new book--WITITB? The Courts of Heaven.

I can't remember when I first came on the idea of the Courts of Heaven. I guess it wasn't long ago, a few months or maybe a year or so. At any rate, it's not something that immediately caught my attention and made me pay attention to it, until very recently.

Once I started looking into it, though, it soon enough got my interest and attention, and for all kinds of reasons.

This doesn't yet seem to have become a major, popular teaching in the church, though I have my suspicions that it will catch on more and more in the next few years, and become something major. My plan is to go into why I think that way at the end of this book, so let me just tease it a little by saying that I think this teaching about the Courts of Heaven will become more and more popular because it gives the faith healers and Word of Faith bellowers the things they want most.

review: Joshua

simply not good

I'll deal with this book from two perspective, the story and the theology

Story
Judging from how much the author uses the word in positive ways, one might be safe to assume that one of his favorite words is “simple”, and in keeping with that, this story is by and large a very simple story. If the author had kept the story on the same small scale he started it with, this simple approach may have worked, but he doesn't, things keep getting on a larger and larger scale as the story goes on, but this simple approach begins to sink into simplistic because of it.

For example, the owner of a TV station, after listening to Joshua speak for a few minutes, decides, seemingly at the drop of a hat, to have a TV crew interview Joshua, pp 112-114, an interview that ends taking up about an hour of TV time, pp 138-140. This stretches belief to the breaking point. Then, towards the end, the controversy surrounding this small-town guy somehow becomes so bad that he's summoned to Vatican City to answer for his controversies, and at this point belief completely snaps and tumbles into something more fantasy-like than anything Tolkien wrote.

Another way the simplistic approach to this story shows itself is in how the other characters respond to Joshua, especially the positive responses. It's understandable that the words and actions of the main protagonist in a novel will to a large degree reflect the views of the author, that's not a problem; but when the other characters constantly keep going on about how deep and profound this protagonist's most silly and shallow statements are, how beautiful all his ideas are,and all other such examples of overblown hyperbole, one gets the impression one isn't reading a story intended to be a fair presentation of ideas, and I can't even call this book something like propaganda, but it comes off as if one is reading what the author might think having a fan club would be like, as he surrounds himself, through his protagonists, with people who will accept everything he says without any real criticism or even serious questioning, and who will constantly shower even his most mundane and trite utterances with unconditional praise.

Theology
Judging from how much the author uses these words in negative ways, one might be safe to assume that among his least favorites words are “doctrine” and “theology”, with “authority” and “conservative” not far behind.

As the reader soon learns in the story, Joshua is the personification of the author's idea of how Jesus would be if he returned to earth in the modern day; thus, the teachings of Joshua are meant to represent the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.

The problem is, the teachings of Joshua have little in common with the teachings of Jesus.

For example, there is this statement, from p 73 and taken from a much longer statement, “Jesus came to teach people that they are God's children and, as God's children, they are free, free to grow as human being, to become beautiful people as God intended”. Now, just right off, I can think of a time when Jesus said to some people that “You are of your father, the devil”, John 8:44; in Ephesians 2, Paul writes about a time when the believers in Ephesus used to be “children of wrath, like the rest of mankind”; I John 3:10 offers a contrast between those who are children of God and children of the devil.

And what does the Bible say about why Jesus came? Luke 19:10 records Jesus' statement, in the context of conversing with the tax collector Zacchaeus, that “The Son of Man has come to seek and save the lost”; Matthew 20:28 and Matthew 10:45 record Jesus saying that He, the Son of Man, has come “to give his life as a ransom for many”, that Jesus came to die as a sacrifice for sins, so that we can be forgiven by grace through faith.

This is only one example of how far off this author's Joshua is from Jesus, but it is a strong one. It shows that this author, through his title character, is preaching a false gospel, and practicing great deception by pretending to preach this false gospel through his reimagining of Jesus.

I have a hard time seeing how this work has become some kind of Christian classic, much less why any Christian studio would make a movie based on this book. There is no real Christian content to this book, merely a thin film of Christian-like ideas covering over some completely foul teachings. This book is fit only to be avoided.

Kinds of False Prophecies?

lestrangeness

A sentence may be described as a sequence of words, though I think it's suppose to be a sequence that has some kind of meaning. What we have here is pretty much a sequence of words that have been emptied of any real meaning.

new book: WITITB? Youth With A Mission

And it's free for a few days, as of posting.

book review--Making Jesus Lord by Loren Cunningham

two abused teachings to support one very bad idea

First, a comment about the Kindle version of this book, which is what I read. It's shoddy and sub-standard. It has no table of content, and doesn't even have paragraph indents or chapter breaks. It was obviously a hurried and slipshod job.

Now, on to the contents.

The author twists two biblical teachings in order to end up pushing one very bad idea.

The first misused teaching is the idea of “giving up your rights”. Now, there is a biblical basis for this idea. One can look in I Corinthians 8 and 9, and see where Paul wrote about how he decided to not exercise certain rights, such as the right to expect the churches to support him financially, or the right to eat certain things when doing so might cause someone else to stumble. Paul's reasons for doing so are love for God and other people, his concern that others shouldn't stumble in his actions such as eating certain foods, though he had the perfect liberty to eat those things, and his concern to preach the gospel free of charge.

But this author uses this idea of giving up rights to smuggle in some very strange ideas, ones not found in the Bible. “He was giving us the strategy for accomplishing the greatest job ever given to man—taking over the earth from Satan and winning it back for God. Jesus was showing us that the only way to conquer is to submit.” (Kindle Locations 114-116) That's something not taught in the Bible at all, but it does lead up to the big bad idea of this book. “It is a rule of the Kingdom of God: Give up something good and receive something of greater value; give up your rights and receive greater privileges with God.” (Kindle Locations 133-134) Wow, great privileges with God? Well, too bad that's not in the Bible. What we're getting here is a quit pro quo, you give up something and God will give you something in return. That's not how it works.

The second abused idea is “moving in the opposite spirit”. Just like the first, this one does a biblical basis. One could, for example, point to Galatians 5:16-26, where the works of the flesh are contrasted with the fruit of the spirit, and show how Christians should turn from those fleshly works and grow more in the fruit of the spirit.

But this author again goes some strange places with his teachings. “God is going to utterly defeat Satan, and He’s going to do it with individuals who move in the opposite spirit to the forces of darkness.” (Kindle Locations 1177-1178) Well, that's quite the claim. Gotta verse for that? Btw he doesn't. “God allows attacks from the enemy in order to extend Christ’s Kingdom on earth. We take literal ground for God in this world every time we respond correctly to Satan’s offensive.” (Kindle Locations 1274-1276) I assume he means “literal” literally, and not figuratively, but he certainly does not mean it biblically, because he offers no biblical support for this claim.

All of this leads up to the last part of the book, where the author introduces his biggest and worst idea. It can be summed up by the phrase “Seven Mountains Dominionism”. “God has told us to take the world for Him. That’s what it says in Matthew 28:18-20 when Jesus tells us that He has been given all authority in Heaven and on earth, all other issues and doubts are settled. Then He turns around and says to us, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you….”” (Kindle Locations 1523-1526) Uh...no, Jesus wasn't telling the disciples to go out and take over the world here, that's nonsense. You can look at what the Bible says in many different places about the state of the world when Christ returns, and you'll see a gaping lack of any mention of the Church having taken over the world and setting up a bliss-filled theocracy just eager for Jesus to finally decide it's time to come join the party.

“If you have given over your rights, if you are standing barefoot in His presence, He is promising to give you all the land that the sole of your foot treads upon (Joshua 13).” (Kindle Locations 1565-1566) I don't know what this author is thinking, but there is nothing like that in Joshua 13. This is a common practice among people like this author, taking a promise made to one person in the Bible and try to shoehorn it for themselves. God made that promise to someone who lived about 3500 years ago, not to us today. This promise is not God telling us to go and take over the world.

“Jesus has promised to give the earth to the meek, to the barefoot, to those who have surrendered their rights to Him. He wants us to claim the nations of the earth as His inheritance.” (Kindle Locations 1807-1808) While Jesus has promised that the meek will inherit the earth, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that Jesus “... wants us to claim the nations of the earth as His inheritance”. That's just something shameful this author made up.

“Like any other Christian, I read my Bible and try to discern what is going on around me. But one thing I do believe very clearly: Jesus told us to occupy until He came (Luke 19:13 kjv).” (Kindle Locations 1632-1633) “He says to occupy until He comes. To occupy means to take leadership.” (Kindle Location 1816) This is so bad, I'm embarrassed for this author. Luke 19:13 is taken from a parable. “12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’” This is from the ESV, and it gives the real meaning of the word translated “occupy” in the KJV which in context would still be a fine word, it only becomes a problem because of this author's dishonest twisting of that word. In a video on YouTube titled “Ruling With Jesus - Loren Cunningham”, this author even goes so far as to compare the Church to an occupying army. It is completely shameful for this author to try to take the “occupy” from both the meaning of the original word, and from it's context in this parable, and try to make it about some kind of need for the church to act like an occupying army.

There is simply so much wrong with this book, that it's just not worth wading into the sludge to find the few good things he says. There are so many better resources out there, ones that don't try to push made-up ideas and fairy tales about taking over the world. Skip this piece of rot, it's worthless.

excerpt from WITITB?: Bethel Redding

The Book of Acts also provides us with a dramatic lesson on the importance of consistent prayer. Acts 12:2 records the death of James, the first apostle to be martyred, at the hands of King Herod. When he saw that James’ death made the Jews happy, he detained Peter in prison with the intention of killing him as well. The church, mourning the loss of James,was not going to lose another one of their friends and leaders. Their response to the imprisonment of Peter was to pray: “… but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church” (Acts 12:5). Notice that it was not just prayer but constant prayer. That night, Peter was miraculously set free by an angel and reunited with the friends who had been praying for him. Continuous prayer was the key for the believers in Acts to gain access to the realm of authority that was needed to see Peter set free.

Jesus Culture: Living a Life That Transforms the World (p. 155)

Here's a bit of the account Liebscher refers to.

Acts 12 
About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church.2 He killed James the brother of John with the sword, 3 and when he saw that it pleased theJews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. 4 Andwhen he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiersto guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. 5 So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. 6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers,bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. 11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.”

There's a bit more to the account of this event, but this is part in question, where Peter is rescued.

Liebscher wrote “Continuous prayer was the key for the believers in Acts to gain access to the realm of authority that was needed to see Peter set free”. Now, while the passage does mention that the church prayed, it says nothing about them gaining access to a realm of authority, and that this is the reason Peter was set free.

In fact, look at Peter's own words, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” Peter doesn't say that the church got the authority to send the angel to set him free. It was God's work, not the church's.

Not only is the idea that “Continuous prayer was the key for the believers in Acts to gain access to the realm of authority that was needed to see Peter set free” not in this passage, it is also nowhere else in the Bible. This is something Liebscher either made up, or got from someone else, either directly or through degrees of separation, who made it up.

Prayer is a good thing, but nowhere does the Bible teach us that prayer gets us into realms of authority. Prayer is petitioning, it is asking God to do something.God chose to rescue Peter here. But in this same passage from Acts 12, it says that James was killed. Was he killed because the church didn't pray for him? What about the other persecutions mentioned in Acts, for example the people Saul put into prisons? What about what Paul himself went through, the beatings and scourging and other things he mentions in II Corinthians? What about the martyrdoms the apostles suffered, not to mention the many martyrdoms that have occurred over the past 2000 or so years?

Liebscher's teaching here is simply bad, and it's completely unbiblical.

YWAM's Fortune Cookie Bible: Example 1

This is part of a booklet I've been working on, concerning what I think is a very silly way of "hearing God's voice" taught and encouraged in YWAM. This is one example I've found of it in their writings, and I try to explain why it's unsound. Hopefully, the booklet itself will be finished and available sometime soon.

Example 1

The context of this account is that Joy Dawson's son, John, has joined YWAM, and while working at one base has noticed one of the girls there. There came a time when John asked his parents to pray about the relationship, which all other things being equal I would have considered a wise thing for him to do. But the questionable part is what Joy Dawson writes about the supposed confirmation.

“It was several weeks before we were able to contact John again. When we did, I said to him, “You’ll need to fasten your seat belt while I tell you how and what God spoke to me.” I shared that I had simply asked God, “Is John to pursue Julie in a serious friendship?” God spoke into my mind, “Turn to Second Kings, chapter fourteen.” I hadn’t a clue what was in that chapter until I looked it up and found verse nine, “Give your daughter to my son for a wife.” Wow! I could hardly believe my eyes.” Forever Ruined for the Ordinary (Kindle Locations 301-305, section 2)

Here is the context of that phrase.

II Kings 14

In the second year of Joash the son of Joahaz, king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. 3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not like David his father. He did in all things as Joash his father had done. 4 But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. 5And as soon as the royal power was firmly in his hand, he struck down his servants who had struck down the king his father. 6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

7 He struck down ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and took Sela by storm, and called it Joktheel, which is its name to this day.

8 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look one another in the face.” 9 And Jehoash king of Israel sent word to Amaziah king of Judah, “A thistle on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ and a wild beast of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thistle. 10 You have indeed struck down Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Be content with your glory, and stay at home, for why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?”

11 But Amaziah would not listen. So Jehoash king of Israel went up, and he and Amaziah king of Judah faced one another in battle at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah. 12 And Judah was defeated by Israel, and every man fled to his home. 13 And Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem for four hundred cubits, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate. 14 And he seized all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king's house, also hostages, and he returned to Samaria.

15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash that he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? 16 And Jehoash slept with his fathers and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel, and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place.

17 Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, lived fifteen years after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel. 18 Now the rest of the deeds of Amaziah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 19 And they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But they sent after him to Lachish and put him to death there. 20 And they brought him on horses; and he was buried in Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. 21 And all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. 22 He built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king slept with his fathers.

This account is about Amaziah, a man who appears to have been a decent king of Judah, but who let some success on the battlefield get to his head. After soundly defeating the Edomites, He challenged the King of Israel, Jehoash, to battle, and got the reply in the form of a small story, which is where we find the phrase Dawson singles out.

“A thistle on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ and a wild beast of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thistle. 10 You have indeed struck down Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Be content with your glory, and stay at home, for why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?”

So, Jehoash compares Amaziah's challenge to be like a thistle giving orders to a cedar tree, trying to tell it what to do, in this case give the thistle a daughter to marry. But the thistle is a weak plant, and a beast can come along and stomp it down. Jehoash is essentially mocking Amaziah, telling him that he's weak and in no position to order Jehoash to do anything. And when it finally does come to battle, Jehoash backs up his boast and defeats Amaziah.

Joy Dawson's use of this phrase is atrociously bad. She ignores the passage as a whole, ignores the immediate context of Jehoash's reply, and even ignores the small story in which the phrase was given. Why, for example, did she stop with that one phrase, and ignore both parts of the rest of the story; the first part about a thistle giving orders to a cedar tree, and the last part about a wild beast coming along and trampling down the thistle?

Not only does Dawson's guidance depend upon only one phrase, but it's a phrase that is so badly taken out of context that her interpretation of it, and the advice she gives her son based on it, are essentially the opposite of what the context shows the phrase to be about.

Context is important, especially when it comes to interpreting and understanding the Bible. To take a phrase out of context, and to insist that God is giving you a message from that out-of-context phrase, is a bad idea of immense proportions.

God was not the one who gave told Joy Dawson to turn to II Kings 14. He was not the one who pointed out this completely out of context phrase to her. This passage was never intended as any form of marital advice.

book review—The Physics of Heaven

How can one adequately review the sheer stupid in this book?

First, understand that I'm not a scientist, physicist, or anyone like that. But this book is less a work of science then of something pretending to be theology, and about that I think I can say a few things. Because taken as theology, there is pretty much nothing of any value that can be gained from reading this nonsense.

The account in Acts 2 of the events of Pentecost comes in for special abuse by the contributors to this book. “I began thinking about the day of Pentecost. One hundred and twenty believers were in an upper room in Jerusalem when they heard a sound like a mighty rushing wind. It wasn’t a wind, it was a sound. And when that sound ended, the thinking of those men and women was completely changed.” (p. 3). “Just as the people were in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, when suddenly there came from heaven a noise, and this noise was like a violent rushing wind, there will come again a noise that I will release from heaven.” (Introduction). “Clearly, one of the greatest revivals in human history— the vibration of heaven in Acts— set all kinds of things in motion. Why? Because, the 120 believers in the Upper Room didn’t get hung up on sound alone. They let the sound take them somewhere else, triggering all their senses to the point that they were drunk from the vibration.” (p. 102). If you read this book, you might come away thinking that the big thing that happened at Pentecost was that there was a noise. It wasn't, the big thing was that the Holy Spirit came on the people in the upper room. In Acts 8 and 10, where accounts are given of the Spirit coming on other people, no such sound is mentioned.

But to the contributors to this book, sound is pretty much all-important. “When you connect to the spirit realm, you make an alliance with that sound of heaven and all things move to that sound.” (p. 164). Funny how the Bible teaches nothing about this. “We began having prophecies in 1995 that there is a new sound coming, a new heavenly sound.” (p. 25). I don't doubt it, but considering that the person being interviewed here, Bob Jones, was a known false prophet who by his own admission got it wrong hundreds of times, I hardly see why these prophecies would be believed. “God began to teach me through this angel about sound and the power of the spoken word. He said that because God spoke His creative will, man can also speak words that create.” (p. 92). Huh? Really? Where is that in the Bible? “I later met a man God had taken to heaven and shown how to produce four dimensional objects with sound. This man told me he has used sound to project a house that is two and a half inches square and is three dimensional so you can walk around and look inside the windows.” (p. 91). Funny how Pierce doesn't give the man's name, and not even a google search shows any info about this supposed feat.

Some have tried to defend this book by pointing out that one contributor, David Van Koevering, is a scientist. Maybe, but in this book, he isn't writing as a scientist, but as a theologian, and a rubbish one at that. “This Scripture makes sense only when you understand it at the atomic and subatomic level.” (p. 135). Well, that just puts paid to a couple of thousand years of Church history. What did those idiots like Irenaeus, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin know? “The spiritual realm operates above the speed of light.” (p. 136). Says the Bible nowhere. “When man fell, the speed of light slowed down.” (p. 136). Ditto. “Understand that your healing or miracle is within the next nanosecond! In the blink of a nanosecond, He can cause your healing. Observe your healing, your miracle, your deliverance, and be filled with all Truth by observing the future God has for you. Take that quantum leap!” (p. 139). Well, he's sure got the faith-healer schtick down pat, doesn't he? “Have you fixed your past? Have you removed all curses? Have you blessed the things you own? Have you blessed your house, office, car, belongings, money, computer, and phone? Are those things and places free from your past actions, words, and thoughts? You or someone else can speak a blessing or curse on your things. Somebody is about to take a quantum leap!” (pp. 142-143). Umm...dude, here's a hint, just between you and me. Tacking the phrase “quantum leap” onto everything doesn't make unbiblical ideas an better. You have no business being any kind of Christian teacher, because what you're teaching isn't at all biblical, it's just some junk you've made up.

Then, there is Bill Johnson, who is always good for some unbiblical nonsense. “Our role in shaping the world around us through creative expression is never more at the forefront than when we joyfully learn to pull tomorrow into today. God trains us for this role whenever He speaks to us, for in doing so He is working to awaken and establish our affections for His kingdom.” (p. 171). Yeah, calling tomorrow into today, whatever that means, is never taught in the Bible. “If you can see God’s coming future promises, and He hasn’t blinded your eyes to His intent, then He is hoping to hook you into the role of calling “into being that which does not exist.””(p. 178). Nowhere in the Bible are we told to call things into being, that is a pretty silly misreading of a verse that talks about God calling things into being. “There are anointings, mantles, revelations, and mysteries that have lain unclaimed, literally where they were left, because the generation that walked in them never passed them on.” (pp. 30-31). Read or listen to NAR types long enough, and you'll conclude that they are addicted to anointings, mantles, revelations, and such stuff. They are constantly passing them along, saying they are getting them or giving them away, et al. And as you may guess, none of it is biblical.

And that brings up what this book is really about, the NAR and their version of dominionism. They want to rule the world, and they have latched onto quantum physics as a way of justifying certain aspects of their rubbish theology, like how they think they are the ones who can call things into existence, or that vibrations somehow mean that their words have supernatural power.

Finally, if nothing else shows just how stupid this book is, check out this statement. “The four universal elements are water, wind, fire, and earth.” (p. 67). Yes, he's being very serious.

This book is junk. There are so many much betters works of both physics and theology out there, and it's simply sad that a bunch of so-called church leaders wrote this work of utter stupidity.