN Son at His worst moment. He was in fact betraying Him by leaving Him alone to the wolves.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, we should all conclude that we cannot really place our trust in Him because the danger lies that it might just happen to us what happened to Jesus.
So, by pouring HIs wrath on His Son, God the Father was in fact dividing the Trinity making the devil the winner at the end and by fracturing Himself for good.
Did Jesus ever said that the Father would turn against Him? Please clarify where if you believe that…
Also, please remember that this is not what I believe. This tragic picture is nothing but an extension of YOUR OWN BELIEFS IF WE TAKE THEM DOWN TO ITS RATIONAL CONCLUSSION.
So, in defense of our God, I would say that God was in the hands of angry sinners whose only purpose was to get rid of Him once and for all. (Let’s kill God!)
Please believe me, I was taught that the Father couldn’t stand the sight of the Son on the cross that He turned the other way and left Him completely alone. Please recognize that this is not a personal vendetta from my part to expose your beliefs. Actually, it should be an eye opener for all of us.
God the Father always loved God the Son and God the Son always loved God the Father. This unlimited, un-beginning and without end agape-love is the Person of the Holy Spirit, who now has shed this love into our hearts (Ro. 5:5)
By the way, I have nothing to do with the Word Faith movement. Please be careful before you try to label me. Thank you,
Joseph,
How about, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”
I never said that either, so I don’t know what your point is….
Ahh, that is the illusion of being utterly alone! I say that because once the moment passed, a few minutes later He was committing His Spirit into His hands…
True or not?
Joe,
This “illusion” as you call it, did the Trinity collapse at this moment? Certainly, as you’ve pointed out below, He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), i.e. His divinity/deity was never diminished.
Jesus committed His human spirit into the Father’s hands, but not His divine Spirit.
No, I don’t think my beliefs violate scriptures Graig. Actually, I have explained why I believe that Jesus did not act as God once. Besides, you have not responded to what I said about Gethsemane’s temptation (was it real or not?).
You have not responded to the impossibility of not being able to sin. I ask you again, could Jesus have sinned? Why? Why not?
If you say no, the whole thing was a charade (Heb 4:15 becomes completely irrelevant). If you say yes, you are agreeing with the minority that just happen to understand the Lord’s incarnation in a way that satisfies all possible requirements from a infinite perfect God.
Lastly, what was the need of the charade in the wilderness when Jesus could’ve simply sent the devil packing without so many “theatrics?” (Fasted 40 days, became starved, etc). What for? He just could’ve acted as God. Period. Yes or no?
Dear Graig, I’m totally lost now. Jesus had a divine spirit? Is that a new teaching?
Joe,
Once again, Isaiah 53, the entire chapter, clearly lays out that it was indeed the will of God Almighty to pierce Jesus for our sins. And it was Jesus’ will to lay down His own life in obedience to this command from His Father. You have already been given the verses.
I’m sorry if you sat under twisted teachings growing up. Most of us who post here can relate to your experience. BUT, that does not change the truth of scripture. To believe what you are saying, I would have to start by throwing out the entire chapter 53 of Isaiah. Once I was done there, I would have to eliminate a great deal of what Jesus had to say about himself, including a huge chunk of the gospel of John.
The Pharisees and the Jews did not want to “kill God”. They did not recognize Him! They believed that they were killing someone who was lying and leading people away from God.
“He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” (John 1:10-11)
Joe,
Your view of the person of Jesus is almost verbatim what I was taught in the word-of-faith church. Your view of the death of Jesus on the cross is greatly similar to that of Bill Johnson. I’m not accusing you of following either, just pointing out the similarities.
If I was telling people to bow down to statues of Mary and calling her the queen of Heaven, I would be in great error whether I was Catholic or not.
How many times did Jesus speak of His coming glorification through His death? When Peter tried to counter Him, He responded with “Get behind me Satan” and explained to Peter that he had in mind worldly things and not heavenly ones. Jesus knew that He would lay down His life and He knew that He would raise it back up again, because that was the command He had from the Father. God did not turn against Him. They are one. Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures and turn back the wrath of God for all who would believe.
Jesus temptations in the wilderness were not a “charade”; Jesus willingly submitted Himself to the flesh He took on when the Eternal Word became the Incarnate Word. At any point He could have annihilated Satan, yet this was not the way set forth for redemption of the lost.
Jesus could not have sinned because He was the divine God-man. Divinity cannot sin. Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh, the second Person of the Trinity, could not sin.
And, this does not make the Incarnation a charade.
As for Jesus having a divine Spirit (and a human spirit), here’s Wayne Grudem from His Systematic Theology [Zondervan, 1994]:
…[W]e can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb 7:16). Yet here we must give a note of caution: it is true that when Jesus died his physical body died and his human soul (or spirit) was separated from his body and passed into the presence of God the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43, 46). In this way he experienced a death that is like the one we as believers experience if we die before Christ returns. And it is not correct to say that Jesus’ divine nature died, or could die, if “die” means a cessation of activity, a cessation of consciousness, or a diminution of power… [p 560]
Joe,
Graig to Joe >> This “illusion” as you call it, did the Trinity collapse at this moment? Certainly, as you’ve pointed out below, He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), i.e. His divinity/deity was never diminished.
I don’t quite understand your question Graig; why would the Trinity collapse when Jesus felt forsaken? Did the Father abandon Him, really?
Jesus felt for real that He was being forsaken, yet I don’t read anywhere that the Father left Him. My response to that would be that sometimes we feel utterly, utterly alone and God seems to be far, far away. But is He far away or is it just the way we feel?
Is it an illusion or is it absolute reality?
Another question that rises out of this discussion. When we sin who separates from who? Is it God or is it us? Couldn’t Jesus have felt the separation because He was personifying sin as us and for us? Is it not possible that at that moment He felt utterly alone, yet He wasn’t?
OK, Let’s suppose He did, does that warrant He was forsaken? Did the Father suddenly “felt disgusted” and removed His presence from His own Son?
Perrhaps He did the opposite and whispered to His beloved Son, “I’m here with Son. It is almost over My love. Hang on a few more moments and We will have accomplished Our eternal purpose.”
Is it possible to believe that God is that good, or is better to believe that this idea of rescuing mankind wasn’t His in the first place. Is it John 3:16 true or not?
Didn’t Jesus talk to His Abba a few minutes later? I believe most people that believe this would have a case if Jesus had not spoken to the Father in order to commit His Spirit to Him before He died.
However, if this would have been true, it would open a (BIG) can of worms because if the Father could not stand sin, what was He doing when Jesus walked with all kinds of sinners throughout His ministry years? Doesn’t the word of God say that God was in Christ reconciling the world back to Himself? (2Cor 5:18-19)
So, if the Father could not stand the presence of His own Son because He became sin, then we could assume that Jesus was greater than the Father because He was always around sinners and loved us more than the Father ever did.
Do we believe Jesus was greater than the Father because He hung with us, or do we believe the Father was grater than Jesus because He didn’t hung with us? Which is it?
Do we believe that the light gets contaminated when it passes by garbage? Is the darkness stronger than the light, or is it the other way around? Is God agape-love as John puts it in 1John 4:8 or the whole thing is just a big, fat lie?
Food for thought, that’s all.
I’m not sure you’re fully comprehending the dual nature of Christ.
Joseph,
When I say you violate Scripture, I mean the following:
1) Jesus raised Himself from the dead thereby indicating acting in a divine manner (John 2:19, 10:17-18)
2) Jesus “manifested His [own] glory” in turning the water into wine. (John 2:11)
3) Jesus gave eternal life to whom He chose (John 5:21)
You’re focusing merely on the humanity of Jesus Christ, while downplaying (or ignoring) His divinity.
Joseph,
I suggest you do a study on the communicatio idomatum, or “communication of attributes” online, or as I’ve written about in the two-part kenosis article I referenced earlier.
I’m sorry Craig, but I do not subject myself to study “Systematic Theology”. In my opinion we miss the perfect thread of the scriptures when we do that.
If you want to talk about the eternal covenant and understand the true Heart of God, you should study “Covenant Theology” which gives us a complete understanding of God’s commitment to us before the foundation of the world. We are in covenant with God, and Systematic theology has very little to do with that.
Most people believe covenant is some sort of a contract because their western minds forbid them to think differently. This is why we miss the heart of God. We simply do not know Him.
But I’m sure you will not change your beliefs because of this, but few people know who God is…
I’m going to rest a while from this blog; I’m exhausted… It’s really taking too much of my time, besides we are not getting anywhere.
Take care,
Joseph
Joseph,
Systematic Theology works are not in opposition to Covenant Theology necessarily (it will depend on the relative orthodoxy of either/both). Systematic theologians merely take a particular theological subject and ‘systematicize’ it using Scripture. The good ones never go beyond Scripture. There are differences among the various denominational differences, of course.
Grudem is a continuationist, like Gordon Fee and other theologians. Both are strictly orthodox with respect to the Person of Christ – as all good systematic theologians. Fee’s book (with Douglas Stuart) How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth is an excellent study for properly exegeting Scripture.
Come back any time.
In pursuit of Truth,
Craig
Joseph said, “But I’m sure you will not change your beliefs because of this, but few people know who God is…”
Years ago, a dear friend of mine in the LORD was asked to come with another person to the house of a woman in her late 90′s. My friend, young in her walk with the LORD at the time, was very excited as she was going to have the chance to “share the love of the LORD” with this “frail woman”.
The love of the LORD was indeed shared that day, but not remotely in the way that my friend had imagined it. She met a woman who was vibrant and healthy and devoted to Jesus. This woman was now in the process of bringing her third generation of young people to the LORD. Weekly, she had taken every single child, grandchild, and now great-grandchild to church and led them to the Word of God….every single one. Through 2 world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, the wild 60′s, and the greedy 80′s; she had never even broken stride in this task given to her by God.
My friend was humbled and joyful and still thanks God for leading her to that important lesson. Spiritual elitism is NEVER of God. Many of us have been there at one point in our walk with Him, but He grew us past it. Even Elijah experienced a bit of that, thinking that he was the only faithful one left in all of Israel. But God gently reminded Elijah, as He does all of us, that He indeed has many who are faithful to Him, who do not bow their knees to Ba’al.
You are correct when you say that I will not change my belief. I believe that the Bible is absolute truth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Word of God made flesh, that He suffered death on a cross to pay the punishment for my sins and set me free from the powers of sin and death to be a child of the Most High God, and that He was raised from death in the flesh and seated at the right hand of the Almighty, and that He is coming again.
I will not change that belief, but I will grow in it through the grace of a loving God, as will all who are truly in Him.
It is funny that you speak about “spiritual elitism” while all along you have distorted my beliefs and have come closely to accuse me of being part of a cult.
I have respectfully spent a lot of time trying to explain my beliefs and have defended the honor of my heavenly Father by exposing the lie that He poured out His wrath on His own beloved Son. I went on to explain that the consequences of that belief would have fractured the unity and the love among the Trinity, yet no one of you stopped to think whether what you have been taught may have some loopholes that needs to be looked up with the eyes of the heart.
You did not provide as requested chapter and verse where the bible says that the Father poured out His wrath on His own Son. I know you can’t because it doesn’t exist. This means we have created out of our own fleshly imaginations a deity that if we are honest enough to admit is nothing but an angry Judge who is so ready to condemn us and send us to hell, BUT (big but), His Son said, “No Father, I have died for Him. You cannot touch Him.”
This belief is being taught by the biggest pastors of the country (John Hagee comes to mind) and makes the Father look like a mad and angry judge who has no problem in condemning us to the uttermost…
If I recall correctly, Jonathan Edwards preached a message called, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God.” Isn’t that what we truly believe that God is angry with us? Many people regard his message as one the greatest messages in the history of America’s Christianity.
Imagine if we all recognize how twisted that message really was. The truth is that it was God crucified in the hands of angry sinners…
I also believe that the bible is absolute truth and I believe 1 John 4:8 is also truth. God cannot change. He is AGAPE-LOVE before time began and will be throughout all eternity.
Finally, you said in your post, and I quote:
“I believe that the Bible is absolute truth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Word of God made flesh, that He suffered death on a cross to pay the punishment for my sins and set me free from the powers of sin and death to be a child of the Most High God, and that He was raised from death in the flesh and seated at the right hand of the Almighty, and that He is coming again.”
Well, so do I brother, so do I… even more than what you are willing to accept. All I said is that Jesus’s Abba was never against Him. Never, especially at the cross!
Is that a pill too hard to swallow? God the Father cannot be that good, is it?
Thanks for your time brother…
Joseph,
With all due respect, your position on the Person of Jesus Christ, with its stubborn refusal to look to those saints who’ve come before us and the well-studied theologians of today [and, to be clear, I'm not putting myself in that category - this is why I quote FROM those sources], smacks of elitism. To be fair, while your position may be a little different from what I term hyper-charismaticism, nonetheless there are many similarities.
While we all have the indwelling Holy Spirit to impart knowledge, our theology (study of God) is cumulative, i.e. we learn from those who have come before us and those contemporaneous with us. This is why it wasn’t until 451AD, at the Council of Chalcedon, that Christian orthodoxy had a firmly established Christology (study of Christ). That the large majority of historic orthodox Christianity still adheres to the tenets of this Council is a testament in itself. Yet you (along with hyper-charismatics) have decided that you are one of “the few who know who God is”. Joseph, that is elitism!
Not a problem brother. I guess I should repent from not believing exactly as you do. I also should repent for having expounded my beliefs to the best of my ability and for having exposed the lie.
Would it fair to assume that it is more important to listen to the opinion of men rather that question certain beliefs that slanders the character of our Heavenly Father? You be the judge.
Didn’t Jesus say..?
Matthew 11:25-26 (NASB) “At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
26 “Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.”
God bless…
For the THIRD time….God pours out His wrath on His Son out of love for us including verse and chapter:
“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4-6)
“Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life, and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servand will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:10-11)
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that h loved us and SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS.” (1 John 4:10)
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, BY MAKING PEACE THROUGH HIS BLOOD, SHED ON THE CROSS.” (Col 1:19-20)
“I will not speak to you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. HE HAS NO HOLD ON ME, BUT THE WORLD MUST LEARN THAT I LOVE THE FATHER AND THAT I DO EXACTLY WHAT MY FATHER HAS COMMANDED ME.” (John 14:30-31)
In case you are in doubt of the Godhood of Jesus, consider His warning on His triumphal entry into Jerusalem:
“They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, BECAUSE YOU DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE TIME OF GOD’S COMING TO YOU.” (Luke 19:44)
Or this:
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing His work.” (John 14:8-10)
It is not Craig or myself or anyone else on this blog who is standing in opposition to your viewpoint, but the very Word of God.
Joseph,
You wrote, “I have respectfully spent a lot of time trying to explain my beliefs and have defended the honor of my heavenly Father by exposing the lie that He poured out His wrath on His own beloved Son.”
While you may have been somewhat respectful in explaining your beliefs, you’ve yet to fully grasp the magnitude of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Jesus Christ was fully man, but He was not merely man. He preexisted as the divine Word/Logos, then He became flesh as the one and only, unique “Word made flesh”, Immanuel (God with us). The point is that He never ceased to be God; He never ceased to function as God. Yes, in His humanity He did human things such as grow hungry, tired, etc.; yet, in His divinity He “never sleeps nor slumbers”. The Incarnation is a divine mystery.
You wrote, “…I guess I should repent from not believing exactly as you do. I also should repent for having expounded my beliefs to the best of my ability and for having exposed the lie.”
Your elitism is only exceeded by your arrogance.
“Atoning Sacrifice” is a powerful statement. They are the words of John the apostle, not mine.
The word that John used in Greek is “hilasmos” which means atonement, propitiation… Propitiation is that which appeases anger and brings reconciliation with someone who has reason to be angry with one.
In the KJV:
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (“hilasmos”) for our sins.
Praise God for providing “hilasmos”, for great have been my sins! Woe is me, but for the Lamb of God.
Father, have mercy.
Karla Fay Tucker comes to my mind here. That she could dance with radiant joy and thank all those who helped her in the name of Jesus Christ before she was executed in Texas for her horrible crimes is such beautiful testimony to the meaning of “hilasmos” through Jesus Christ.
What an awesome God we serve! I dance with joy, for I have been set free and my robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb!
Here’s why I think that Heaven invading earth will never bring Dominion for us over the Kingdoms of this Earth. Where we failed, Christ triumphed. Satan is still trying to persuade man that he can regain immortality and dominion over planet earth but it is a false gospel, a great deception…It will be, it must be Christ from first to last. We can have no involvement in the plan of redemption except through our faith in the sinless One who has overcome for us.
In the beginning…God created, God gave man dominion and God saw that it was good. And then the deceiver came and took dominion away from man by tempting him to eat of the forbidden fruit. And there was no man found that could regain dominion over life on earth because God had said, “in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die”. Since God cannot lie and he is bound to his Word…the only thing he could do was work salvation by his own hand. And so he did.
I don’t believe Satan thought God would ever condescend to save man from this dilemma. But he did.
1 Corinthians 2:7-9
7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Yes, God did crucify his only son…the wonder of it all is that it was his plan from the beginning. The more we study, the more we see that his beautiful plan of salvation is woven through everything He did…the 7 days of creation, the law, the prophets, the examples of the patriarchs, and the more you see, the more you glory in God’s wisdom and ways.
So Joseph, you asked what the temptation about? IMO, it was God himself, proving to Satan that Christ, God’s only begotten, could not sin. It was a replay, if you will of the Adam in the Garden where Satan twisted the Word but this time, the second Adam, used the Word against distortion and deception and remained true…for he was Truth itself. It was the beginning of the manifestation of the Son of Man…and what he had come to do….
All other man centred plans to take back dominion are deceivers and false prophets. No one can change or alter what God has already spoken…therefore the whole Heaven Invading Earth…is deception.
Acts 1:11
“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Yes, anger, wrath, etc came from men who crucified The Lord of glory. I quote William Paul Young in his second book titled “Crossroads” where one of his characters say,
“Two days ago was Good Friday, you know, the day we all poured out our wrath on Jesus hanging on a cross. The day He entered into our experience completely, go so deeply lost in all our crap that only His Father could find Him… That what that day was. God in the hands of angry sinners day.” (Chap 19, page 271-272)
I kind of agree with this wonderful author of “The Shack” (absolutely wonderful book) because it made think as to who was angry with whom?
1- Men slandered His holy character, lied about Him, accused Him of false charges.
2- Men beat Him up to an inch of His death, men marred His face more than any other man. Men slapped Him, kicked Him, scourged Him and put a crown of thorns on His head.
3- Men nailed Him on a cross naked, dislocated His arms, ridiculed Him, taunted Him, insulted Him and finally killed Him.
4- Even after He was dead these mad men didn’t leave Him alone and one of them pierced Him with a spear…
Isaiah 53:4 tells us the incredible that these men (us) esteemed stricken ad smitten of God when in fact THEY WERE DOING THE SMITING!!!
“Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”
Yes sir, a dear little Lamb was used as a punching bag to pour out our wrath on God. And what do we do? We twist it once again and blame God and accuse Him of hating His Son.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, this ugly distortion comes right of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and most of of us are d***ed [edited] proud of it!
Joseph,
Why on earth would you quote from the author of The Shack?! The man wrote some of the most awful things regarding the Trinity in that horrendous book. There are many reviews online showing its atrocities. Yes, the book is fiction, but the Trinity is portrayed as reflecting an adequate explanation of the Triune Godhead. And, you yourself are quoting from it as if it’s factual which proves my point.
If you’re going to read extra-Biblical literature, I highly suggest reading works that properly expound the Word of God, not this sort of ugliness.
No one has accused God of “hating His Son” on here. Where did you get that idea? You totally misunderstand the Atonement. Do you not get that Jesus was a willing sacrifice to be crucified at the hands of God’s enemies in order to bring forth salvation to those who would believe on Him? Do you not understand that it was the collective sins past, present, and future of mankind that crucified Christ? My sins. Your sins.
And, why would you use a curse word as exclamation (which I edited)? Are you stating that “most” and “you” are damned; and, if so, why should you be “proud of it”? With this you show your spiritual immaturity. Perhaps its time for the meat of the Word rather than just the milk of which you’ve partaken – if we can even call it milk.
Graig: Just so you know, I was quoting this wonderful author who happens to be outside of the religious box that most Christians are in. I loved The Shack for many reasons, one of them being the beautiful way the author portrayed the relationship among the Godhead. You should read it.
Now you tell me honesty since in your opinion God was wrathfully against His Son, and God hates sin, it is very easy to put two and two together since Jesus became sin on our behalf.
This is just another way to demonstrate that this theory of yours holds no water.
Carolyn hit on my thoughts as I was reading through the comments. I read Joseph’s words about how if Jesus could not have sinned the whole thing is a sham and I wondered why he thinks this.
Why would your whole belief in the gospel fall apart just because Satan tried his old tricks on Jesus, but Jesus could not sin? Why does it all hinge on your idea of what constitutes a temptation?
Maybe the whole example is not about it being a “real” temptation in the sense that Jesus could sin, but simply that Satan did not understand WHAT was going on and so he was trying to do what he always tries to do when he sees someone faithful to God. To me that is what is said in that Jesus was tempted just as we are: Satan tempts. That is the common ground. He tried to tempt Jesus, he tries to tempt us.
Satan may have known SOMETHING was happening, but he clearly did not understand what God was doing (1 Cor 2:7-9)
Why didn’t Jesus just do a God-thing in the desert? Well for the same reason he didn’t do a God-thing by calling down a legion of angels to rescue Him from the guards, because He did the Father’s will.
Joseph,
Your last comment demonstrates that you just do not understand the two natures of Christ [added:] – nor His love for mankind in providing Atonement.
I’ve skimmed through The Shack, especially the portions on the Trinity. It’s blasphemy.
A couple of things for Joseph to think about:
What kind of pathetic God do we serve that could not have rescued his Son from a few angry sinners. Sinners were useful only in that they proved their sinfulness and carried out the Father’s will in laying down his life as an atoning sacrifice.
Note: Yes, I disagree that with Finney’s…”Sinners in the hands of an angry God”…. To me it is emotional fiction in order to manipulate men for a decision….
But we can speak of God’s holiness. It was our sins that separated us from the holiness of God…we could not come near until we were clothed with righteousness. A sacrifice for sins was required. And so God, in our place was the sacrifice…read it for yourself.
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Christ rebuked his disciples who wanted to fight for his life. He could have called 12 legions of angels…(ah…I see that the untangling has preceded me in my thoughts on this matter….)
Matthew 26:52-54
King James Version (KJV)
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
And lastly…The Shack? Craig said it right. My own thoughts are…it is a disgraceful, distorted and imaginative myth depicting the Trinity. There’s only one source from which a lie like that could have originated. The sickeningly sweet ideals of Paul William Young in this book reveal not Truth, but a work of fiction. Joseph…now I’m asking you…where would you find support for this sort of emotional fantasy in the Scripture? It bears NO resemblance to the Trinity of the Eternal Godhead!
Joseph said, “This is just another way to demonstrate that this theory of yours holds no water. ”
Joseph, You’ve been provided the scriptures, chapter and verse, which support the points that Craig and Carolyn and myself have been making. Craig hasn’t presented some half-baked theory on this blog, but the very words out of the mouth of God. It is the Lord Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, whom you are doing violence to with your words. That is something you will have to contend with.
Recommending to anyone a book like “The Shack” is as bad as recommending Harry Potter. That you are allowing it to influence your thinking regarding the person of Jesus is chilling.
“Outside the religious box” as provided in the Word of God is death and eternal darkness.
Sorry, my comment on Finney is garbled. What I meant to say is that if he was using an evangelistic technique of fear for the purpose of manipulating sinners into an emotional decision, then will the end result be a true informed and conscious decision to repent of one’s sin? What is the stimulus for evoking a response…a Scripturally based invitation or a man induced technique?
Well, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I respect that, and hope you respect mine.
I consider the Shack a book that the church needs desperately to read so that we can understand that God is the original Society of love and relationship. He is in fact the Original Family!
This particular book has some incredible things to say about judgment, repentance, and love, but most of you have concentrated in the “theology part” that Paul did on purpose in order to challenge some of the prejudices that we have about God, and missed completely a big part of the book that deals with internal pain.
Sadly, the majority of the church that love to have God in a box cried out foul to the highest heaven because of this wonderful book that Craig calls “blasphemy.” Strong words to use against a brother in the faith that may have confused some things on purpose in his passion to see God at work in the lives or ordinary people like “Mack.”
IMHO this is very judgmental on those who have not read the book in its entirety, yet have strong opinions against it.
But the fact is that most of the people that would like to send the writer to hell for “such blasphemy” are nothing but legalists that only see black and white. The beautiful thing is that despite the controversy, 18 million people that read the book learned for the first time that there a facet of God that we know nothing about. It is called “passionate agape-love” intertwined in a love-embrace where personal relationships get entangled to the intent that God gave them right from the beginning of time.
He is not the angry Judge that some of us portray Him to be. He is love—-passionate love that will not let go of us. He is a “SONG” that comes through a million colors that delight the soul in a million different ways. “The heavens declare His glory and the firmament proclaim the work of His hands.”
We should get used to this awesome God that has manifested Himself in 3 precious Persons because we are going to spend the rest of eternity with Him.
The fact that we are nick picking the teachings of Bill Johnson, a brother in the faith shows me how disjointed we are in the body. We were told to love one another, agape style, yet we have done just the opposite. We have raised up walls by building doctrines upon doctrines, by raising up thousands of denominations as monuments that we are right… dead right!
Even R.C. Sproul, the “great theologian of all time” and the brain of the church said among other things in one of his blogs that “God the Father cursed God the Son on the cross.” Such blasphemy, such insult to the beauty of a God who spared no pain to have us back into His everlasting arms.
Anyway, regardless how we see ourselves, we are all flawed to the core and we have still not perfected our doctrines yet because our God is infinite in all His attributes, therefore He cannot be caught in the minds of students that love to put Him in a corner and define Him within the frame of theological studies.
Personally, I believe we missed it big time…
“This is eternal life that we might KNOW You and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (Jn 17:3)The verb “to know” speaks of an intimacy that goes beyond knowing about. It is a personal knowing where joy suddenly changes us into childlike believers who truly want to sit at His lap in order to let Him love us to the uttermost.
God is not theory to me. He is a beautiful reality…. I love Him because He first loved me..!
PS. I would be interestesting to discuss “The Shack” providing everyone who gives his/her opinion has read it from beginning to end.
justonofhis said,
“Outside the religious box” as provided in the Word of God is death and eternal darkness.”
I would have to say that the desire to condemn others who have trusted in the Lord and who walk with Him, just because they don’t adhere completely to their “beliefs” is pretty judgmental.
I would suggest that we all learn to “agape-phileo” (love) others despite our differences. It will do us all a great good.
Hi Carolyn:
I agree with you. Today’s emotional pressures to “accept the Lord” are nothing but formulas that are outside of the scriptures. Salvation is of the heart.
I don’t read in the NT anywhere where the “sinner’s prayer” is mentioned. “Receive Jesus into your heart” is another formula that many pastors-eveangelists of lay believers use to lure the “victim.”
What I have discovered is that “to be saved” is to truly receive the life of Christ in exchange for ours. “He comes, we go.”
When someone hears the word and is convicted, he will be back to hear more without any type of manipulations. The Lord knows those who are His.
I read The Shack cover to cover. I desperately wanted it to be the wonderful book everyone was praising, but I could hardly stomach Young’s god made in man’s image. It is a book for people looking to have their worries soothed with a kindly grandma God, a bumbling, hippy Jesus, and a whispy Holy Spirit. The god of The Shack presents a god whom no one need fear. A god of no holy judgment, righteousness, or sovereignty.
But godly fear is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding, Proverbs 9. Uneasiness and fear in the face of a holy God is appropriate unless we have been made at peace with Him through the atoning blood of Jesus. This is not some man made religion, this is what God has said about Himself.
Joe,
Quite frankly, I don’t consider Young a “brother in the faith” given his blasphemous depiction of the Trinity: Father God as “Papa” — an African American woman — which has an uncanny resemlance to “Goddess PAPA” of Polynesian lore, Jesus as a carpenter in a plaid shirt (what a stereotype!), the Holy Spirit as “Sarayu,” or Sophia (check out Sophia in some occult literature and you’ll see the parallels). Young’s depiction amounts to tritheism – three Gods, rather than one Triune God. And, for the record, I don’t want to send Young or anyone “to hell” – thankfully, that is not up to me.
And, to be even more blunt, I don’t just whole-heartedly accept anyone’s claim of being a brother/sister in Christ. Only God knows for sure. However, given your overwhelming support for theories not congruent with Scripture and your desire for other extra-Biblical literature which is decidely anti-Biblical, I’m not willing to call you a brother in Christ. You may call that “judgmental”, but I call it looking at the fruit – the fruit of your words and how they do not align with the entire counsel of Scripture.
For the same reasons above, I do not consider Bill Johnson a “brother in Christ”. This is precisely why I’m warning the flock using Johnson’s own words. My words do not condemn him; my words merely expose Johnson’s words as they are.
I’ve read enough of The Shack to know I need not read more. I don’t care if it’s a good story on personal pain, etc.; it’s the depiction of the Trinity as if it were correct theology that tells me to stay away. The basic morals in the storyline are not inconsistent with the tenets of other religious belief systems. So, when the other theological views in Young’s book do not line up with Biblical Christianity, one is best to steer clear.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and read all of R.C. Sproul’s words in context. In this way, you’d get an understanding of the dual nature of Christ, proper Christology, a proper view of the Trinity, and what constitutes proper Atonement (understanding, of course, that there is more than one theological view which does not violate Scripture). And, this does not mean I agree with all of Sproul’s words as he expresses some according to his own denominational beliefs. Yet, these differences are not on the absolute essentials of the faith. And, for the record, while I like Sproul, he’s nowhere near a favorite teacher of mine, nor do I think of him as anything close to being the “great theologian of all time”.
The word theology breaks down to simply a study about God. You may think you are opposed to “theology”, yet you yourself are speaking about God; you are engaging in a study of God by your very words on here. You are propounding your own brand of theology.
Joseph/Joe, give it a rest. If you wish to stick to your own particular brand of theology, go right ahead. That’s certainly your prerogative. You’ve already stated your views enough times on this blog; and, you’ve clearly stated you are not going to change them. I/we get it. Any more comments just reiterating what you’ve already stated (in essence) – either your own views, or your opposition to the views of those who are currently posting – will be summarily deleted.
And, No, I’m not going to just “agape-phileo” your anti-Biblical depiction of Christ, the Trinity, etc. The whole “god is love” thing is rampant in New Age and other beliefs outside the Christian faith. Yes, God is love; however, God is also a God of justice. To take one at the expense of the other is serious error. God and His Word will not be mocked.
( In reference to “The Shack, and response to Untangling:
Really? Do you guys all think alike in this blog? Is this some sort of spiritual cloning going on that you guys never told me about?
Well, sorry, I’m different, and I would appreciate if the rest of the bloggers cease from trying to label me as if I’m on the road to perdition because I don’t belong to the “club” where everyone agrees with everyone else except with me.
Number one, if I may, the author presented the Trinity in a relational way so that we can understand the “humanity” of God in His dealings with us. The Second Person of the Trinity became flesh, so I believe it is appropriate for me to say that at this particular time.
Number two, there is plenty of judgment in this book to the delight of all believers who see God as a mean Judge; yet the judgment through “Sophia” was presented in such a light that should have knocked many Christians off their high chair because it was never meant to condemn. Actually, “to judge” means to make things right.
Number three, this book was a work of FICTION, not a theological treatise of the “holiness” of God.
So, if we cannot read this book with a grain of salt and understand all the undergirdings of the wondrous ways of God depicted in a wonderful weaving of His goodness, mercy and love, we will continue to make Him to look like an angry Judge that can’t wait to get His hands on us to give us what we deserve.
If I may add one last thing, I believe that most of us have a “secret” issue with God the Father simply because we don’t know who He is at the very heart of the matter
OK Graig, take me off your list as a brother on the Lord. I will not lose sleep because of it. From this point on I will delete ever response I get.
You will not hear from me again. Your accusations plainly reveal your judgmental attitude. Perhaps one day you will come down from your high horse and see the world from the eyes of agape-love. I hope you do for your name’s sake.
Joe,
Our desire is not to see ANYONE condemned; but we know from scripture that the world and all in it who are not called of Christ are already condemned. It is in our yearning desire to see others (including yourself) set free from condemnation, sin, and death through the blood of the Lamb that we hold up the true words of God. That is a passion put in us by the Holy Spirit of God. To you, it is the stench of death. To those who are being saved, it is the fragrance of life.
You are deceived into believing yourself to be on an enlightened path that few find, satan’s number one most effective lie. In truth, it is the wide road, and multitudes are on it with you to their own demise.
This is not said in judgment, but in love. You have only one hope…and that is the truth as set forth in the gospel….God on His terms, not on ours. He set the foundation and the barriers, and they are Christ Jesus, the Word of God made flesh. None of us are allowed to go beyond what is written. The apostle John writes about those who run ahead of what is written (out of the box, in your terms):
“Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 8-9)
To emphasize:
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9)
transgresseth: “parabaino”, to go beyond or aside from, or violate.
doctrine: “didache”, instruction, that which has been taught
that abideth: “meno”, to stay (in a given place, state, relation, or expectancy), to abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for).
God’s word has a place in our heart or it doesn’t. There is no knowledge of Him apart from His Word available to us, because He has ordained for it to be that way on this side of eternity. It is through His Holy Spirit that we are convicted as to the truth of His Word. It is through His Word that we are sanctified.
Anyone who is desiring to take Christians “out of the box” that God has provided in His Word, is doing the work of satan. They are in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit and are in transgression and rebellion to God Most High.
Well said Craig. I have nothing to add to except to say that “thinking outside the box” is a good thing. “Thinking on the other side of the box” is just plain wrong…
Joseph/Joe,
You wrote, “…this book was a work of FICTION, not a theological treatise of the “holiness” of God.” Yes, however, you’ve already made claims of agreement with respect to Young’s depiction of the Trinity as orthodox. It’s not.
Joseph/Joe,
You wrote, “OK Graig, take me off your list as a brother on the Lord. I will not lose sleep because of it. From this point on I will delete ever response I get.”
The thing is, you want me to admit you as a brother in the Lord as you continue to disregard the errors of your beliefs as evident from the Scriptures. You wish to pick and choose the Scriptures you wish to adhere to while ignoring others. And, to disparage Sproul pretty much takes the cake. As I’ve stated before, that’s arrogance.
I believe you are the one who came over here on your “high horse”.
Rather than “delete every response you get”, if you are referring to the comments you’ve subscribe to, you can unsubscribe from WordPress at any time.
I’ll state this: no one is saved by perfect theology and no one has perfect theology. There are some Scriptures that are not entirely clear and hence debatable to a point. This is not what is at issue here. In addition, there are those individuals who truly love the Lord who just aren’t able to grasp some of the finer points of theology (and not as though I grasp every point – far from it). Yet, any person who is truly Holy Spirit indwelt would or should consider the words of others very carefully when these other views are not the same as their own. It does not mean the other/s is/are correct, of course; however, it is encumbent upon the person to at least check what the Scriptures state and to investigate the matter further. I’d definitely not want someone to just take my word for anything; I’d want them to check it out for themselves.
I myself held to a heretical view of the Trinity for a time. When I heard a teaching that conflicted my own view, I felt uneasy inside. Am I wrong? Or, is this other person a false teacher? I “studied to show myself approved” and found that I was WRONG. I repented. This led to more study of the Scriptures as I wanted to understand my Savior, my God.
When I first started studying hyper-charismaticism (I didn’t have a name for it back then), I had to assess most every bit of my theology. Was I wrong? And I had to more firmly develop my beliefs based on the Word of God.
I formerly held to cessationism, as I hadn’t given it much thought and it was the view of the church I was attending. Yet, as I read both sides of the argument I had to change my view. This may be one of those debatable doctrines; but, I just cannot in good conscience maintain my former view. However, with the excesses in the hyper-charismatic movement, it would sometimes seem much better if I were a cessationist. But, it wouldn’t be how I view the Scriptures in proper context.
We must always be willing to challenge our beliefs in light of the Scriptures – properly exegeted.
One last thing: I’m not entirely satisfied with my words to Joseph/Joe. I wrote:
____
And, to be even more blunt, I don’t just whole-heartedly accept anyone’s claim of being a brother/sister in Christ. Only God knows for sure. However, given your overwhelming support for theories not congruent with Scripture and your desire for other extra-Biblical literature which is decidely anti-Biblical, I’m not willing to call you a brother in Christ. You may call that “judgmental”, but I call it looking at the fruit – the fruit of your words and how they do not align with the entire counsel of Scripture.
___
I should have added a caveat, something to the effect:
“To be clear, I’m not denying you are saved since, as I stated, only God knows that for sure. But, you are on dangerous ground.”
It’s not easy to fully flesh out one’s thoughts.
Joseph, you said:
He is not the angry Judge that some of us portray Him to be. He is love—-passionate love that will not let go of us. He is a “SONG” that comes through a million colors that delight the soul in a million different ways. “The heavens declare His glory and the firmament proclaim the work of His hands.”
You have just described the God of the New Age…
This is not the God of the Bible and as OUR theology dictates OUR “belief” or “faith”…what our/your theology is…matters to God. HE wrote the book, we didn’t.
We’re all on the same page here on this blog because we are believers in the purposes of God the Father and the Son…and because our belief is firmly rooted in and anchored to the Word. Your faith seems to be in something other than the plain teaching of Scripture. And as has been said…you are either in or you’re out. There’s no fence sitting. The gospel is simple.
We can only advise you to read the Word for yourself and ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the real message of the cross. But he cannot do it if you already have your mind made up about what kind of God you want to serve. You are dictating to God what you want…and will not submit to WHO he really is because you don’t understand it. Truth is, reality is not found in a work of fiction like the Shack. Get the same passion for the Word of God that you have for the Shack and you will have found a treasure, eternal life.
We wouldn’t waste our time telling you the truth if we just all had our own ideas about how beautiful God is, how full of love and peace our pathways are and all the colours of the rainbow that light up our skies.
Just1of His – I appreciate your thoughts about the true gospel particularly from Isaiah 53. You spelled it out for Joseph in no uncertain terms which he has chosen to ignore/reject in preference of his own thinking.
My comment of outside the box was before I read your last comment. You’re right…in the case of the Word…the idiom of “outside the box” doesn’t work.
One more thing…I said the gospel is simple. It is also specific. The biggest lie in the New Age is that there are no absolutes. Believe me, the gospel is not to be tampered with or we will answer to the One who paid the ultimate price for our redemption.
One last run…
God bless you child. You response tells me a lot where your heart is, and you know what? I want no part of it. Keep it.
I really feel for you guys— so stuck up in in your world of “perfect theology” while not knowing the love of Abba in Jesus Christ in a experiential way.
I will pray for you that the eyes of your understanding will be open to see the hope of His calling and experience the love of Abba in a way that will change your life forever.
God bless you and Merry Christmas (Do you believe in Christmas, don’t you?…[edited]…).
Weel I guess I have to respond to this slander because my faith has real boundaries. So, just because I loved the Shack’s contents does not mean I’m bound to a theology where Poppa is a black woman an the Lord of glory is a hippie. NO SIR, NEVER!
You have simply missed the point of the story by a million miles, and guess what, I’m not willing to explain it anymore.
Perhaps one day when real pain hits you in the gut and you find no answers in your perfect theology, you will cry out to Poppa and let Him love you until you are healed. Until then… You will probably keep labeling everyone else that is not like you as a apostate or even worse, as not “a brother in Christ.”
Shame on you for thinking that way.
To believe God is love and a relational God has nothing to do with new age lady. To love a book that deals with pain in a very personal way although the author chose to “humanize” God has nothing to do with being part of a cult.
You need discernment lady and fast or you, yourself will become part of a religious cult that denies the love of God.
You are not only being contradictory, you are being obtuse (purposely?).
You have already stated you thought Young’s view of the Trinity was orthodox (“I loved The Shack for many reasons, one of them being the beautiful way the author portrayed the relationship among the Godhead.”), yet now you wish to say you can take some of his book while rejecting the theologically aberrant parts. If you want to read a REAL, truthful story of God’s amazing love and compassion in face of emotional and physical pain, why not read the biography of Corrie Ten Boom instead of some fictional account with bad theology?
And you’ve no idea the emotional pain I’ve endured in my life nor the physical pain I’ve endured with back problems and occasional bouts of gout. And you’ve no idea how much or how little I’ve cried out to God. As a side note, I was also miraculously healed of degenerative knees. I’d say you’re being both presumptuous and “judgmental”.
You wrote, You will probably keep labeling everyone else that is not like you as a apostate or even worse, as not “a brother in Christ.”
First of all, I did not say you were not a “brother in Christ”; I said that “I’m not willing to call you a brother in Christ” – there’s a big difference there. And I’ve posted a caveat to further explain. Secondly, an apostate by definition is one who has forsaken his religious beliefs. One who does that is not my brother in Christ as s/he has denounced his/her faith in Christ either explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, regarding your “perfect theology” statement, I’ve already stated that no one, including myself has perfect theology.
The portion Carolyn quoted DOES sound New Age with the “million colors that delight the soul in a million different ways”. Perhaps you should study up on what New Agers believe. And, as I pointed out earlier, New Agers believe “God is love” at the expense of judgment. In fact, because God is loving, merciful and true (not a liar), He MUST be one of wrath for the wicked – one of judgment for those who do not love Him. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair and just to those who truly do love Him.
I don’t appreciate the ‘Merry Christmas’ sarcasm.
Joseph, experience? experience tells us little to nothing. Everyone has experiences from sun worshippers to gold dust spectators…
I have travelled the road of experience. My question is WHO is it you worship? You throw words around like Abba and God…but which God?
Give me the specifics of your faith. If you just have this God of love, then you have a very confused faith. Christ has a specific story and it’s not mixed with a bunch of New Age “light”.
Oprah could not accept that God was a Jealous God. It just didn’t sound right to her. And thus began her journey off the path of true Christianity into the New Age. She had her preferences.
You seem to have your preferences. That’s what separates true Christianity from false.
Again experiences are not the thing. Faith is. But faith needs to be anchored to Truth or it will be anchored to error. Your said”
I will pray for you that the eyes of your understanding will be open to see the hope of His calling and experience the love of Abba in a way that will change your life forever.
And I pray that the eyes of your understanding will be open to see the hope of His calling which is the knowledge of Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 1:17-19
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
I decided to look on http://www.christianbook.com to see the reviews of The Shack. Each and every time I think about making a purchase of a book, I look at the negative reviews first as a matter of course, as much can be gleaned from these. Some folks are just ‘haters’, as they say, and these reviews are obviously of no substance and can be skipped over; others are forthrightly describing why they do not like the particular work. The very first one star review follows [from "June" on October 14, 2012]:
I was led to “The Shack” by a relative who considers herself to be a Christian. She highly praised this book. I found the audio version at our library and listened for days while home cooking and cleaning.
Initially, I was excited by this unconventional depiction of God. What if everything that I had been told about God was a lie and the Holy Bible isn’t the true word of God? I began to wonder if Christianity itself was just a mere construction to control the masses and to comfort the weak. Had I become nothing more than an indentured servant tied to a home and children-a virtual slave to my husband? What if instead of being saved out of living a homosexual lifestyle in my youth, I was merely misunderstood?
If the bible isn’t the inerrant word of God, maybe God is female as well as male, so maybe I was really born that way instead of being in rebellion to God’s word. Why should I struggle with conquering “sin” in my flesh when there is no wrong for me to repent of? What if salvation itself is not necessary, because there is no judgement by an all-powerful God, and a sentence to burn in everlasting hellfire?
The shack abandons the world of absolutes in favor of foolishness that chips away at a Christian’s foundation-his/her belief in the God of the bible. Instead, God becomes a black woman, an Asian woman and a Latino carpenter-those 3 in one. If a Christian is defined as being Christ-centered, then this is not it.
I regret ever taking the advice to let “the Shack” into my consciousness. I left my home and my husband and tried to return to my old ways, but God loved me enough not to let me get too far with that. He closed off every door and lovingly showed me the truth (in his word, the KJV, for myself). It was a hard road back, I thank God for everyday that he has restored to our family.
If it was only to keep someone from a similar fate-please don’t take that first step into The Shack’s “alternate world.” I wish I could give negative stars…Please be warned, this can really ruin your life.
http://www.christianbook.com/the-shack-william-young/9781609414115/pd/414115?product_redirect=1&Ntt=414115&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Now THAT is some fair warning! And a great testimony.
I suggest reading the rest of the one star reviews which are much more forthright and mostly go into more detail than the five star reviews.
An excerpt from: http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/22-contemporary-issues/536-the-shack-a-book-review
“The very essence of God is challenged when Young, quoting from Unitarian-Universalist, Buckminster Fuller, declares God to be a verb not a noun (pp. 194, 204). In a related statement, Young has Jesus say of the Holy Spirit, “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is Breathing of Life” (p. 110). Yet the Bible presents God as a person (noun) not an action (verb). When this truth is denied we are moving from the biblical understanding of a personal God to an Eastern understanding of God in everything.[1] Thus, we are not surprised when Mack asks the Holy Spirit if he will see her again he is told, “Of course, you might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in creation, or in your joy and sorrow” (p. 198). This is not biblical teaching. This idea seems repeated in a line from a song Missy creates, “Come kiss me wind and take my breath till you and I are one” (p. 233). At what point do we become one with creation? Again, this is an Eastern concept, not a biblical one. Young reinforces his Eastern leanings with a statement right out of New Age (New Spirituality) teachings: Papa tells Mack, “Just say it out loud. There is power in what my children declare” (p. 227). Ronda Byrne would echo this idea in her book, The Secret, but you will not find it in the Bible. Further, we are told Jesus “as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (p. 100). So how did he do so? By trusting in the Holy Spirit. Jesus, the Spirit says, “is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him…” (p. 100). There is enough truth here to be confusing but not accurate. Jesus, never ceasing to be fully God, had all Divine power dwelling within Him. That He chose to limit His use of that power and rely on the Holy Spirit while on earth in no way diminishes His essence. While Jesus is our example He is not a guru blazing a trail in which in this life we too can be like God. This idea smacks of New Age teaching, not Scripture. Jesus even tells Mack that “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things—ultimately emerging as the real” (p. 112). This is pure New Age spirituality.
The Shack, while occasionally getting things right is, in the end, a dangerous piece of fiction. It undermines Scripture and the church, presents at best a mutilated gospel, misrepresents the biblical teachings concerning the Godhead and offers a New Age understanding of God and the universe. This is not a great novel to explain tragedy and pain. It is a misleading work which will confuse many and lead others astray.”
As a Christian reader, we might expect The Shack to compare with Bunyan’s Pilgrim Progress but it deviates from Scripture on a severe level. This is just one of the commentaries that shows just how far off base this book is and New Age ideas permeate throughout. We are told not to make images of God and this is the ultimate in doing just that.
No one is asking you to read it Graig. You don’t have to. I liked and will read it again for the third time when I get to it. If it bothers you that much, drop the subject.
…[edited]…
Just in case, I don’t see my Heavenly Father as an “African woman”, or the Lord of glory as a carpenter. These were stereotypes that the author used to bring content to the story of Mack’s deep pain and anger at God for having failed him.
Even if the theology was out of place, I would read it again because there is a deep lesson to learn from it. This book is so good that even Kruger C. Baxter wrote a book about it. He said, “There is more going on here than you ever dare to dream.”
The title of the book is, “The Shack Revisited.”
Lastly, for the lights of me I don’t know why any Christian would come against this book. Really, the content is about a man who is filled with a deep sadness that only God can heal. This book has some rare insight that few of us ever see.
Blessings…
Carolyn, a work of FICTION should never be treated as a book of theology. The purpose of the author was to deal with deep seated pain, not to teach us about the gender of the holy Trinity.
I just wonder why most Christians hate this book? Is it perhaps because the enemy is afraid that the Lord may really use it to heal some deep hurts?
Just wondering, that’s all…
Joseph/Joe,
I don’t expect you to ‘get’ why Christians would be against this New Age, panentheistic, and blasphemous depiction of the Trinity as you don’t ‘get’ why your own theology is flawed and why Johnson’s is as well. But then again, Oprah the New Ager endorsed the book – I suppose it’s pretty good as a New Age book.
Joseph/Joe,
You wrote, “a work of FICTION should never be treated as a book of theology” But, as I’ve pointed out, you did. I don’t have to read a New Agers view on pain. There are plenty of Scriptures which speak about the subject and plenty from actual Christian contemporary authors as well.
You wrote, “I just wonder why most Christians hate this book? Is it perhaps because the enemy is afraid that the Lord may really use it to heal some deep hurts?
Just wondering, that’s all…”
Enough of the sarcasm. Last warning. Any more and I’ll delete all subsequent posts without bothering to view them.
Carolyn,
While the reviewer you cite does a good job of reviewing The Shack s/he is propounding functionalist kenosis (Jesus retained all divine powers yet relied upon the Holy Spirit to perform all divine functions), which I deem unscriptural (as you know). I presume you missed it. I just caught this as initially I merely skimmed it.
Just a thought:
What is the difference between warning and judgment?
You see a man walking in tall grass heading straight toward a huge pit of vipers that he is completely unaware of. Seeing that he is only steps from falling in:
a. (Warning): You yell, “Stop, friend! There is a pit of deadly vipers right in front of you. Turn quickly and follow me away from danger.”
b. (Judgment): You smile and wave politely as he passes by, watch as he falls into the pit to his death, and think to yourself how the poor fool had it coming.
The true church has been warning people of the viper pits for a very long time.
Craig…oh ya. I caught that. I wondered if you would. Just seein if you were awake.
The study of kenosis is a theology that isn’t apparent at first glance. I dare say that there is much confusion among many that have studied it as handed down from other scholars. (Just like doctors…they are trained to think that drugs are the right answer to our problems) …
Replying to functional kenosis is an eye opening topic that demands some time and study to really grasp the impact of “God come in the flesh” … “Immanuel, God with us”.
Something that I read the other day made me think of it again. When the disciples were in the boat with Jesus and he calmed the storm by speaking to it. They did a double take and thought…WHO is this, that even the wind and the waves obey him. They had a glimpse of something beyond even the supernatural…
Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
41 >b>And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
Yes, the quelling of the storm by rebuke in Mark 4 was mentioned specifically in the following article:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
Jesus’ actions here seem to illustrate that He Himself calmed the storm. If He didn’t actually perform this miracle in and of Himself, certainly we’d think He’d correct the disciples’ rhetorical question/exclamation in verse 41.59 Otherwise, we may think Jesus Christ to be somewhat deceptive. Robert Guelich notes it was “reverential awe” (v 41a) which prompted their final question/exclamation. Guelich comments further, “in Jesus they have one in whom God was and is at work, one whom the ‘wind and the waves’ do obey”60 and “He accomplishes God’s work of stilling the storm and calming the sea”61 which indicated it was, in fact, Jesus Christ as God incarnate who performed this miracle.
John 2:19 is, perhaps, a more clear example of Jesus using His own miracle-working power as He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead….
I was just thinking again last night about the following. I’ve been asking the question to those who are of the mistaken notion that we, mere humans, will do “greater works” than Jesus Christ [using John 14:12 as the proof-text] with no adequate response to this question: “What is greater than calming a storm by rebuke or raising a man from the dead (Lazarus) after 4 days?” Bill Johnson and other hyper-charismatics have boxed themselves into a corner by asserting we will exceed the greatest miracles Jesus performed. The rationale behind this assertion is that Jesus must have performed all His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, even raising someone from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit would not be a “greater work”; it would be an ‘equal work’.
But, even more so, what can be greater than Jesus raising Himself from the dead? Well, the only conclusion I can reach is this: Given that it was the entire Trinity who raised Jesus from the dead [Jesus Christ - John 2:19/10:17-18; Holy Spirit – Romans 1:4/8:11; Father – Acts 5:29-31/Galatians 1:1/Ephesians 1:17-20; God - Acts 2:24/Romans 4:24, etc.] – essentially, it was God who raised Jesus’ lifeless human body, which, of course, includes Jesus Christ as God in the flesh – one would have to exceed that in order to do “greater works” if one assumes this means miracles. Well, I suppose if one believes in the Hindu/New Age doctrine of reincarnation, then one could argue that in living a perfect life resulting in one’s ascension, one has indeed raised oneself from the dead witout the help of God, and That could be construed as being a greater miracle than Jesus raising Himself from the dead!
On a related note: it took me a long time to figure out why others would respond to my assertion that Jesus Christ did not (solely) rely on the Holy Spirit for miracle workings with “But that wouldn’t be fair!” I kept scratching my head thinking “What wouldn’t be ‘fair’?” Then, I finally realized it was the mistaken notion that we would do ‘greater works’ than Jesus. As Mike Bickle likes to say, “I didn’t have the grid for that” initially.
The entire text of John 14:9-14 is important to the “greater works”. In the wof church, I would hear just the first part of vs 12. Anyone with faith would do greater works…..
BUT, Jesus gives a why this is true that is all to often left out. “BECAUSE I am going to the Father.”
It is His intercession and acting on our behalf and promting us to carry out the will of our Heavenly Father. The verse speaks against the “faith is a force” twisting of the wof, and points to Jesus as the source of all our works…
We can do nothing on our own.
How often does Jesus stop the storm, because we happened to be standing in the middle of it? How often does He provide an escape when we stumble into some pit that we just didn’t see? How often does He answer our prayers for other people for healing, deliverance, and salvation; and we never even know that they have been answered?
How many people do you think the LORD has guided away from false teaching because of the words that he put to Craig or M’Kayla or missionaries working out in the field or any of the other people out there working so hard for Him? You don’t see it, but you pray for it and press on. And He works great things through it.
The “greater works” are His; He just graciously allows us to participate.
A God-centered reading of the passage puts it in a completely different light.
For example, God is still using a book written about Karla Faye Tucker to reach out to people in prison with great effect. She has been with the LORD for some time, but He is still working great things through her faith and love. Same thing with Corrie Ten Boom. “Greater Works” indeed; but they are His doing.
just1ofhis,
Did you see this article?
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/greater-works-shall-you-do/
Thanks, Craig.
I had missed that one.
It just becomes more clear over time to me how God speaks the same central message in so many different voices with different stories and emphasis, all of them singing the same song, but in different parts. Bill Johnson, and those like him, are singing a completely different song. They missed the great chorus and went off on their own; but only that great chorus of God’s own design is acceptable to Him.
I learn something every time I visit, and it is great encouragement. (Thanks Carolyn, too, and everyone who contributes).
I certainly learn from all who contribute here – both those in agreement with what’s already written on the blog and those who disagree (and other blogs I’ve visited over the years). I have to admit that, for the longest time, I did not have an effective counter to the hyper-charismatic argument of “greater works” until I fully researched this by reading scholars’ exegesis on the relevant verses.
The greatest miracle of all – greater than quelling a storm or raising someone from physical death – is an individual’s passing from spiritual death to spiritual life by the Holy Spirit’s work in and through Holy Spirit indwelt Christians.
It’s a strange phenomenon that when you get something passed down to you and it travels through the ranks of your denomination or the group you hang with, it becomes a stronghold in your mind.
Some of the strongholds I can think of might be “the violent take it by force”…that’s not becoming militant as the NOLR movement would have us believe. That would contradict other Scripture. That means becoming zealous, passionate about pursuing your faith, knowledge of God…pressing into the kingdom, into the Word.
Another one is “greater works”… So what were the lesser works of John the Baptist? According to Christ he was the greatest among his peers…the prophets of OT times. But anyone after him was greater with respect to salvation by faith.
Who is greatest among us in Christ’s kingdom? The servant of all. Who gets in trouble at the end for thinking that
a. they are the centre of Christianity and for that the universe revolves around them and
b. the greater works were miracles, casting out devils and performing signs and wonders?
Salvation is definitely the greater work…finding time to study the Scripture, that’s a greater work, humbling ourselves, that’s a greater work, discovering why God came, what the battle plan is, what Daniel’s prophetic Son of Man came to do…these are the greater works. They are the ones I’m going to sink my time into…what little time I have.
Just some thoughts….
I’ve added a few new words/phrases to my vocabulary since coming to this site. One of them is the hypostatic union. Another is kenosis. The first time I heard that word, I said, Ken who? But I’m a fast learner so now I know that it’s Ken Osis. He’s the one who taught that Christ divested himself of his divine attributes.
Previously, I did believe that God came in the flesh. And as so many New Age and Charismatic Christian’s thinking goes…what’s the big deal? Some believe in total kenosis and some believe in partial kenosis (functional kenosis) and some believe that he kept his divine attributes only hidden at times. My thinking at this point is that once you understand the reason that Christ kept his identity a mystery until the appropriate time, it starts to make sense. It WAS a mystery then but it is now made known. And it’s becomes obvious that he was truly God as he walked the Earth. He had to be God, second person of the Trinity, un-divested of any of his Deity/Divinity.
Here are a couple of other times Christ displayed unparalleled behaviour, divine behaviour:
People marvelled at his teachings because he had a kind of authority that the Pharisees didn’t have. No wonder they were jealous.
Think of the weird things that Christ said…if you drink of this blood and eat of this flesh you will have life in you…and from that point many could not accept what he was saying and they no longer followed him (they were in it for the signs, wonders and healing the temporary things)
Think about how much he knew things before hand – here’s just one example:
John 1:48
Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Because Christ/God walked on earth…gave his life a ransom for many, today we can still walk with the Divine Christ/Word of God. As he opens the eyes of our understanding, we can see why the Son of God was manifested to take away our sins and make peace with God and why he became the mediator of a better covenant.
Because God put on flesh and dwelt among us…we have untold riches to discover on a daily basis. I’m excited, more than ever…and let us spur one another on to a knowledge of the deeper things of God, true riches, abundant living and eternal action walking through the pages of prophetic history past the present and into the future.
Blessings to y’all.
Here is what A.W. Tozer said about this kind of gospel back in his day in the book Man: The Dwelling Place Of God, pages 142-143:
“Salvation comes not by “accepting the finished work” or “deciding for Christ”. It comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as His own and paid it, took our sins and died under them and rose again to set us free. This is the true Christ, and nothing less will do. But something less is among us, nevertheless, and we do well to identify it so that we may repudiate it. That something is a poetic fiction, a product of the romantic imagination and maudlin religious fancy. It is a Jesus, gentle, dreamy, shy, sweet, almost effeminate and marvelously adaptable to whatever society He may find Himself in. He is cooed over by women disappointed in love, patronized by pro tem celebrities and recommended by psychiatrists as a model of a well integrated personality. He is never acknowledged as Lord. These quasi Christians follow a quasi Christ. They want His help but not His interference. They will flatter Him but never obey Him.”
Guys…when I read this, I just had an aha moment. Had to share. It sums up our New Age Jesus, the one that has rainbows encircling his head, power beads dangling from his neck, gold flakes reflecting from his loving eyes and a smile that would dissolve us into a puddle of emotional bliss. Mr. Tozer nailed it. The real Jesus doesn’t need adoring fans that think he’s a god…he needs people who KNOW that he IS GOD!
Great reference!
…These quasi Christians follow a quasi Christ. They want His help but not His interference. They will flatter Him but never obey Him.
I myself was convicted by this.
Why are there so many websites like yours that state that they are there to build up the body of Christ, yet spend most of their time pulling it down. Instead of celebrating the reawakening of a church that is beginning to recapture it’s true and powerful identity you are intent on drawing negative, obscure and poorly justified conclusions to warn anyone away from them.
Christian leaders like Bill Johnson and churches like Bethel are inspiring and encouraging believers across the world to give it a go, to step out, take faith risks in the name of Jesus and see what happens. I know for myself and the members of the church I am part of, we are enjoying seeing people being touched by healing and prophetic words in partnership with the Holy Spirit. Our mission to the world has been invigorated with real fruit. Instead of reading Acts as though it talks of another unachievable world, we now know that we can experience all that the early church moved in and more. The real-life examples and testimonies from Bethel, and the teaching from leaders like Bill have been such an encouragement to us – to find sites like yours using terms like heresy and cult with little to no justification are quite disturbing. One out of context quote, or an out of the normal behaviour/manifestation doesn’t make a false apostle, teacher or prophet, or off the wall church or gathering. If so both Paul and Peter would be cast aside. Jesus would be rejected because he rubbed mud with spit into someones eyes. Pentecost would not be considered a move of God. It makes me ask the questions what is your agenda, who are you following, who made you a global critic? As an example when a book like “When Heaven Invades Earth” by Bill Johnson is reviewed, how about celebrating the news that Jesus is alive and well in His church-which is the major theme presented in it instead of things like searching for a missing capital h on “His” as one site talked of, as though it was significant, or the debate on one words meaning – “emptying”, without considering the full story or tenet of Scriptures teaching. Doesn’t the mission of Jesus in Luke 4 look very akin to that of Jesus’s Body in Mark 16? Doesn’t the Bible teach that God is my Father, and to be like Jesus is our goal and the Holy Spirit was sent to us to help us be that (not be be God as somehow you think some people are teaching, but representatives of the Kingdom, yes sons and daughters of the Father). Do you honestly believe that a Christian leader such as Bill Johnson doesn’t hold to the basic biblical truth that Jesus is fully God as well as fully man. Give them the benefit of judging them on at least more than one testimony (which is biblical) and even then on more than one phrase, especially if they have written many books and given many messages to prove their dedication to the truth of God, through the Scriptures. How many times in the Bible do we see requotations in other parts that on the face of it out of context or even abbreviated or altered. It’s even good to judge people on their fruit, and i know from my corner of the world in New Zealand that the fruit from Bills and Bethels ministry is good and Godly. Do you want to see the Kingdom of God growing? Do you want the church to be all that Jesus said it would be? Do you want believers to remain just hearers and not doers of the Word?
The church was not perfect in the past, as testified of in the New Testament, and it won’t be today. Scriptural integrity of the church is important-yes crucial, but we must remember those who promoted the letter of the Word (the Law), the Pharisees – instead of the spiritual intent of the Word, were most criticised by our Lord. Where are the testimonies of good news on your sites, where is the encouragement, where is the building up of the Body of Christ as the writers of the New Testament promoted. It is said the best way to tell a fake or an imposter is to know the real thing. When I see people being transformed through the power of the Spirit I know it is the real thing. I wonder if instead of filling people with so much fear, dread, and warning, especially new believers, so that they become sceptical and mistrustful about everything, in your site tell them stories of the real thing the blind seeing, the lame walking, the dead being raised, people being saved, the oppressed being freed, the broken-hearted being restored – good news! After all we have a good God who wants all to know of His goodness before judgement comes.
Peter Clark,
You’ve selected the one short, succinct article, which goes into little detail. Its brevity was designed to reach a larger audience and to be a jumping off point for further research (such as the one article referenced at the very end which also quotes from When Heaven Invades Earth). Perhaps you should read, then comment on some of the longer ones attempting to actually refute some of the points of said article.
You mention looking at so-called fruit; fruit is determined by its adherence to Christian orthodoxy (not to include denominational bias), NOT signs and wonders which could well point elsewhere according to Jesus:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/look-at-the-fruit/
You wrote, “ One out of context quote, or an out of the normal behaviour/manifestation doesn’t make a false apostle, teacher or prophet, or off the wall church or gathering.” Which quote exactly is out of context?
You wrote, “…Jesus would be rejected because he rubbed mud with spit into someones eyes.” Comparing apples with oranges doesn’t help make your point. But, hey, speaking of “healing”, do you think Jesus would “heal” a man’s perfectly good leg, instead of the man’s mangled one, and then make this man “scream out in pain” en route to a “healing”? I’ll answer that: Not the Jesus I know, but apparently the ‘jesus’ Johnson knows has:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/by-whose-power-does-bill-johnson-perform-healings/
You wrote, “… As an example when a book like “When Heaven Invades Earth” by Bill Johnson is reviewed, how about celebrating the news that Jesus is alive and well in His church-which is the major theme presented in it instead of things like searching for a missing capital h on “His” as one site talked of, as though it was significant, or the debate on one words meaning – “emptying”, without considering the full story or tenet of Scriptures teaching.”
Perhaps this one is better for you: “…Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7)…” I think Johnson’s words are quite clear here, and his ‘jesus’ is non-divine. Yes, I’ve considered the whole tenet of the Scriptures, have you really? Let’s like at divine “self-emptying”:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-i/
Part II goes into much detail of how Johnson “empties” Jesus of divinity and exactly how that’s not Scriptural. Yes, you must read Luke 4, but you also must read the Gospel of John.
You wrote, “… Do you honestly believe that a Christian leader such as Bill Johnson doesn’t hold to the basic biblical truth that Jesus is fully God as well as fully man.” Yes, I do; and, that’s demonstrated by assessing his own words:
http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bill-johnsons-christology-a-new-age-christ/
You suggest that I, “ Give them the benefit of judging them on at least more than one testimony (which is biblical) and even then on more than one phrase, especially if they have written many books and given many messages to prove their dedication to the truth of God, through the Scriptures.” I’ve done just that and have shown by using a half dozen books, plus sermons, video, etc. that Johnson consistently preaches a non-divine Jesus.
Peter Clark,
We do look at “fruit”:
Glory clouds that bring about the kind of behavior you would expect at a football game or rock concert, gold dust, feathers, “gemstones” growing and appearing, children laying on the floor laughing hysterically, women staggering “drunk in the spirit” down the hallway….all a part of Bethel.
How about a man in Bill Johnson who would teach little children about a “jesus” who was smeared with the “holy spirit” like peanut butter and who satan killed because he wanted to get rid of the “anointing”? What kind of lie is that? It certainly isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that Jesus was crucified to pay for the sins of the world per the will of God the Father or not?
What about teaching people NOT to study their Bibles too much lest they become bound by a “religious spirit” and therefore follow an “anti-christ”?
These things all go directly against the true fruit of the Holy Spirit of God, which includes self-control and gentleness among other things. It includes a conviction as to the truth of scripture and a devotion to studying and learning from the Jesus Christ who is the Word of God made flesh.
btw, I believe fully in the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but, separated from the truth of the Word of God, those gifts are nothing.
There is a test of fruit; and miracles, signs and wonders are not it.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day. ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ”
“Therefore everyone who HEARS THESE WORDS OF MINE and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” (Matt 7:21-24)
The test is in both the hearing of the Word of God and the applying of what is said….both being miracles brought about through the Holy Spirit of God through Jesus Christ.
Bill Johnson points people away from these truths, not toward them. Craig holds Bill Johnson’s teachings up to the Word of God, as we should do with every teacher who supposes to be speaking the Words of God. Does the Bible teach us to test all things, or not? That those teachings fall short has nothing to do with Craig, but everything to do with God’s Word.
Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on here. I can see you spent a great deal of time and effort to write on something that you feel very passionate about.
I’m leading a study group at my Church which you might find helpful. We are reading a book called Christian History Made Easy by Timothy Paul Jones, PhD.
I’m finding the book is incredibly helpful in understanding the history of our faith. I’m very much of the opinion that had those brothers and sisters in Christ that went before us not fought for the faith they believed in, that what we know about God from the Bible and how practice our faith today might look very different than it already does.
The Bible instructs us to test what we hear as Christians and not to accept blindly the teachings of men (1 John 4:1). Whether you like it or not, the whole of our Church history is filled with conflicts between followers of Jesus that helped cement the faith that we now believe in.
For example, before the Anna Baptist movement was started (out of a church splintering), Christians were taught that baptism as babies was fine – we did not need to be baptized again upon conversion to Christ. The Baptists, however, felt as though the Church had lied to them and intentionally kept from them the true teachings of the Bible. So strongly did the Church oppose the Baptists, that several were even rounded up and killed.
I think it is Godly to question those things that are taught by others that are in conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately, brother Bill believes and teaches that Jesus was born as a mere man – not 100% both man and 100% God. This is in conflict with Scripture and the very things that Jesus says about himself.
Brother, you may like Bill and he might say some good things. But simply being right in one area does not make him right in every area. Come, let you and I reason together. To whom do we owe our allegiance, man or God? If to God, than why not be willing to look into and learn for yourself whether the man you admire is completely without fault?
In the early Church history so fierce were the overseers protection of believers that they put out anyone from fellowship who attempted to lead those in Christ Jesus astray.
While I applaud your passion, Peter, I believe you find yourself directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible. We must ensure that we do not become deceived or cause anyone else to be deceived by following a Jesus other than the one found in Scripture.
Sadly, such websites as this one are needed now more than ever before.
God bless.
Shawn,
You wrote, “… I’m very much of the opinion that had those brothers and sisters in Christ that went before us not fought for the faith they believed in, that what we know about God from the Bible and how practice our faith today might look very different than it already does.”
A mini-thesis of an article I’ve been working on for a long time (I hope to complete in a couple months) is that if we would look to the first five Ecumenical Councils and adhere to the those tenets of those Creeds (which are all based on Scripture), we wouldn’t have all the “error” we have today. Sadly, most are ignorant of our formative Christian era. The blame can be put squarely on the collective leadership of the current “Church” over the last (at least) 30 years. And, I mean ALL leadership, ALL denominations, etc. I myself had to learn through self-study.
It should be absolutely mandatory that all Christians familiarize themselves with the Chalcedonian Definition (Creed) of 451 AD especially.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your note and I look forward to reading what you have written. I find Christian history a pretty fascinating topic.
Dr. Jones uses the illustration of Sally (?) from the Charlie Brown comic writing on Church History. She titles her paper “Church History” and then writes, “in to study the history of the Church, we must go back to the beginning. Our Pastor was born in 1930…”
Sadly, that’s how many of us first encounter the faith. We have the Bible and then a gap in our knowledge until we reach “today” and learn a little bit about the Church we attend. What went on after Acts 28? How did the Bible we have today come to be compiled? Why do we go to Church on Sundays and not Saturday? And what is a Calvanist and an Armeniast and if they were to both walk into the same bar, how would that joke end?
I’ve found that since I read that book I’m more apt to challenge false teaching when I enocunter it and that I’m less rattled when I come across fruit loop type teaching
God bless and keep up the good work.