THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns

Posted by Dan C. on November 18, 2022

January 23, 2022 by Lighthouse Trails Editors

With the in-theater premier of Season 3 of The Chosen series, I thought it wise to post the following critique of the series through Season 2, as well as the rave review provided by Christianity Today. Here it is, and I apologize for any formatting errors. I watched one episode when it first came out and when I realized that most of it was pure fiction, I quit watching:

THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns

January 23, 2022 by Lighthouse Trails Editors

1) The Chosen and Its Mormon Influencers

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

The Chosen series was initiated and inspired from a partnership between Dallas Jenkins, an evangelical filmmaker, and three Mormon businessmen, Jeffrey and Neal Harmon and Derral Eves after the three men viewed a film written and directed by Jenkins called The Shepherd. The Mormon influence on The Chosen is considerable: the executive producer is Mormon, the distributor is Mormon, certain episodes were shot on a special Mormon set in Utah, and the crowdfunding and media expertise is provided by Mormons.

In 2017, Dallas Jenkins had reached a self-described career low as a filmmaker when he was given an opportunity to partner with the successful Mormon businessmen who believed they could create a “global phenomenon”¹ with The Chosen. With the Mormon church’s long-standing hope and efforts to be viewed by the evangelical church as just another denomination and Jenkin’s unsatisfied desire to be a successful Christian filmmaker, it seemed like the perfect match to help each other out. Thus, the birth of The Chosen.2

Those who defend The Chosen may say that so far (through Season 2), no Mormon doctrine has been introduced into the series, and therefore, it’s not a problem that Mormons and evangelicals are working together. If this were a secular film, perhaps that would be a valid argument. But in a film series that is supposed to be depicting the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His disciples and which claims to complement the Bible’s message, then 2 Corinthians 6:14 must be applied where believers (who are to be in the light) are instructed not to be unequally yoked with those who are in spiritual darkness.

It is ironic that forty years ago, Christians were flocking to their churches by the tens of thousands to watch a film called The God Makers, which warned about Mormonism, most particularly about the false Jesus of Mormonism.³ Today, in stark contrast, countless Christians are enthusiastically watching a film about Jesus that is Mormon-influenced with seemingly little concern or spiritual discernment.

2) Are the Biblical Jesus and the Mormon Jesus the Same?

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4, emphasis added)

The apostle Paul warns that some will present a “Jesus” to the church who is not the Jesus of the Bible but is one who brings a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit and a gospel that is not the one that can save men’s souls. Paul’s concern is that some members of the church will embrace and “bear with” a false Christ.

The Chosen’s director, co-writer, and chief publicist, Dallas Jenkins, has gone on record stating that the Mormon Jesus is the same as the Bible’s Jesus. In an interview Jenkins did in May of 2020 on a Mormon program, he stated:

I can honestly say . . . one of the top three most fascinating and beautiful things about this project has been my growing brother and sisterhood with people of the LDS community that I never would have known otherwise and learning so much about your faith tradition and realizing, gosh, for all the stuff that maybe we don’t see eye to eye on, that all happened, that’s all based on stuff that happened after Jesus was here. The stories of Jesus, we do agree on, and we love the same Jesus. That’s not something that you often hear. . . . I mean I’ll sink or swim on that statement, and it’s controversial, and I don’t mind getting criticized at all for the show, and I don’t mind being called a blasphemer. . . . I’ve made it very clear that if I go down, I’m going down swinging protecting my friends and my brothers and sisters . . . I don’t deny we have a lot of theological differences, but we love the same Jesus.⁴ (emphasis added)

In the book, The God Makers, Ed Decker and Dave Hunt state:

Mormon missionaries claim to be bringing true Christianity to the world. . . . When questioned, Mormons insist that their gospel comes from the Bible and that they have the same God and the same Jesus as Christians. In actual fact, they have a completely different God from what the Bible presents, a different Jesus, and a different gospel. These differences are denied or glossed over by the missionaries, who are often evasive and unwilling to tell the whole truth to a prospective convert for fear of losing him.⁵

Below is a list of some of the “attributes” of the Mormon Jesus:

· Jesus is Lucifer’s brother.

· Jesus is a spirit child conceived through physical means between an exalted man (Heavenly Father) and the virgin Mary.

· Jesus is not eternal and had a beginning (i.e., not part of an eternal Trinity).

· Jesus was not always God but earned his way to godhood just as we will become gods someday.

· The work of the Mormon Jesus was insufficient for man’s salvation, and to complete it, one has to believe in Joseph Smith that he came from God to restore the church (i.e., Smith has a role in salvation).

· Mormon doctrine teaches that without our own righteousness, there is no forgiveness of sins (contrary to Romans 4:5 and many other Bible verses).⁶

These and many other teachings of the Mormon church clearly show that the Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible. And for Dallas Jenkins to say otherwise helps to legitimize Mormonism as true Christianity and to bring it into the evangelical fold.

In 2021, Dallas Jenkins further defends what he calls his “brothers and sisters” in the Mormon religion when he states:

[The] calling of my life is to make the authentic Jesus known to the entire world, and anyone who’s going to help me do that is welcome.⁷ (emphasis added)

Jenkins’ open invitation to “anyone” who wants to help present his alleged “authentic” Jesus is a prime example of what the apostle Paul was warning about in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

By calling Mormons his brothers and sisters (obviously in a spiritual sense), this implies there is no reason to introduce them to the one eternal God and evangelize them to a true biblical faith.⁸

3) The Chosen—“A Definitive Portrayal of God’s People”?

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

In a 2021 interview, Dallas Jenkins says the following:

I felt like God was saying like [The Chosen] is going to be the definitive portrayal of my people, and this is what people are going to think of around the world when they think of my people, and I’m [God] not going to let you screw it up.⁹

In other words, Jenkins seems to be saying that everything in the series has been approved by God. And what’s more, God isn’t going to let Jenkins mess any of it up, even though Jenkins went to Mormons to help create, produce, and promote The Chosen and develop a “definitive portrayal” of the church, and even though most of the content of The Chosen is not found in the Bible (by Jenkins’ own admission).

When Dallas Jenkins “felt” he heard God telling him these things, did he test what he heard, as Scripture instructs us, to see whether these things were of God? One of the ways a Christian can “try [test] the spirits,” is to compare what he thinks he is being told with Scripture.¹⁰ Would the God of the Bible actually tell Jenkins that his film series is going to be the “definitive portrayal” of His people (the church) when most of the content is not in the Bible and is made up? Wouldn’t this put The Chosen above God’s Word? But according to Scripture, God puts His Word even higher than His name!:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)

The Mormon church teaches that the Christian church went completely apostate and basically became non-existent until the early 1800s when Joseph Smith came on the scene and restored the church. However, the biblical Jesus says this about His church: “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Now, was there some apostasy that came in after the resurrection? Absolutely (just as the apostle Paul warned about in Acts 20:29). But from the beginning of the church that Jesus and His disciples established, there has always been a remnant of the true church which has consisted of born-again believers in Jesus Christ (God in the flesh). Thus, it is unbiblical and absurd to think that Joseph Smith was used to restore the Christian church. If God really told Dallas Jenkins that The Chosen would be the “definitive portrayal” of His church, it stands to reason that God would not condone Jenkins’ turning to Mormons to market and influence this “portrayal.”

4) “95% of the Content Isn’t From the Bible”—Dallas Jenkins

Dallas Jenkins told one interviewer that “95% of the content [of The Chosen] isn’t from the Bible.”¹¹ This means that The Chosen is almost completely man’s word—not God’s Word.

The Chosen writers do not hesitate to add their own ideas and opinions to actual Bible events. For example, Mary Magdalene backsliding is not in the Bible; Matthew portrayed as autistic—not in the Bible; Jesus rehearsing His sermon on the mount—not in the Bible (John 12:49-50; John 17:8). With future episodes yet to be written and future seasons to come, how far afield will the writers of The Chosen take their creative liberties to recreate and reimagine God’s Word?

Matthew 7:29 says, “For he [Jesus] taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” The meaning here for the Greek word “scribes” is writers. Dallas Jenkins often says that the fictionalized stories he’s created are “plausible.” According to Webster’s Dictionary, the word plausible means “superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious (i.e., having a “false look of truth or genuineness” and “having deceptive attraction or allure”).¹² When Jenkins writes into The Chosen script that the apostle Peter had a gambling debt that pressured him to fish overtime on the Sabbath to pay back what he owed, Jenkins suggests that this is “plausible.”¹³ But in the Matthew verse, it is clear that Jesus was not offering plausible ideas but was “one having authority” (i.e., speaking the truth).

Jenkins continually elevates the practice of “artistic imagination”¹⁴over literal Scripture. In interviews, he gives the impression that Scripture, by itself, is flat, boring, and one-dimensional (contrary to Hebrews 4:12 which says it is “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword).” The result is a cleverly devised extra-biblical story that is 95% fiction.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables . . . (2 Peter 1:16)

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God . . . (2 Corinthians 10:5)

There are serious ramifications that can occur with fictionalizing the Bible. For instance, in Season 1 of The Chosen, where Jenkins has Peter fishing on the Sabbath, Jenkins asked Messianic Jew, Rabbi Jason Sobel (one of Jenkin’s advisors), what he thought about adding this in; the Rabbi did not believe such a scenario would be plausible and that “this would be a huge deal to the point where I don’t even believe it would have ever happened.”¹⁵Non-believing Jews who watch the series and see this scene could easily believe this is in the New Testament, and knowing that something like this would be nearly impossible in the Jewish culture of the time, it will be further evidence to them (in their minds) that the New Testament is a collection of fictitious stories that never could have happened. This is just one example where Jenkins’ “artistic imagination” could backfire and be detrimental to those searching for truth.

Dallas Jenkins appears to believe that reimagining the New Testament on screen will draw people to reading the Bible and, at the same time, draw people to Jesus. However, by presenting 95% fictionalized content, it may create a “Jesus” with a great personality but one with no redeeming power and rather present “another Jesus” where viewers will be entertained but not saved.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)

5) Jonathan Roumie’s Spiritual Affinities and His Influence on Millions

Jonathan Roumie, the actor who plays Jesus in The Chosen, is a fervent Catholic with a strong affinity toward the New Age. He is a Knight’s Templar, and in 2020, he was nominated for papal knighthood;¹⁶ he also claims to have had “personal interactions” with a deceased Catholic “saint.” Roumie “credits his Catholic faith as the foundation of his portrayal of Jesus.”¹⁷ And now, because of his newfound celebrity status playing the role of Jesus, Roumie has gained a significant global platform through interviews, live events, YouTube, TV, radio, and social media—a platform he is using to draw his fans and followers to his Catholic beliefs and his New Age propensities.* The following is just a small sampling of Roumie’s involvement with both:

· In a YouTube video that as of this writing has had over half a million views, Roumie testifies that he utilizes the Divine Mercy Chaplet, a meditative Catholic prayer ritual that was started in 1935 by Saint Faustina. “Mother” Mary Angelica (founder of the popular Catholic station, EWTN, and teacher of the Chaplet) says this about the Chaplet:

“[Saint] Faustina stated that she received the prayer through visions and conversations with Jesus, who made specific promises regarding the recitation of the prayers.”¹⁸

· In an August 2021 statement on his Twitter account, Roumie posted a photo of himself standing next to the tomb of Padre Pio, a Roman Catholic priest and mystic who died in 1968. Roumie stated:

“Visiting Saint Padre Pio, one of the most powerful saints and witnesses to the suffering and the miracles of Christ in the 20th century, as well as one with whom I’ve had personal interactions; also the first priest on record to have had the stigmata (physically documented)!”¹⁹ (emphasis added)

*(In an interview with Roumie, a Catholic priest stated: “God bless Dallas for being able to help us [the Catholic Church] to actually spread this message of divine mercy in a way through you [Roumie].”)²⁰

· Jonathan Roumie has also become a popular voice on Hallow, the number one Catholic contemplative meditation, prayer, and sleep app. For those not familiar with contemplative prayer, you may request a free booklet from Lighthouse Trails that explains its New Age roots.²¹

^·On June 9, 2019, on Roumie’s Instagram account, Roumie praises and promotes New Age practitioner Russell Brand, a strong proponent of Transcendental Meditation.²² After spending an evening with Brand at a TM presentation, Roumie states, “fantastic night of do-gooding, meditative appreciation, and transcendental inebriation.”²³

· Roumie’s recommended reading list on Amazon includes The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything by Jesuit priest and New Age sympathizer, James Martin. The book openly teaches the panentheistic New Age doctrine of God “in” everyone and everything as the following quotes from that book illustrate: “God can be found in everything. And everyone too”;²⁴ “ We’ll look at how to find God in everything and everything in God”;²⁵“. . . goal: finding God in all things . . . encountering God . . . In all things. And in all people.”²⁶

Martin’s book teaches that one can reach a panentheistic state of New Age awareness through meditative exercises such as Lectio Divina, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius (the founder of the Jesuits), contemplative prayer, imaginative prayer, and centering prayer. These are all forms of New-Age style meditation under the guise of “Christian meditation.”²⁷ Also referenced in Martin’s book several times is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (considered the “Father” of the New Age movement). For Roumie to list a book on his recommended reading list that is so outrightly filled with New Age practices and beliefs makes it wholly evident that he is definitely drawn to the New Age.²⁸

Some will say it doesn’t really matter that a devout Catholic who has “interactions” with the dead, participates in and promotes Catholic/New Age mystical prayer practices, and who resonates with numerous New Age-sympathizing public figures is playing Jesus because he is just acting a part. What he does with his personal life can cause no harm. But this is faulty reasoning. It is because of his role in The Chosen that he has this newly found platform that has given him a celebrity status. For example, Roumie was listed as one of “10 Catholics Who Restored Our Faith in Humanity in 2021.”²⁹ He is already influencing millions of people.

In a Zoom interview with the National Catholic Register, Roumie said that he “hopes to lead people ‘to Christ in some way.’”³⁰ Given what he is promoting and practicing, the Christ he is leading people to is a different Christ and not the biblical Jesus.

6) Dallas Jenkins—Unequally Yoked or Equally Yoked?

In August of 2021, Dallas Jenkins joined Jonathan Roumie for a visit with Pope Francis. As the two were sitting together waiting for the meeting, Roumie asked Jenkins what he was thinking at that moment. Jenkins replied:

I am honestly . . . This is a big deal because for me it represents two things that are important. One is the branching out of the show to the world. Another one is the branching out of the show to people in traditions that I wasn’t part of. So it shows that the walls are coming down. I’ve never . . . I’ve been a Christian a long time. . . . I’ve never seen a project that united more faith traditions.³¹(emphasis added)

While critics have said that Dallas Jenkins is “unequally yoked” in his connections with those of different “faith traditions,” perhaps he is actually “equally yoked.” In other words, if you look at statements like the one above, Jenkins makes it increasingly apparent that he may be more in the camp of those outside traditional biblical Christianity than those within it. Even one of the three writers for The Chosen, Tyler Thompson, is described by Jenkins as a “Cathelical” (what Jenkins says is “partly Catholic, partly evangelical)” as a 5-hour documentary on YouTube shows.³² It would be difficult for creators of The Chosen to deny that the atmosphere they’ve created is definitely ecumenical. In one YouTube video, where a Catholic interviews Mormon Executive Producer, Derral Eves, The Chosen is praised for its “ecumenical” and “inter-religious” appeal.³³

One of the people Jenkins favorably quotes is the panentheistic mystic and Franciscan priest, Richard Rohr, who is a proponent of the New Age concept of the “cosmic christ.”³⁴ In a March 14, 2019 Facebook entry, Jenkins posts an excerpt of Rohr’s book, What Do We Do With the Bible? saying that the quote was “rocking my world.”³⁵ Jenkins’ 2019 Facebook entry by Rohr states:

Just because you use Scripture, even in a God-affirming way, does not mean you’re using Scripture for life and love, growth and wisdom—and for the sake of God or others. Many of the worst genocides and atrocities in history have been supported by Scripture quotes in the mouths of selfish and scared people. Excessive God talk and quoting of Scripture are the best cover possible for a narcissistic personality. In fact, sometimes it seems to me that the churches that go on and on about “the greatness of God”—in both their sermons and their music—are often filled with the very groups and individuals that most want that greatness for themselves. I doubt if God needs us to be saying how great God is, as Satan does here with Jesus. Yes, religion is the best thing in the world and also the worst thing in the world—and so is Holy Scripture.³⁶

Rohr tries to attribute genocides and atrocities to the quoting of Scripture;³⁷ but atrocities and genocides are committed by people who do not care to follow Scripture. They are committed when people add to Scripture that which does not belong there and by people who take away from Scripture that which should be there. Scripture shines a light on evilness and is the beacon that is a light unto our path. Thus, it reveals the secrets of the heart and exposes darkness.

The derogatory manner in which Rohr speaks of God’s Word (and of those who talk about it and quote it a lot) is typical for Rohr and other popular figures today who resist the truth of the Bible.³⁸ It is disturbing that Dallas Jenkins resonates with and is “rocked” by statements such as Rohr’s, especially in light of how little scriptural content Jenkins uses in The Chosen. But it is also disturbing that Christian leaders such as Jack Hibbs³⁹ and Kirk Cameron⁴⁰ are yoking themselves to The Chosen by openly promoting the series to their countless followers.

7) Seduction by Fiction

In December of 2021, T. A. McMahon of The Berean Call ministries wrote an article titled “The Chosen Fiction.” T. A. studied filmmaking in graduate school, worked for Century Fox studios for several years, then entered a career as a screenwriter in Hollywood prior to becoming a believer. This section is an extract of T. A.’s article; used with permission.

“The Chosen Fiction”

Can the Bible be presented through the filmmaking process and stay true to what God’s Word says about His Word? This is how the process works. A movie begins with a screenplay. It’s either an original story or a screen adaptation from someone else’s work (such as the Bible). The screenplay or movie script, in addition to presenting the storyline or plot, the characters, and the dialogue, consists of visual descriptions of what is taking place in the movie story. . . .

Changes to the script always take place during filming. . . . Reasons for the changes from the original script are seemingly endless: actors’ egos, budget cuts, weather problems, location problems, the executive producer’s ego, the cameraman’s “inspirational idea” for filming a scene, union problems, stunt failures, the director’s ego, etc. . . .

As with other theatrical endeavors, “biblical” production comes about primarily through the screenwriter’s interpretation of what has been written in Scripture. Add to that the movie-making necessities and changes—things such as a storyline and dialogue related to the plot that are obviously lacking in the Bible—that, therefore, must be supplemented by the screenwriter in order to create a theatrical production.

Character descriptions are limited, at best, and must be added in order for a casting director to select the actors. Along that line, how does one cast the sinless God/Man, Jesus Christ? The perfect attributes and righteous characteristics of the Son of God could never be displayed by an actor on the screen. When such an idea is incorporated into the script, the end result is a counterfeit Christ, at best. . . . If what a person is taught about Jesus is not true to the Person revealed in the Scriptures, that character is “another Jesus” and a false Christ, no matter how endearing and engaging the actor may be. The same is true regarding all the actors representing biblical characters.

Movies are perhaps the most seductive of all media the world over. I learned as a screenwriter that manipulating an audience’s emotions was the key to a box-office success: make them laugh, make them weep, frighten them, make them cheer, arouse their passions, their lusts. In other words, control their emotions. That power of persuasion through the film medium seduces believers who normally would recognize that they are being snared by a fictional screen character. The comment most often given by those who enjoy The Chosen series is, “I really like a lot of the human qualities displayed by The Chosen’s Jesus. It’s so easy to relate to him.” . . .

The Chosen’s audience has been conditioned to accept whatever the screenwriter, director, and other creative personnel contribute, with no apparent concern for biblical accuracy. . . . Yet for the greater number of viewers, many of whom have not read the Bible regularly, the images they watch are received as though they are actually in the Bible.

I’ve been told biblical movies are great motivators for people to check the Bible out. Really? And if they do, what happens when they can’t find the movie scenes such as the gritty backstory of Mary Magdalene? Furthermore, most people would rather watch a highly dramatized Bible story with little concern that it’s fiction than read the actual words of Scripture.⁴¹

8) “Get Used to Different”?

The Jesus of The Chosen tells his disciples and global viewership to “get used to different.”⁴²However, the Bible’s Jesus Christ emphasized to His disciples and followers just the opposite—beware of different. The true Jesus warns to beware of a different Christ—a false Christ—who will pretend to be Him (Matthew 24:3-5, 15, 24). God reiterates and magnifies this warning about the coming of a different Christ—Antichrist—in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation.

While The Chosen’s creators, directors, and producers may argue that “get used to different” was just a throw-away comment in a particular situation, why has this statement become the flagship motto for the series? It’s emblazoned on Chosen merchandise from T-shirts and hoodies to ball caps and coffee mugs; and Chosen actors and staff often wear “get used to different” T-shirts when being interviewed or making a speech. In January 2022, the owners of the series applied for a U.S. Trademark for this seemingly benign and innocent motto.⁴³ We can find some very interesting insights into the marketing of The Chosen by examining a book written by Executive Producer Derral Eves, The YouTube Formula. From a section titled “The Ultimate Unicorn: Jesus,” Eves, states:

On a big project like [The Chosen], we do a multiday lockdown marketing session, but beforehand, we have several brainstorming sessions to get a good handle on who the right viewer persona would be. . . . we realized that Gen X and millennial women are the biggest spenders online, so our target buyer persona was females aged 25 to 45. We targeted the people who were the community, school, and church volunteers, the I‐love‐Jesus type. . . .

Some of our biggest contributors said they donated money because someone had pushed it to them—that someone was usually a person who fit our target persona profile (our buyer strategy worked!). In just a few short weeks, we were able to get tens of thousands of Facebook followers.

The essence here is that the more you understand and relate to your audience and create content for them, the more YouTube will connect the dots and feed them their preferred flavor of ice cream, so to speak. Maybe it’s the unicorn‐poop‐flavored kind, or maybe it’s the Jesus kind. . . .

You have to keep going back to look at your data and reevaluate. The more data that comes in, the more patterns you will see and the better you will be able to shift your strategy as needed to make better decisions about your content. . . .

When I work with clients, I always have them develop a plan to build their following before they create more content. . . . make sure you create the content specifically for them. . . .

[L]et me tell you how my partners and I built a loyal following around . . . The Chosen, and it has nothing to do with religion. Every client I work with is required to read a book called Primal Branding that teaches the fundamentals of community building. . . . When . . . Dallas Jenkins and I connected, one of the first things we talked about was building an audience. . . .

We needed a passionate social army who could see our vision and our mission and make it their own. . . . As The Chosen’s community grew, our Creed changed based on feedback and interactions with our followers. . . .

“Get used to different” became a catchphrase that viewers really responded to. So it became a Creed. . . . The same thing happened with the phrase, “Binge Jesus.” Our viewers latched onto it, and we integrated it into our Creed.44 (emphasis added)

As you can read above, a big part of The Chosen’s popularity can be attributed to adjusting the content to fit into what the “community” of targeted viewers want to see. Underlying what on the surface appears to be a project affirmed by God (as is claimed by its creators) is a well-researched, market-driven, and calculated formula to make The Chosen successful and “different.”

9) The Chosen—The Stage for a Worldwide “Revival” and “The Healing of the World”

God is tilling the soil and sowing seeds for a fertile revival. . . . I think it’s already happening, and I think we are an additional element of that story and of that accomplishment, by God.⁴⁵—Jonathan Roumie

In Season 2, The Chosen’s Jesus says he is starting a “revolution” and invites everyone to “partner” with him in “the healing of the world.”⁴⁶ But the true Christ said He did not come to bring revolution or international peace and healing, but rather “division”—to separate those who desire truth from those who oppose it (Luke 12:51). Similarly, New Age leaders talk about a world-wide revival as well. In both cases—The Chosen and the New Age—the goal is to break down barriers and bring all faith traditions together.⁴⁷

In 1898, a book titled Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict by Samuel J. Andrews was released. Andrews was concerned that the church was not being warned about the Bible’s account of the last days when the Antichrist would come on the scene and deceive the world. Pastor Andrews described the Bible’s warning of “great deception”—not of a world-wide revival:

This summary of the Lord’s teaching shows us that anything like a conversion of the world before His return by the preaching of the gospel was not in His thoughts. Had it been, He could not have failed to comfort His mourning disciples, and encourage them to vigorous action by assurances of the success of their mission. But He persistently holds up before them hatred, persecution, death. His life on earth was prophetic of the history of the church; and the greatest manifestation of hostility to her, as to Him, would be at the end.48

In former New Age follower Warren Smith’s 2020 book The Titanic and Today’s Church, he shares important insights about a coming false “revival” and “revolution”:

Looking for spiritual experiences while hurrying toward “revival” without identifying, confronting, and repenting of the false teachings, false teachers, and spiritual danger in our midst . . . is symptomatic of the same false confidence and complacency the crew of the Titanic exhibited as they underestimated the physical danger in their midst. The Bible describes a great last-days deception, not a great last-days revival. . . . For the church to have revivals without repenting of the sin and deception entrenched in it does not make for a true revival.49

10) “Never Underestimate the Enemy”

Jesus Christ warned that in the last days, there would be many false christs. He said, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:4-5). Is it possible that our adversary, the devil, could use a series such as The Chosen to deceive many?

In Season 2, Episode 4, a religious zealot, in referring to the Roman official they are seeking to kill, turns to his accomplice and states—“Never underestimate the enemy.”⁵⁰ But have Dallas Jenkins, his Mormon partners, his Catholic Jesus, and complacent viewers underestimated the enemy and where this all may be going?

In Primal Branding, the book Derral Eves recommends all his clients—including Dallas Jenkins—read, there is a haunting quote at the end of the book. The author states:

In the end, the question that primal branding finally asks is, do you want to be just another bland service organization or product on the shelf, or do you want to become a necessary and desired part of the culture? As Maureen White, a former vice president at Target, said to me, “I get it. Don’t just build a church; create a religion.”⁵¹ (emphasis added)

Is the revolutionary “movement” and “revival” The Chosen is spearheading actually sowing the seeds of a new “religion” for a New Age? Are Dallas Jenkins and his cast and crew unwittingly walking millions of people in the world and the church into a deadly deceptive trap? Would it not be wise for them to take heed to the words quoted in their own production?

Never underestimate the enemy.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD. (Amos 8:11)

To order copies of THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns click here.

Endnotes:

1. “The Chosen, the Pope and Going Global” (RNS, August 11, 2021, https://religionnews.com/2021/08/11/the-chosen-the-pope-and-going-global).

2. The Chosen Exposen—The Full Documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LI484mywHU), minute mark (mm): 20:00.

3. Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, The God Makers DVD (Jeremiah Films, 1982).

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXIiv3NhIhc&t=796s, mm: 9:37-10:55.

5. Ed Decker/Dave Hunt, The God Makers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984, Kindle edition), chapter 1, Kindle location: 125-129.

6. In addition to The God Makers (1984), there is also The God Makers II by Ed Decker and Caryl Matrisciana (Harvest House, 1993) and Walter Martin’s The Maze of Mormonism and Kingdom of the Cults.

7. A Candid Conversation with Dallas Jenkins, Director of The Chosen (Melissa Dougherty, 4/27/21, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__-Yyq1FPQI), mm: 67:45-67:55.

8. Read Mike Oppenheimer’s booklet, Did Jesus Identify Himself as God? (read free online at: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=19180).

9. A Candid Conversation with Dallas Jenkins, Director of The Chosen, op. cit., mm: 14:26-14:37.

10. Read “Neglecting to Test the Spirits—A Tragedy of Enormous Proportions” (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=30277).

11. A Candid Conversation with Dallas Jenkins, op. cit., mm: 25:11.

12. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible.

13. The Chosen’s Biblical Roundtables (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRN3PtFebyo).

14. https://eurweb.com/2020/12/04/the-pulse-of-entertainment-season-2-of-the-chosen-begins-filming-in-utah-at-lds-motion-picture-studio.

15. The Chosen’s Biblical Roundtables, mm: 16:33.

16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnM0jIKQnbs, mm: 55:30.

17. https://www.ncregister.com/interview/actor-in-the-chosen-hopes-to-lead-people-to-christ-in-some-way.

18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVGEHr_lzbw&t and https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=34091.

19. https://twitter.com/JonathanRoumie/status/1424372235205283848.

20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3zTl7jIZO0&list=RDLVjAF5bxfNmCQ&index=3.

21. Write to P.O. Box 307, Roseburg, OR. 97470 or e-mail editors@lighthousetrails.com for the free booklet, or read online free at: https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=18192.

22. https://www.instagram.com/p/ByhHES6pzul.

23. Ibid; also see: https://www.facebook.com/JonathanRoumieOfficial/photos/i-love-how-eloquently-and-magically-my-brother-russellbrand-addressed-the-global/10158031802889597.

24. James Martin, The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything (New York, NY: HarperCollins e-books, 2010 epub edition), p. 6.

25. Ibid., p. 27.

26. Ibid., p. 391.

27. See endnote #21.

28. Read Warren B. Smith’s testimony, The Light That Was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace (Mountain Stream Press,2nd Ed. 2006).

29. https://aleteia.org/2021/12/30/10-catholics-who-restored-our-faith-in-humanity-in-2021.

30. See endnote #17.

31. https://twitter.com/JonathanRoumie/status/1428034768852160515?s=20.

32. The Chosen Exposen—The Full Documentary, op. cit., mm: 259:34.

33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxqYx9Li_aM, mm: 26:29, 39:38.

34. https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=30756.

35. The Chosen Exposen—The Full Documentary, op. cit., mm: 244:00.

36. Richard Rohr, What Do We Do With the Bible? (Great Britain, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2019 edition), pp. 69-70.

37. Read Carl Teichrib booklet, Is Religion to Blame?—War, Religion, and the Interfaith Global Peace Agenda (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15995).

38. Read https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=28301.

39. One example: from Jack Hibb’s 11/17/21 study, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2li4P6Rx_aM, starting at 4:36 minute mark.

40. One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ena4yu_Coc.

41. T.A. McMahon, “The Chosen Fiction” (December 1, 2021, https://www.thebereancall.org/content/chosen-fiction), used with permission from TBC.

42. “Get Used to Different” Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKYpA3A-4eY.

43. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://uspto.report/TM/97208962.

44. Derral Eves, The YouTube Formula (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2021, taken from the Kindle edition), pp. 149-151, 251-252, 256.

45. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2021/december/god-is-sowing-seeds-for-a-fertile-revival-says-actor-who-plays-jesus-as-nbsp-the-chosen-is-set-to-blitz-france.

46. Season 2 trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tZ7cg4D_z8 (also in Season 1, Episode 7).

47. Read “The New Age: ‘All the World’s Great Spiritual Traditions and Paths” by Ray Yungen (https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=30719).

48. Samuel J. Andrews, Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict (Bend, OR: The Berean Call edition, 2017; first published in 1899), p. 17.

49. Warren B. Smith, The Titanic and Today’s Church (Mountain Stream Press, 2020), p. 125.

50. The Chosen, Season 2, Episode 4, mm: 25:33-25:37.

51. Patrick Hanlon, Primal Branding: Create Belief Systems That Attract Communities (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Free Press, 2006, Kindle edition), p. 244.

An Excellent Read

Posted by Dan C. on November 3, 2022

medium.com/@andreaswiget/interview-with-jesse-a-former-charismatic-and-bethel-grad-7a5418a23208

The Use of Evidence in Defending the Faith–A Comparison

Posted by Dan C. on March 17, 2020

A good friend of mine at The Domain for Truth blog writes a lot about presuppositional apologetics. Below is a really good comparison between two schools of apologetics concernnig the use of evidence in defending the faith.

Presuppositional Apologetics Believes in Evidence: Yet Five Ways its Different than Evidentialism

I hear too often people say Presuppositional apologetics don’t believe in evidence. That’s not true. Presuppositional apologetics does believe there’s a role for evidence in Christian apologetics.

But first off some might need to know what is Presuppositional apologetics in the first place. It might be helpful to listen to various different lectures on Presuppositional apologetics; check out our “Ultimate Collection of Free Presuppositional Apologetics Lectures.” Among the many lectures the ones I recommend would be Greg Bahnsen’s Van Tillian Apologetics and Jason Lisle’s one shot “Jason Lisle “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” Lecture at The Master’s Seminary”

Yet if Presuppositional Apologetics believes there’s a place for evidence how is a distinctly Presuppositional Apologetics’ approach different than the typical Evidentialism?

I can think of five ways.

Difference 1: There is no neutrality. This is a distinctive of Presuppositional apologetics: There is no religious neutrality. I’ve argued for this point in our “A BRIEF OUTLINE AGAINST RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.” I’ve met some traditional evidentialist or proponents of Classical Apologetics asserting that they approach the defense of the faith in a neutral fashion. Even before I was into Presuppositional Apologetics I felt that this might not always be true in practice; the apologist does have a bias of believing in the Bible. Yet when the skeptics say the Christian is bias in handling the evidences the Presuppositional apologists can point out the skeptics are also bias. They are not neutral. Far from it. In their state of not believing God’s Word they are rebelling against God our Creator.   A Presuppositionalist talking about evidence with an unbeliever will expose the skeptics’ pretended neutrality in how they handle the evidence. Yet when a skeptic merely dismiss a Christian handling evidences as being bias the Presuppositionalist can argue that there is no neutrality.

Difference 2: Philosophy of evidence matters more than evidence per se. In the past I have mentioned this point in our blog that one’s philosophy of evidence matters more than evidences per se. That is because one’s philosophy of evidence will shape how one interpret the evidence. In other words one’s criteria of evidence will either dismiss something as evidence or accept something as evidence. If someone has a messed up criteria of evidence it might be better to first deal with the philosophy of evidence before you present any evidence.   See Van Til, Evidence, and Philosophy of Evidence.

Difference 3: Even the prerequisite for talking about evidences such as the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, nature of truth, etc., requires the existence of God. This is a powerful argument. It is also a big claim. I am aware of that. Space doesn’t permit me to talk about this as much as I would like but I highly recommend Jason Lisle’s “Jason Lisle “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” Lecture at The Master’s Seminary” that develop this point further. An apologist conscious of Presuppositional apologetics when talking with an unbeliever about evidences will be on the look out for self-refuting presuppositions that makes nonsense of the tools necessary for discussing evidences.   An apologist conscious of Presuppositional apologetics will also make a powerful argument that the skeptics’ own reasoning ability requires the existence of God.

Difference 4: Presuppositionalism believes in more evidences than the evidentialists. This is rather ironic. For instance the Presuppositionalist looks at the Bible and discover that Scripture is self-attesting according to Luke 16:31 and is thus another “evidence.” Actually the Bible is “the” evidence(s). Scripture also talks about the doctrine of the self-authorizing Christ. So instead of dismissing anything that is self-evidencing the Presuppositionalist sees these self-evidencing evidences must be in the apologist’s aresenal. That’s because that which is self-evidencing still has evidential value!

Difference 5: Presuppositionalism believes Romans 1:18 onwards that all people already know God but suppresses the truth. Which means the Presuppositionalist is not naive in how he handles evidences and is aware that very likely the skeptics will not accept Christian evidence as evidence. Instead when a Presuppositionalist discusses any evidences with a nonbeliever he will presents the argument in a stronger and more robust Presuppositional fashion. One should read “A Proposal on the Occasion and the Method of Presenting Evidence within a Van Tillian Framework” that is linked in this post “Van Til, Evidence, and Philosophy of Evidence.”

Used with Permission.

To read The Domain For Truth blog, go here. If you want a simpler look at the topic of apologetics, go here.

Turning Romans 8:28 into a Ball of Spaghetti

Posted by Dan C. on April 24, 2019

I saw a Facebook post this morning that contained a short video clip, apparently taken from a Joel Osteen sermon, advertising Joel’s Podcast (available from iTunes). The above quotation is what he told anyone listening to the clip.

“On the other side of the difficulty is a new level of your destiny. If you keep the right attitude, all things will work for your good. Not some things, the good breaks, the promotion, but even the loss, the disappointment. The person that walked away, it wasn’t random, it was ordained by God.” – Joel Osteen

Although he didn’t quote any actual scripture passage, the obvious reference is to Romans 8:28, which claim that “all things work together for good.” Joel would have you believe that “If you keep the right attitude, all things will work for your good.” Now that’s a nice thought, and a positive attitude (what Joel is teaching) helps, but is that what is actually taught in the Roman text? Let’s take a look, shall we?

“²⁸And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ²⁹For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Rom 8:28 – 30, ESV)

Joel maintains that:

1. ALL things will work for your good and “the next level of your destiny” is the “good” (goal) for which all things work.

2. All things are ordained by God, even the bad things.

What is true in the above? That all things work together for good and that God ordains all things.

What is NOT true? Well, just a couple of things.

1. Joel is speaking to a very large audience, to every individual sitting in the former basketball arena turned into a ‘church’ (I use the term loosely), outlying ‘campuses’, as well as television/digital media viewers. The author of the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul, was speaking to a particular group of people, the Christians in Rome. He also spoke about a specific group of people, those who “love God and are the called according to His purpose.” 2. Joel defined the “good” in the “all things that work together for good”, as the next level of your destiny, even implying that since God ordains all things, He has ordained for you some sort of divine destiny, a concept NOWHERE taught in scripture.

He has a lot of company in that regard. There are countless faux preachers and teachers who make the Christian life all about us, and our personal aspirations and dreams for life in the here and now.

Scripture, however, tells us it is those who would give up their lives for His sake would find eternal life (Matthew 16:24–25; Mark 8:34–35), that the whole life of the Christian as a dying to self and living for and in Him who died for us (Galatians 2:20), and that if we want to be Jesus’ disciples we must DIE to self (Luke 14:27). Dear friends, these passages teach the exact opposite of searching for some personal ‘divine destiny’!

Sadly, the ‘divine destiny’ lie might be the most dangerous cancer eating away at today’s church. And it’s really not a new teaching at all. I think the journey to where we are now on began over 15 years ago with a book by a portly West Coast Pastor that was about finding your unique purpose in the world. That book began by saying “It’s not all about you,” but then talked ALL about you for the rest of the book! The mantra for much of American evangelicalism.

So what’s Romans 8:28-30 really about? I’m so glad you asked! Let’s look at it again.

These passages are about God’s eternal purpose, NOT our temporal destinies! And anyone who teaches or preaches this dream destiny lie turns God’s eternal purpose on its head and has tricked thousands, if not millions of professing believers into dedicating their lives as Christians to pursuing their earthly ‘destinies’, and remaining trapped in this world, even as they are already citizens of a heavenly Kingdom and recipients of countless heavenly blessings!

Pray for all those who have been deceived. Prey also for Joel Osteen and all prosperity gospel preachers. They WILL be held accountable.

The Gift of Tongues – Is it Real?

Posted by Dan C. on August 4, 2018

This is an excellent and well written article explaining one side of the debate. There is much more that can, and has been said in favor of this argument. My library will attest to that and so will a good search engine. There is a personal note at the end of the article.

Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues

by Eric Davis The Cripplegate

From time to time pastors are asked about a phenomenon common to Christianity in the past one hundred years called “the gift of tongues.” The phrase generally refers to a spectrum of experiences, ranging from a supposed private, non-earthly prayer language spoken between the believer and God enabled by the Holy Spirit, to an angelic, non-earthly prayer language by the believer in prayer and worship, to an ecstatic non-earthly utterance enabled by the Spirit spontaneously in the believer in private and/or public worship.

Understandably, the phenomenon has created much excitement and inquiry since its rise in the early 1900’s. Professing Christians who experience it often testify to things such as the encouraging feeling it brings, comfort in the Christian life, and joy. Notwithstanding these, and many other experiences, God’s people must evaluate all things claimed to be of God by proper interpretation of Scripture. When done so, it becomes apparent that this phenomenon cannot be justified from the word of God. Having said that, Scripture does teach that there existed a miraculous gift of languages during the foundational, apostolic era of the New Testament church. As clear from Scripture, this was the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned language that is known by others on earth for the purpose of exalting Christ and building up others, while pronouncing judgment on Israel. This was a critical gift for laying the foundation of the church, and, as such, has ceased. However, phenomena as previously mentioned and beyond the biblical gift of languages cannot be justified from Scripture. Briefly, here are eleven reasons why there is no gift of tongues.

1. The meaning of the word “tongues.”

“Tongues” is an unfortunate rendering of the Greek word γλῶσσα. The word refers either to the tongue organ or spoken human languages understood by other people groups on Earth. Thus, references both in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 refer, not to a private prayer phenomena, but a gift of languages, involving human earthly languages.

2. The definition of New Testament spiritual gifts.

In 1 Corinthians 12-14, the gift of “tongues,” or “languages,” is referred to as a spiritual gift. There, the apostle Paul teaches that a spiritual gift is an enabling of the Holy Spirit given to regenerate individuals to exalt the lordship of Christ, serve the common good of others, to be used in love for others’ edification, and exercised in an orderly manner. Therefore, the idea of an individualized, private communing contradicts the meaning of New Testament spiritual gifts and renders a gift of tongues as unsubstantiated from Scripture.

3. The transitional nature of redemptive history in the first century.

Tragically, Israel had spurned Yahweh for centuries, culminating in the rejection of her Messiah. Consequently, God judged Israel in faithfulness to his word and covenant warnings. In part, this judgment involved setting Israel aside for the sake of the church. God would no longer center his redemptive plan on the ethnic nation of Israel, but a spiritual nation; the church. Acts records this glorious transition, as the Spirit empowered believers to make disciples from and among all nations. The idea of an individualized private prayer language contradicts the redemptive historical purpose of the gift of languages in the transitional time of Acts.

In a very vivid way, the God of the nations showed with the gift of languages that one need not immerse themselves in Israeli ethnicity to enter his favor. Believers need not speak Hebrew and become a Jewish proselyte. Instead, God miraculously enabled people to speak the languages of the nations in order to speak the good news of Christ to the nations. Thus, the transitional nature of salvation history in the first century forbids the idea that this gift was a private prayer language. In no way is it a private phenomenon, but a corporate marvel for the nations and in judgment of Israel (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21).

4. Jesus’ teaching on prayer in Matthew 6:7.

In Matthew 6:7, Jesus teaches Christians how to pray:

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7).

The word translated “meaningless repetition,” is from the Greek verb, battalogeo. Similar to the TDNT (1:597), A.T. Robertson comments that the word carries the idea of “stammerers who repeat the words,” “babbling or chattering,” “empty repetition.” John Nolland says it’s the idea of the repetition of either intelligible or unintelligible sounds in order to multiply effectiveness (Osborne, Matthew, 226). Many commentators agree that the prefix, “batta,” is onomatopoetic. In other words, the prefix sounds similar to the thing it describes; prayers sounding something like, “batta, batta, batta.” Being onomatopoetic does not mean that the word exhaustively covers everything which it describes, but the general idea.

Christ forbids praying this way for two reasons. First, because it is characteristic of Gentiles (Matt 6:7). Praying in a way that piles up language, or non-language, unintelligible, or babbling sounds is prayer characteristic of those who do not know God. Second, our heavenly Father already knows what we need before we think to pray about it, thus we need not pray or worship in a non-earthly linguistic, unintelligible way (Matt 6:8). Therefore, Christian prayer must consist of simple, earthly languages to our God.

5. The context of 1 Corinthians 14.

Proponents of the gift of tongues often refer to 1 Corinthians 14 to support their position. In that chapter, the apostle Paul corrects the chaotic frenzy which characterized Corinthian church gatherings. The purpose of the chapter was not to give details on the practice of non-language utterances and trances (whether private or public practice), but just the opposite: intelligibility and orderliness must characterize Christian worship gatherings.

Paul is correcting error with respect to what a spiritual gift is and how things ought to operate in the corporate gathering. In the Corinthian congregation there appears to have been a frenzy surrounding this spiritual gift.

The Corinthians seemed to be erring by: 1) using the spiritual gift of languages in a disorderly, unedifying fashion, with no translation happening and 2) were engaging in the popular Greek pagan practice of non-language ecstatic frenzied utterances which were meaningless noises. Though it may have delivered a spiritual high, a feeling of elevated spirituality, and a feeling of superiority in the culture and above others, Paul rebukes them because it was disorderly and absent of edification. He will argue for intelligibility and order in the worship service, since that is the prerequisite to edification, which is the goal of gathering (1 Cor 14:12, 40). Thus, 1 Corinthians 14 does not validate the practice of a tongues phenomenon.

6. The similarities between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.

It is often proposed that Acts 2 speaks of a gift involving earthly languages, but 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of a different kind of phenomenon, thus, justifying a personal gift of tongues. But this understanding of the two passages will not do. Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 both use the same Greek word, γλῶσσα, which means “languages.” First Corinthians 14:10-11 and 21 all refer to earthly foreign languages. Further, in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 14, the gift of languages is said to have served as judgment upon Israel, demonstrating that God was now working through an ethnically mixed church. Consequently, Scripture does not teach that there exists a heavenly prayer language/utterance enabled by the Spirit on the grounds that Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 teach different phenomenon.

7. The meaning of “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1.

Some proponents of the gift of tongues teach that 1 Corinthians 13:1 suggests that there exists a heavenly or angelic language enabled by the Holy Spirit. However, the passage is a use of hyperbolic extremes.

“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-2).

To remove mountains, know all mysteries, have all knowledge, and possess all faith are not possible. We are not omniscient nor omnipotent. More to the point of the passage, the purpose is to teach that even the greatest manifestation of a spiritual gift is worthless without love. Even more, the passagep teaches that gifts are to be used in love towards others, while expressing the eternal nature of love and temporal nature of spiritual gifts. So, “tongues of angels,” better rendered, “languages of angels,” is hyperbole to serve the point.

Further, it should be noted that throughout history, when angels spoke, they did so in intelligible earthly languages without the need of an interpretive gift (e.g. Gen. 19:2, Jos. 5:14, Isa. 6:3, Luke 2:30-33, Rev. 21:9). Of all the times angels spoke, not once did they do so in ecstatic utterances. Therefore, there is no such thing as a gift of tongues which is a heavenly/angelic language.

8. God’s provision of 66 books containing intelligible words by the work of the Holy Spirit.

The existence of the Bible is an utterly extraordinary thing. By God’s doing, we have the pure, eternal words of the Creator and Redeemer. The Bible is pure and special revelation from God. Without intending to insult anyone’s intelligence, the Bible is a book of words. The words are human words; words of earthly language. The Bible is not a book of unintelligible words which require a special endowment to comprehend. What does that say about God? And what does that say about God’s desire for our fellowship with him? It involves simple, intelligible words featured in earthly languages.

Furthermore, the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit. He carried men in profound acts of providence to perform a great work. The result is 66 books of logical, orderly earthly language. Since the Bible is the pure word of God, it’s safe to conclude that there exists no higher form of communication with God than that which is based upon his word. There exists no spiritually superior form of interaction or communication that that which is observed in the word of God. And, in all of the prayers, praises, letters, psalms, and books of the Bible, we observe common earthly language. There is nothing more profound or spiritual than the language of the Psalms or Jesus’ intelligible prayers in John 17 or the Garden of Gethsemane, for example.

If someone desires to pray and speak lofty, spiritual words to God, we have the Psalms, for example, which contain profound expressions of worship. On top of that, every single word in the 150 Psalms was inspired in an intelligible language by the Holy Spirit (normal intelligibility, with noun-verb-object, structure). Furthermore, when we observe the prayers of Scripture (e.g. 1 Kings 8, John 17), in every instance, whether Christ or others, individuals are praying in normal, human intelligibility.

The existence and content of the Bible teach us that the most profound expressions of worship to God are to be done in God-given, human languages with normal intelligibility.

9. The biblical scenes of Heaven.

At times, advocates of the tongues phenomenon suggest that the practice is a higher, more spiritual, or superior experience. Believers who do not seek or experience it are missing out or settling for less.

One way to evaluate the claim is to observe the biblical scenes of heaven. What type of communication do we observe in heaven? What type of worship? Fellowship? Praise? Certainly, a God as great as ours would showcase the highest forms of communication, worship, and praise in his holy word. And, as heaven is the place of glorified, perfected individuals, we could expect the most superior, spiritual phenomena. What do we observe?

Throughout the Old and New Testaments, we are given several glimpses of Heaven. There are things like singing, speaking to the Lord, worship, adoration, and lament. In each scene, they are speaking intelligible language and not ecstatic chances are private prayer language (e.g. Rev. 4:8, 11; 5:5, 9-10, 12-14; 6:6, 10; 15:3-4; 16:7; 18:2-4; 19:1-6). Not once are individuals experiencing a phenomenon similar to that of tongues.

10. Pagan religious practice.

As Jesus taught in Matthew 6:7, non-linguistic utterances are characteristic of pagan religious practice. In fact, even today, tongues-type phenomena is quite common in false religion.

For example, the type of repetitive prayer phenomenon prohibited by Jesus is common in Buddhist prayer wheels, the Roman Catholic practice of prayer candles, Ave Maria’s and Pater Nosters, and prayers of the Rosary. Tongues phenomena was common in ancient Greek culture (partly what the apostle Paul corrects in 1 Corinthians 12-14). At various points in Phaedrus, for example, Socrates praises the idea of ecstatic mania. A form of non-language, ecstatic prayer was reported to have been practiced through out-of-their-mind, ecstatic oraclers at Delphi and Dodona. (http://sparks.eserver.org/books/plato-phaedrus.pdf, 7). Many more examples could be cited of ancient and contemporary pagan practice.

11. The predominant position of the church.

Up until the early 1900s, the church did not adhere to the contemporary position of tongues. A large number of sound Christian scholars held to a language interpretation, dating back several centuries: John Chrysostom (4^th century), Augustine (4^th), Theodoret of Cyrus (5^th), Martin Luther (16^th), John Calvin (16^th), John Owen (17^th), Thomas Watson (17^th), Matthew Henry (17-18^th), John Gill (18^th), Jonathan Edwards (18^th), David Brainerd (18^th), R.C. Sproul, Ian Hamilton, and Iain Murray (contemporary).

Some of these points are sufficient on their own to demonstrate that the contemporary tongues phenomenon cannot be substantiated from Scripture. Taken together, we conclude that the “gift of tongues” was the foundational-era gift of languages. This was the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned earthly language for the purpose of exalting Christ and building up others. It served as a loud statement at the birth and foundational time of the church to declare that God’s plan of redemption is no longer restricted to one nation, but all nations, while proclaiming God’s judgment on Israel. This gift ceased with the apostolic era in the first century as the NT church foundation was established.

The question is frequently asked, “Then what is this tongues phenomena which many Christians claim to experience?” I do not know. What we do know, however, is that one cannot justify the experience from Scripture, and, therefore, the practice must not be sought, practiced, or propagated by Christians.

___________

Eric Davis is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in Jackson Hole, WY. He and his team planted the church in 2008. He has been married for 16 years and has 3 children.

___________

DAN’S NOTE: Years ago, as a young prodigal who had just returned home, I was in the charismatic camp. Like many young and enthusiastic believers I wanted everything God had for me. I read everything I could get my hands on about the baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as the gifts of the Spirit. I shared my desire with a Pastor from a Pentecostal church. I spoke in tongues the day I was baptized in water as a repentant believer and received what I thought was a valid second blessing (Holy Spirit baptism) during the same service. Over the years, as I grew in faith and continued daily Bible reading and study, I saw that much of what I had been taught and believed was in error. Equally important was the growing feeling that the charismatic ‘experience’ was more about ‘me’ getting from God than anything else.

That’s the short story and I share it so that anyone reading this article won’t think I’m just a hard headed anti-Pentecostal.

How to Honor Christ in our Apologetics

Posted by Dan C. on March 20, 2018

How to Honor Christ in our Apologetics

Posted: 20 Mar 2018 01:01 AM PDT

@ The Cripplegate

There was a man who thought he was dead. In fact, he told all his family members that he was dead. Finally, after months of being unable to convince him, they dragged him to a doctor. The doctor, also unsuccessful, finally asked him, “Do dead men bleed?” The man responded, “Of course not!” The doctor promptly took out a knife and cut the man’s finger, and as the man watched the blood run down his hand he exclaimed, “Wow! I guess dead men do bleed!”

This man had presuppositions he brought with himself to that doctor’s appointment. He believed that he was dead and no evidence was going to change his mind. In a similar way, every one of our evangelistic encounters happen with someone who has preconceived notions and presuppositions.

Understanding why people don’t believe the Gospel is key. Either they lack the evidence and are just waiting for the perfect argument to come along or they are blinded by their sin and need the Gospel. As believers, we are called to make a defense. 1 Peter 3:15 gives us our calling. Peter says,

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect”

This verse gives us three keys on how to do apologetics that we should apply in our everyday conversations as we “make a defense” with unbelievers.

First, make a defense that honors Christ as holy.

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…

Honoring Christ is our priority in evangelism and apologetics. Too many times we are concerned with honoring the unbeliever, and sometimes, when we are so focused on this, we end up dishonoring Christ.

One way we dishonor Christ is by not trusting what the Bible says about unbelievers. The Bible tells us in Romans 1 that all men know God exists but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. As we talk to unbelievers, we should not grant to them that they do not believe in God. I’m not saying that we should point at them and scream “liar.” But we must gently and carefully, but boldly, show them in Scripture that the Bible says that all men believe but suppress the truth because they love their sin. When someone says that they would believe in God if they could only have some evidence, we know that, biblically, this simply isn’t true. The Bible is the only evidence that people need. Whether it is Romans 10:17, or the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the Bible proclaims itself to be the only evidence people need in order to have faith. Jesus, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, goes as far as saying that a resurrection wouldn’t be enough to convince someone. The Bible is enough, and it is the only power unto salvation. Besides, presenting evidence to an atheist would mean that you are the lawyer, they are the judge and jury, and the judge of the universe–God, Himself–is on trial! That is flipped, messed up, and dishonoring to Christ.

Another way we dishonor Christ is by the way we talk about the Bible. Saying things like “if the Bible is true,” or “I could be wrong,
or “give Jesus a try!” may seem humble, but, ultimately, they dishonor Christ by acting as if it isn’t certain that He is the Son of God and the only way to Heaven.

A third way we dishonor Christ is by thinking that our words will convince unbelievers of the existence of God. Whether it is through our persuasion, or thinking that we can come up with the perfect evidence, when we go away from Scripture we are trusting in our own devices. We are practically saying that we can reason someone to believe in God, when Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:25 that it is God who must grant someone repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth. First comes repentance, which is granted by God Himself, then comes truth, in that exact order. People don’t need reason, they need repentance.

Second, make a defense for the hope that is in you

…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…

Something happened to you that has transformed you. You actually believe in absolute truth. There is no question in your mind that Jesus is God. There is no question in your mind that you will spend eternity in Heaven with Him. You are ready for the Day of Judgment, and are not afraid to die.

On the other hand, unbelievers don’t have this hope. They have constant doubt. Their salvation is dependent on the way they live. They have no idea whether God will accept them one day. They are not ready for the Day of Judgment, and most are afraid to die, or at least they should be. Most question the idea of absolute truth.

Most atheists out there know only one thing for sure: that there is no such thing as absolute truth. When you ask them if that is absolutely true, they say yes. They live in what is called an infinite regress. A is true because of B. B is true because of C. C is true because of D and so forth. This doesn’t end at Z, but continues on in infinity. In other words, they can’t know anything. The only way to solve this regress is if you know the One who can see the whole thing. That is God, Himself, who knows all things and can let us know some things for certain. God has done this with general and special revelation. On top of that God has given you supernatural faith, and you can make a defense because you have the hope that He’s given you. Your evangelism and apologetics should reflect this.

Third, make a defense with gentleness and respect.

…yet do it with gentleness and respect.

I wrote a lot about this last week. But I cannot stress enough the fact that our words should reflect the transformation that has happened in us. You simply cannot be a jerk and get angry in evangelism. Believers exhibit the fruit of the spirit not only while speaking to other believers, but especially in talking with unbelievers. Stephen, while being martyred in Acts 7, is an incredible example of gentleness, calmness, and forgiveness. Of course, Jesus is our Master Teacher of how to face persecution in a way that exalts God.

There was a pastor who went to visit a student on a college campus. This student wanted the pastor to talk to his roommate. The roommate, upon seeing the pastor, immediately stated, “I could never believe in a book that says that a man survived after being swallowed by a whale!” The pastor wisely asked if he could just share his testimony and tell him what the Gospel was. The roommate says yes, and after about an hour he trusted in the Lord and was saved. About two hours later, the pastor remembered his initial objection and asked him if he wanted to talk about Jonah. The young man replied, “I guess not. If it’s in the Bible I believe it.”

The young man had an issue with God’s Word because he loved his sin. The minute he repented, he instantly trusted the Truth. A lot of times in our evangelism, we can put our trust in our methods instead of putting our trust in the Lord to do the work of saving souls. We must remember to honor Christ in our evangelism.

Apologetics is a wonderful tool that the Lord has used to encourage so many believers in their walk. But, ultimately, it is a powerless tool to bring someone to Christ. It can be a tool God uses to open an ear to the Gospel, but on its own it cannot save. We must always remember to preach the Gospel and to quote Scripture as we do so. As Paul says in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

Christian Hospitality Toward False Teachers

Posted by Dan C. on July 17, 2017

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.“ – 2 John 1:10 (ESV)

The above passage has been used to assert that Christian apologist James White violated scripture by taking part in a dialog in Memphis with Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim, that was intended to demonstrate similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity, and in fact did so admirably. Here are four respected commentaries concerning that passage, followed by a few observations from yours truly.

Commentaries

John Gill

If there come any unto you,…. Under the character of a preacher;

and bring not this doctrine; or does not preach the doctrine of Christ, as before explained, but despises it, and preaches a contrary one:

receive him not into your house; neither into the house of God, suffer him not to preach there; nor into your own house, give him no entertainment there: false teachers always tried to creep into houses, where they served their own turn every way, both by feeding their bellies, and spreading their pernicious doctrines; and therefore such should: be avoided, both publicly and privately; their ministry should not be attended on in the church, or house of God; and they should not be entertained in private houses, and much less caressed:

neither bid him God speed; or give him the usual civil form of salutation, as a good day to you, all hail, all health and prosperity attend you, the Lord be with you, and the like. The word used by the Jews was אישר, which signifies “happiness”; so it is said (i), what do they salute with? אישר, “God speed”; which was forbidden to say to one that was ploughing in the seventh year. The meaning is, that with such no familiar conversation should be had, lest any encouragement should be given them; or it should induce a suspicion in the minds of other saints, that they are in the same sentiments; or it should tend to make others think favourably of them, and be a snare and a stumblingblock to weak Christians.

(i) T. Hieros. Sheviith, fol. 35. 2. Vid. Taanith. fol. 64. 2.

Albert Barnes

If there come any unto you – Any professed teacher of religion. There can be no doubt that she to whom this Epistle was written was accustomed to entertain such teachers.

And bring not this doctrine – This doctrine which Christ taught, or the true doctrine respecting him and his religion.

Receive him not into your house – This cannot mean that no acts of kindness, in any circumstances, were to be shown to such persons; but that there was to be nothing done which could be fairly construed as encouraging or countenancing them as “religious teachers.” The true rule would seem to be, in regard to such persons, that, so far as we have contact with them as neighbors, or strangers, we are to be honest, true, kind, and just, but we are to do nothing that will countenance them as religious teachers, We are not to aid their instruction, Pro_19:27; we are not to receive them into our houses, or to entertain them as religious teachers; we are not to commend them to others, or to give them any reason to use our names or influence in propagating error. It would not be difficult to practice this rule, and yet to show to others all the kindness, and all the attention in circumstances of need, which religion demands. A person who is truly consistent is never suspected of countenancing error, even when he is distinguished for liberality, and is ready, like the good Samaritan, to pour in oil and wine in the wounds of any waylaid traveler. The command not to “receive such an one into the house,” in such circumstances as those referred to by John, would be probably understood literally, as he doubtless designed that it should be. To do that, to meet such persons with a friendly greeting, would be construed as countenancing their doctrine, and as commending them to others; and hence it was forbidden that they should be entertained as such. This treatment would not be demanded where no such interpretation could be put on receiving a friend or relative who held different and even erroneous views, or in showing kindness to a stranger who differed from us, but it would apply to the receiving and entertaining “a professed teacher of religion, as such;” and the rule is as applicable now as it was then.

Neither bid him God speed – Καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε Kai chairein autō mē legete – “and do not say to him, hail, or joy.” Do not wish him joy; do not hail, or salute him. The word used expresses the common form of salutation, as when we wish one health, success, prosperity, Mat_26:49; Act_15:23; Act_23:26; Jas_1:1. It would be understood as expressing a wish for success in the enterprise in which they were embarked; and, though we should love all people, and desire their welfare, and sincerely seek their happiness, yet we can properly wish no one success in career of sin and error.

Jamiessn- Fausset- Brown

If there come any— as a teacher or brother. The Greek is indicative, not subjunctive; implying that such persons do actually come, and are sure to come; when any comes, as there will. True love is combined with hearty renunciation and separation from all that is false, whether persons or doctrines.

receive him not … neither bid him God speed— This is not said of those who were always aliens from the Church, but of those who wish to be esteemed brethren, and subvert the true doctrine [Grotius]. The greeting salutation forbidden in the case of such a one is that usual among Christian brethren in those days, not a mere formality, but a token of Christian brotherhood.

Adam Clarke

If there come any unto you – Under the character of an apostle or evangelist, to preach in your house; and bring not this doctrine, that Jesus is come in the flesh, and has died for the redemption of the world.

Receive him not unto your house – Give him no entertainment as an evangelical teacher. Let him not preach under your roof.

Neither bid him God speed – Και χαιρειν αυτῳ μη λεγερε· And do not say, Health to him – do not salute him with Peace be to thee! The usual salutation among friends and those of the same religion in the east is, Salam aleekum, “Peace be to you;” which those of the same religion will use among themselves, but never to strangers, except in very rare cases. This is the case to the present day; and, from what John says here, it was a very ancient custom. We have often seen that peace among the Hebrews comprehended every spiritual and temporal blessing. The words mean, according to the eastern use of them, “Have no religious connection with him, nor act towards him so as to induce others to believe you acknowledge him as a brother.

Observations

1. The letter is addressed to an ‘Elect Lady’, which we are told could be a specific person, or a local church that met in a home. We don’t know for sure which of those John meant. One part of the Memphis dialogues took place in a church building on a Tuesday evening, was not a church ‘service’. Using the church building was convenient for matters of logistics and cost.

2. While ‘anyone’ in the passage might refer to anyone at all, there is a direct connection to the ones ‘who went out from us because they were not of us’ mentioned in 1 John 2:19. The ones who ‘went out’ had professed to be believers. Yasir Qadhi has never, nor will he ever (short of divine intervention – not an impossibility).

3. While these false teachers were not to be received or hospitably entertained, nothing is said of confronting them directly as to their errors concerning Christ. In addition to not receiving them they were not to be sent away with God’s blessings.

Dan’s ‘opinion’ concerning using 2 John 1:10 as the undeniable absolute ‘proof’ that James White, by talking about religion with Yasir Qadi, was in serious violation of scripture?

Exegetically, you can’t make the case.

And again,in case you are new to all this about Memphis, I am NOT defending James White,nor am I condemning him.

What is the relationship between apologetics and evangelism?

Posted by Dan C. on May 21, 2017

Easy, you say. Evangelism is sharing a specific message that Christ died for the sins of men, while Christian apologetics is defending the Christian faith against all comers. 9Marks offers an excellent summary of this relationship.

Difference 1: Evangelism is telling others the gospel. Apologetics is defending the truth of the Christian faith.
Difference 2: Apologetics addresses everything from the existence of God to the reliability of the Old and New Testaments. In contrast, evangelism is telling one specific message: the good news about what Jesus Christ has done in order to save sinners.
Difference 3: Another difference between apologetics and evangelism is that apologetics usually requires some level of intellectual sophistication. Apologetics can involve logical arguments, historical debates, philosophical discussions, interpretive disputes, and more. On the other hand, evangelism is simply telling others the message about Jesus Christ. That’s something every Christian—even a brand new Christian—should be able to do.
The link: However, the two can be closely linked. Apologetic conversations can lead to good opportunities to share the gospel. And evangelistic conversations will often lead to apologetics when non-Christians respond with questions or criticisms that require a reasoned response.
Bottom line: So, while Christians shouldn’t let apologetics distract us from sharing the gospel, we should also work to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us about the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15).

Although I might be ‘preaching to the choir’ with this post, I thought a good reminder might be in order, based on recent experiences with a Facebook group I came across a few weeks ago. The purpose of group is stated as sharing the gospel and defending the faith (evangelism & apologetics) – both noble endeavors. Group members are encouraged to share their witnessing encounters with other faiths and encouraged to provide their favorite questions for challenging specific faiths/religions, i.e., Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.

My main contribution to the group was that I share Christ with lost sinners in pretty much the same manner, irrespective of the religious persuasion. Begin or enter an ongoing conversation about spiritual matters, steer the discussion to the issue we ALL have with sin, and offer God’s solution through Christ. And of course I need be ready to engage in apologetics to defend the Christian faith. The gospel message is paramount, with apologetics running a close 2nd. That’s how I became unpopular with this particular group, whose zeal is to be commended! It seems that (I was told by the group ‘owner’) we need to refute the lies of other faiths to be able to share Christ

This morning I listened to a 45 minute encounter between a member of this group and a couple of JWs at a college campus (it sounded like one), in which the table manned by the JWs were offering free literature, and engaged the JWs in conversation. He went straight to the task of refuting JW teachings and was met by some excellent rebuttal from the JW viewpoint. In fact, if I were asked to ‘judge’ the quasi debate as an outsider, I would have to say that the JWs won. They were more articulate quicker with their Bible verses than our evangelistic brother was.

The whole thing was difficult to listen to due to it being a noisy campus venue, but I stuck it out for one main reason. I was waiting to hear something concerning the way manner in which a person finds salvation as a JW, compared to Christianity. In case you are wondering, the JW teaching is that salvation is based on faith plus works, while Christianity teaches salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone. That is what I was waiting for, but it never surfaced. There was an amiable parting of the ways at the end of the encounter.

False religions all have an element of works for salvation, so going to the issue of how anyone is saved is a good principle to follow. My own most memorable experience with JWs was when a couple came to the door of our apartment when we were stationed in Italy. I let them tell me about ‘The Kingdom’ and how to enter it according to their church and when the time seemed right I gently interrupted and told them I wanted to see if I understood them correctly.

“According to what you are telling me, I can make it to the Kingdom if I believe the right things and do the right things?” They were thrilled! Then I asked them to read, out loud, Ephesians 2:8-9, from their Bible ( I knew those passages had not been corrupted because I had a copy of their ‘New World Translation.):

“⁸By this undeserved kindness (grace) you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift. ⁹No, it is not a result of works, so that no one should have grounds for boasting.”

That was it. They had absolutely no response. They had controlled the conversation, I asked them if I was understanding them, and then asked them to read to me from their Bible. The very passages they read out loud to me contradicted what they had been telling me. Hopefully, their silence and calm departure from my door meant that the Holy Spirit had begin to go to work.

So there you have two different encounters between Christians and Jehovah Witnesses. I hope they have been instructive. Let us hit the streets, travel the highways and by ways, share our faith with whomever God gives us the opportunity! And let us always endeavor to keep the simple the main topic of conversation!

Have a blessed day!

Indictments Against the Church

Posted by Dan C. on March 17, 2017

by Pastor Josh Buice

The success of The Shack is a true indictment on the shallowness of mainstream evangelicalism. The church is not only called to evangelize the world with the gospel, she is also called to have biblical discernment. That lack of concern when it comes to understanding the Bible and the core essential teachings of Scripture among many evangelical Christians should bring about great concern. When bookstores, even Christian bookstores, are willing to peddle books like The Shack and other sub-Christian titles, we should be greatly concerned. Albert Mohler writes:

The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity…The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine. [4]

A further indictment must be centered on the pulpit in the evangelical church today. Christians, if taught properly each Lord’s Day from the pulpit, would detest such books as The Shack. If robust teaching was the common diet, books like The Shack would be so unsuccessful that a movie producer wouldn’t give it a second thought—because in his mind he needs the evangelical church to buy tickets to watch it. Therefore, when the pulpit is shallow, dysfunctional, and sub-Christian—you can expect the people to crave that same type of entertainment.

Pastors guard your people by telling them the truth. Brothers and sisters in Christ, please make the movie version of this heretical book far less successful by staying home.

____________

TGhe above remarks are part of a longer and well written article by Pastor Buice concerning The Shack. You can read the entire article here.

Hillsong and Man

Posted by Dan C. on December 3, 2016

This is the third in a series of articles from Grace to You ministries and again, well worth the read. It’s not a ‘hit’ piece, but is borne of a concern for the integrity of God’s Word and the true gospel.

Hillsong and Man

by Cameron Buettel & Jeremiah Johnson

hillsong-and-man

The heart of the human problem is the human heart. Therapy can’t change it. Self-help gurus can’t fix it. Positive confession can’t conceal it. And self-esteem can’t convert it.

Sinners cannot be persuaded into the kingdom of God. Salvation is not achieved through mental assent or emotional responses. Unless God regenerates the heart (Ezekiel 36:25–27; John 3:3) it remains dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), hostile to Him (Romans 8:7), and worthy of condemnation (Ephesians 2:3). That’s not a matter of opinion—it’s God’s own diagnosis of the unregenerate heart. And the only cure is His redeeming and transforming work. Everything else is woefully insufficient.

If you get the doctrine of man wrong, you can’t help but get the gospel wrong, too. That’s why John MacArthur describes total depravity (or “total inability”) as the most distinctly Christian doctrine:

No doctrine is more hated by unbelievers than this one, and even some Christians find it so offensive that they zealously attack it. Though the doctrine of total depravity is often the most attacked and minimized of the doctrines of grace, it is the most distinctly Christian doctrine because it is foundational to a right understanding of the gospel. . . . The neglect of this doctrine within American evangelicalism has resulted in all kinds of errors, including both the watered-down gospel and the seeker-driven pragmatism of the church growth movement. ^[1] John MacArthur, Slave (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 121–22

That was exactly what we experienced during our visits to Hillsong Los Angeles, where the biblical view of man has been discarded and replaced with something far more palatable to a therapeutic, self-centered culture.

Man Is Central

In Hillsong’s spiritual economy, man has tremendous inherent worth. The individual replaces Christ as the central figure in God’s redemptive plan. Their own doctrinal statement says that the purpose of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection was to “prove His victory and empower us for life.” The redemption of wretched sinners is not in view.

That man-centered approach is a recurring theme throughout Hillsong’s global ministry empire. Their songs are often more about the ones singing than the One they’re singing to. Every passage they preach is a promise of God’s blessing and favor for you. And their altar calls emphasize an endless stream of temporal, personal benefits—breakthrough, healing, success, and prosperity.

Effectively, Hillsong’s leaders seek to enable and empower a latent human condition. Their focus is primarily on the enormous potential we have to do great things and be great people. Hillsong’s official website contains a gospel presentation in which we are told that the main point of Christ’s incarnation was to “show us our full potential . . . the wonderful potential of perfected humanity.”

The preaching is where Hillsong’s man-centeredness is most blatant, as all the sermons we heard adhered to a simple but consistent template. First, a narrative portion of Scripture would be isolated and severed from its larger biblical context. Next, the preacher would insert him or herself and the congregation into the story. Third, the text was routinely used as a bridge to introduce personal illustrations from the preacher’s own experiences. And finally, after those personal experiences had been fully exegeted, the passage is recast as a promise from God for the congregation. Sitting under that kind of teaching long enough would convince you that all of Scripture is merely an allegory for you and your life.

God’s purpose in writing the biblical story, or its place in His wider redemptive plan, was never mentioned in any of the messages we heard. Man was always central. However, his culpability for sin was avoided at every turn.

Man Is Never Prosecuted

Human guilt barely registers on the Hillsong radar. While the word “sin” does get an occasional mention in Hillsong worship songs, it is never defined or described. The same goes for all the Hillsong preachers we heard—and even then, they prefer to describe sin as “dumb stuff” or “mistakes.”

Their statement of faith attempts greater clarity on the subject, but still falls far short of the biblical definition: “We believe that sin has separated each of us from God and His purpose for our lives.” That’s not a false statement, but it drastically understates the reality of man’s fallen condition.

The reticence regarding sin extends throughout the ministry. We spoke with some of the Hillsong volunteers responsible for integrating new attenders. They made it clear that they had been instructed to avoid challenging or confronting people about their sins—even open, unrepentant sin. Considering the way Hillsong operates, you can’t help but wonder where and when such a confrontation might happen? It’s certainly not coming from the pulpit.

That reluctance to deal directly with sin is institutional at Hillsong. When Brian Houston—Hillsong’s founder and global pastor—was interviewed on Australian television, he was incapable of expressing any clear-cut biblical convictions on prominent moral issues:

I think that the homosexual question and sexuality generally is one of the most challenging questions there is for the church in the 21st century. And it’s one where I feel conflict myself, as a believer in the Bible and specifically the New Testament, I think that marriage is God’s idea, and I think it’s for a man and a woman. But I also represent a God that’s merciful and gracious and kind, and having to connect those two things I think is one of the great challenges for me as a church leader.

In the church we can point the finger so easily. On the subject of abortion, I’m pro-life. But in a way I’m pro-choice as well, because I believe in the sanctity of life and I believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe that ultimately human beings have to make their own choices, and I ultimately can’t tell you what you should do. I can only give you the parameters that I believe.

Those quotes don’t represent Christian conviction. They are the chameleonic ramblings of a political pragmatist.

Carl Lentz, pastor of Hillsong New York, goes even further than Houston. Instead of equivocating on morality, he simply chooses to avoid the subject altogether. During a television interview with Katie Couric, Lentz was asked for his views on gay marriage: “Do you feel you have a moral imperative to speak publically about some of these more controversial issues?” He responded: “No, because we try to be like Jesus. Very rarely did Jesus ever talk about morality or social issues.”

That’s either a lack of integrity or biblical literacy. Either way, it’s indicative of just how far Hillsong is willing to go to avoid dealing with sin directly.

Man Is a Victim

Since Hillsong refuses to offer any exploration or explanation concerning our personal guilt, our condition is always couched in therapeutic language. Man is regularly designated as the victim rather than the perpetrator.

Both Hillsong’s music and message label the primary problems of unbelievers with words like trapped, bound, enslaved, captive, hurting, wounded, disappointed, let down, and brokenhearted. Certainly some of those words reflect the biblical truth about the unregenerate heart. But the gospel of Hillsong is presented as the remedy to those problems—not reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:19) and rescue from His wrath (John 3:36).

During our visits, we regularly heard different Hillsong teachers point out that God loves us just as we are; that He understands how hard our lives are; that He has great desires and dreams for us; that He wants to fix all our financial, health, and relationship problems; and that He’s waiting on us to let Him unleash blessing and breakthrough in our lives. But none of that can happen until we have repented of our sin and surrendered our lives in faith to God.

We’re not denying the existence of genuine victims. But in terms of eternity, even the greatest victim still needs to appreciate the depth of his own guilt in order to grasp his need for the Savior. The speakers we heard at Hillsong LA were only interested in salving our own grief—there was no thought whatsoever for how our sin grieves God.

Man Doesn’t Need to Change

The natural consequence of concealing human guilt is that it removes all need for repentance—another word we rarely heard in our time at Hillsong LA. It did fit the rhyme scheme of one or two songs, and it occasionally slipped out during the routine alter calls, but it was never explained or stressed as a necessary element of faith in Christ.

Oddly enough, Hillsong’s statement of faith does talk about repentance: “We believe that in order to receive forgiveness and the ‘new birth’ we must repent of our sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for our lives.” However, that quote only highlights the danger of taking doctrinal statements at face value. Concerning Hillsong and the doctrine of repentance, there is zero correlation between what they claim in print and what they actually preach.

For the sake of honesty, Hillsong should either conform their preaching to their doctrinal statement or conform their doctrinal statement to their preaching. As it stands now, it’s hard to see it as anything less than a devious misrepresentation. Worse still, they have congregations full of people—many of them previously unchurched—who are being kept in the dark about the seriousness of their sin and their urgent need to turn from it.

Man Is Validated

That leaves Hillsong with an emaciated, man-centered gospel. A gospel where God is the supporting cast to man’s starring role. It is a gospel that fails to prosecute men for their sins against God, and instead portrays the criminal as a victim—a gospel that places no requirements on the sinner to turn from his wicked ways. Salvation is thus reduced to God’s revitalization of the victim rather than His justification of the sinner.

Even during a discussion on the prayer acronym ACTS—adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication—we were specifically cautioned against confessing sins. The confession part of prayer was instead explained as reminding ourselves and God of His promises of blessing for us—a practice commonly referred to in charismatic circles as “positive confession.” With the doctrine of depravity already in ruins, it makes sense that Hillsong turns confession into another opportunity for self-aggrandizement.

That example pretty much encapsulates the delusional anthropology Hillsong teaches to its attenders. They focus on building self-esteem rather than our need to esteem Christ. They spotlight our disappointments at the expense of our guilt. They emphasize our potential while ignoring our depravity. And all the while the Hillsong flock is left in the dark about their true need for Christ.

A Final Word

Please don’t misunderstand our purpose in this series—as though we take some perverse delight in chronicling such a theological disaster. Instead, we feel a responsibility to warn the church about what we’ve seen and heard during our time at Hillsong, and encourage God’s people to be discerning about the ministries they allow to influence their faith and spiritual growth.

We also hope these posts will be lifelines to men and women who are unwittingly drowning in theological error. The people we encountered at Hillsong LA were some of the friendliest, kindest, and most welcoming people you could hope to meet. We are genuinely grieved for them and deeply troubled by their spiritual malnutrition. It’s our sincere hope that our words will help awaken them to the truth—that they are being denied the life-giving truth of God’s Word.

Perhaps you know people likewise caught under the sway of Hillsong or another similarly weak ministry—sadly, there are many others. Pray for them, and do what you can to funnel quality, biblical teaching their way. They are not the enemy; they are a spiritually starving mission field that needs to hear about the greatness of their sin and an even greater Savior.

	SLIMJIM on “The Death of Death in t…
	Dan C. on “The Death of Death in t…
	SLIMJIM on “The Death of Death in t…
	SLIMJIM on The Whole Counsel of God
	SLIMJIM on How Firm a Foundation

The Battle Cry

Category Archives: Apologetics

THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns

THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns

“The Chosen Fiction”

An Excellent Read

The Use of Evidence in Defending the Faith–A Comparison

Turning Romans 8:28 into a Ball of Spaghetti

The Gift of Tongues – Is it Real?

Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues

How to Honor Christ in our Apologetics

Christian Hospitality Toward False Teachers

What is the relationship between apologetics and evangelism?

Indictments Against the Church

Hillsong and Man

Hillsong and Man

THE CHOSEN Series—10 Critical Concerns

“The Chosen Fiction”

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Hillsong and Man

Share this:

Like this: