Is Jesus Calling New Age? Examining the Claims

"Jesus Calling" has sold more than 50 million copies across its brand. It's been promoted by Christian leaders, shelved in bookstores and gift shops, and quoted from pulpits. A recent episode from Little Light Studios and Stephanie Griffin Ministries has raised a hard question about it: does this beloved devotional have New Age roots?

Joshua Lewis and Michael Miller will explore the claims, call balls & strikes, and help you discern whether this is a book to have on your nightstand or not.

Original episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGvP6K8aP54 

0:00 – Introduction
2:11 – Sarah Young Background
3:52 – God Calling Origins
6:01 – Miller's Initial Thoughts
11:40 – God Calling Introduction Quote
17:08 – Why So Popular Question
26:36 – Pantheism Quote Debate
39:04 – Making Jesus First Priority
45:22 – Contemplative Meditation Quote
49:52 – Cocoon Of Light Anathema
59:06 – Last Words And Blasphemy

Join Joshua Lewis, Michael Miller & Michael Rowntree for RemCon "Prophecy & Hearing God's Voice" October 1-3 | Houston, TX

Learn more & register: https://www.theremnantradio.com/remnant-fall-conference-2026

Subscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:47

Hey everybody, welcome back to the wonderful world of Remnant Radio. In this uh episode, we're gonna be talking about Sarah Young's book, uh, Jesus Calling. It's gonna be an interesting program. You guys stay tuned. Hey guys, Joshua Lewis here. Thank you so much for tuning into the program. Uh, we've got a great episode for you. I've got Michael Miller with us, and we're gonna be talking about uh, man, this book that has kind of made its way uh quite a few times uh throughout Christendom. We've uh seen it emerge on the scene in 2004. Uh, I think at the time integrity publishers carried it, and then it was later picked up by uh Thomas uh Thomas Nelson publisher. Uh and it's, man, really interesting. A lot of claims recently from former New Agers have said, hey, this is a new age rendering. Um, but it's, you know, it might be more complicated than that. So we're gonna be diving into that program uh today. Uh so I want to thank you guys for tuning in. But without further ado, I want to introduce you to my co-host, my partner in crime, Michael Miller. How are you doing over there in Denver, Colorado, my friend?

SPEAKER_02 1:45

I'm good, man. Uh well, I don't know, man. Uh nothing crazy to report. Celebrated my wife's 40th birthday last weekend. Um it was my excuse to go buy a new smoker and uh smoked a nice 18-pound brisket, uh, which was delicious. And that's that's all I have to report, Josh. That right there.

SPEAKER_01 2:05

Excellent. Excellent. Well, that's uh that's no small feat. Uh before we dive into everything today, I want to let you guys know that we do have a remnants conference coming up very shortly. Uh, here's a quick promo ad for you. This conference is going to be there in Houston, Texas. It's going to be October 1st through 3rd, and we're going to be talking about the gifts of the Spirit, specifically prophecy and hearing God's voice. If you want to register for that conference, I would encourage you to go over to therimnetradio.com and subscribe to the newsletter because you will get a discount, a promo code that comes in through the email. Uh, and that promo code, Christina sent me the information on it, uh, expires uh August 16th. So if you want to get that promo code, you want to come to the conference, that would be the best way to do it. Uh, but without further ado, let's talk about this program today. So Sarah Young uh published this book called Jesus Calling. And essentially, uh the way that I think Sarah would articulate it is this is her personal journaling where she sat down, uh prayed, asked Jesus to speak to her and to guide her. And for 300 and uh was it 300 or 365? I think it is 365 short devotionals where she believes that Jesus was speaking to her and directing her, giving her specific insights and encouragements that she is sharing with the larger body of Christ. And she has published these works as the works of Jesus to say um she's writing kind of in the first person, I, me, speaking of Jesus, and has published this work for others to kind of glean from and learn from as a daily devotional. Now, others have come on the scene and said this appears to be automatic writing, a new age practice. Uh, this work uh essentially seems to be inspired by uh a book called God Calling, which is generally accepted as a new age. Now, God calling was published, uh, what was it like 1930s? Um, so it's not necessarily New Age, it's kind of before that language was popularized, but a spiritualist work. Um that and that was generally accepted by most Christian publishers, most Christian um man theologians and apologists to be, yeah, this is a kind of proto-New Age work. It's definitely syncretistic in its origin. It encourages individuals to uh participate in what we would call necromancy today, but gleaning information from friends that are deceased and have passed. So God calling is essentially two ladies who have sat down and did automatic writing, and in doing so encouraged people, in the words of what they would claim is the risen Lord, uh, to talk to the dead and other such things. So pretty wacky stuff. Uh, and unfortunately, Sarah Young seems to have been inspired by that content. Um, it's not a great look. And uh I went and watched a documentary that this was brought to my attention this week. Uh, Christina, our marketing director, said, Hey, you might want to take a look at this. Uh, a documentary by uh Little Light Studios in Stephanie Griffin Ministries uh published a documentary kind of walking through the Jesus Calling book. Now, this book is extremely popular. Uh, in fact, I was trying to get a copy of it, a physical copy, and just walked into a coffee shop that uh has a bookshelf that you can just take books and borrow them and bring them back and bring whatever books you want to put on the shelf, and people can borrow those as well in a Baptist church in town. I guarantee you the Baptist church doesn't know that this book was on their shelf, but walked in, saw it right there, uh, pulled it out, and I've seen copies of it everywhere. So many people have been touched by this book. And I kind of want to speak to those folks for a second, those who have been inspired by this book, encouraged by this book, built up by this book. I'm not trying to uh instruct you or encourage you that no good could have come from this book, that, you know, uh it uh that everything that you experienced was false or a lie or demonic necessarily. Uh, this is not a book that is, I don't think, really uh hyper new age-y. And in fact, when I watched the documentary that Christina had sent to me, uh, I think that the book or the documentary um maybe made, how do I say this? I think that they are hypersensitive to new age language. And many of the people they interviewed were hypersensitive in the same way that like someone who is an alcoholic would have a real hard time taking wine during communion because they have personal convictions, they're hypersensitive to the use of alcohol. I think of individuals who've come out of the new age who are hypersensitive to language that might seem a little vague and similar to that of the new age. And at times I think that they make mountains out of molehills. Now, I actually encourage the documentary. I would encourage people to go and check it out and watch it. I am not taking any crackpot shots at that documentary, uh, but I want to try to judge with fair weights here and call balls and strikes about what this book is, what it is claiming to do, um, that sort of thing. So, so Miller, you know I I've given a monologue for quite a while. Do you want to jump in and give some of your initial thoughts on this?

SPEAKER_02 6:55

Uh I mean, I'm still processing some of this, uh, and I'll be honest on the front end that there's when I read this content, my my thought was this reminds me of the kinds of prophetic words that are given on public platforms on YouTube. Except that this is just as a devotional book and 365 uh or 64 devotionals. Um and I I think on the front end, I just feel like I don't understand how these sort of prophetic devotionals function to enlighten a believer more than the text itself. It's like why not just quote the scriptures that you're kind of expounding on in this literature. I don't know. So I I'm I'm pretty skeptical of of what this book is claiming um and what it does. I I can't I can't in good conscience recommend it right now. It's not like reading Oswald Chambers uh My Utmost for his Highest, uh, where he he does just use scripture and then elaborates on it. This feels like I don't know, man. It's it's it's just uh a repetition of well, not not everything, but many of the things are just repetitions of things we find in scripture, just sort of given a little bit more flowery, and I hate to say it, more feminine feminine language, in my opinion. Uh it doesn't it doesn't exactly appeal to me. Um so anyway, I don't know. I'm kind of babbling, and you can tell, like I said, I'm processing out loud, but I'm not uh a huge fan of it at this point. Uh now that said, I do think some of the critiques that have been given against it are ones that I don't necessarily find entirely fair, some, and then others, I'm like, yeah, that's fair. Um so I don't know, Josh. I was I was looking at this and I was thinking to myself, you know, anytime somebody writes um from the perspective of Christ, I get a little bit of the ick. Um I saw this happen with uh Harold Everly at a conference that I was co- I was he was on uh one of the speakers at a conference where I was sort of the keynote. And uh I mean what he taught was straight up heretical, but he would also give prophetic words from first person as though the father himself was speaking through Harold. And um I didn't know that he was gonna preach heresy, and I I literally had to address it and call that a doctrine of demons in front of the whole church. Uh so not exactly.

SPEAKER_01 9:21

That's Michael Miller, everybody. Not not turning away from a good fight. Um that's what we're supposed to do.

SPEAKER_02 9:28

That's a problem to me. Uh like when we teach on prophecy, we don't ever uh suggest that it be done that way. Um and so we have reasons for that. But anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Um, but I want to process some stuff with you live on air if that's cool with you, Josh.

SPEAKER_01 9:46

Yeah, totally. No, I here's the thing. I I spent uh a good chunk of time this week researching all of the source material that I saw in the documentary. So the another Jesus calling, um, uh meaning that there's another Jesus. So this book is propagating another Christ. Um went and checked out that book, read it, did some research on it, um, tried to make sense of the claims in the documentary. I think, again, lots of them very good. Some of them felt like this feels like a stretch. You know, like one of the stretches, we're gonna read this quote from Sarah where she's gonna say that uh, you know, this book, God calling, was a treasure. And then they're like, well, you know what the Bible says, where your treasure is, your heart will be also. And this book is a new age book. So our heart is, you know, a heart of new age. And I was like, that seems like a stretch. You know, I could call my child a treasure and I call my wife a treasure. It doesn't mean that like they're an idol in my heart necessarily. Uh it just it there's times where things seemed stretched unnecessarily. So um, that being said, I do not endorse the book. I'll I'll I'll make sense of why here in a moment, but I want people to understand what we're gonna be tackling today. We've got a section where we're gonna look at the kind of in introduction of her book where she's gonna talk about what she was inspired by. We'll talk a little bit about God calling, and then we're gonna go through individual quotes where she's going to make claims uh that God is saying this to her and to others. We're gonna look at those claims through a lens of a former new ager. What would a former new ager think of these sorts of claims? And then we're gonna kind of respond, trying to steel man Sarah's position in some sense. Now, again, I'm not endorsing the book, so it's gonna sound to some like we're trying to defend her. No, um, I don't think that this is a good book, and I would encourage people away from it. However, um, I want to make sure that we are judging it with just weights. You know, if Michael gets up on Sunday and preaches something about tithe I disagree with, I can say, hey, look, Michael, you're wrong about this on tithe. But I don't then go, uh, but you're also a new ager and a Satanist to make it even extra bad. I can just say, nope, this is bad and move on. And I think that to some level, what we're seeing here is they're saying, hey, this is bad, you shouldn't do it. And then uh some mountains are being made out of molehills that seem worse than they actually are. So in one sense, I'm saying, yes, Sarah Young's Jesus calling, I do not approve, encourage people not to read. But then also we'll say, I don't think it's as new agey as people want to make it out to be. Uh, I think this was a lady who read a book without discernment, not realizing that this was a new age book, God calling, uh, and was thus inspired to write in a similar vein. Uh but that's just my honest take from what I've researched. Now, I reserve the right to change my opinion, and you can do so in the comment section if you feel so inclined. Um Michael, do you want to start off reading these uh this first quote from Sarah in her introduction?

SPEAKER_02 12:31

Yeah, sure. Um Are you putting it up on the screen? Yeah, there you go. Okay. Uh during that same year I began reading God Calling, a devotional book written by two anonymous listeners. These women practice waiting quietly in God's presence, pencils and paper in hand, recording the messages they received from him. The messages are written in first person, with I designating God. While I was living in Japan, someone had mailed this book to me from the US. I had not read it at that time, but I had held on to the book through two international moves. Six or seven years later, this little paperback became a treasure to me. It dovetailed remarkably well with my longing to live in Jesus' presence. The following year, I began to wonder if I too could receive messages during my times of communing with God. I had been writing in prayer journals for years, but that was one-way communication. I did all the talking. I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more. Increasingly, I wanted to hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day. I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed he was saying.

SPEAKER_01 13:39

Yeah. So just starting off the battery. Yeah, that's she's talking about the God calling that inspired her to write Jesus calling and how God calling was a treasure. A little bit of information about God calling for those I mentioned a bit a moment ago, but uh a lot of spiritist languages in there. I I would argue that these two listeners probably what they are doing is closer to automatic writing. I think it is different and we should distinguish it between I'm praying to God, I feel like God is, you know, communicating to me, and I write that down and I journal it. That's not the same as automatic writing, uh, which is a little bit more ecstatic than it is um kind of contemplative and praying and thinking and asking and writing and et cetera, et cetera. I think we should be careful of the it looks similar, therefore it is sort of thing, um, because um, you know, Muslims pray on their knees. Uh those who are uh of the Hindu faith will pray on their knees. I mean, various religions, Mormons will pray on their knees, and then the good thing is that the Mormons will call on his knees.

SPEAKER_02 14:36

They'll pray to Jesus. Sure, right? It's not the same one, but they'll pray to Jesus.

SPEAKER_01 14:42

That's right. I only mean to make the example that, hey, look, everyone's praying on their knees. For someone to go, oh, hey, look, Jesus is a new age teacher because he's praying on his knees. This is something that Muslims actually do, is they'll say that, hey, Jesus prayed prostrate because that's what you do in Islam. That's the way that you pray, prostrate. And they'll look to Jesus, who came 300 years before Muhammad and say, Oh, look, you know, Jesus is clearly following the way here. And I go, hey, look, you we can't say these two things are similar, therefore they are the same. Um, in the same way that you might have a star on a pentagram and a star on a Taco Bell logo, it doesn't mean that Taco Bell has got a pentagram inside of their, you know, their icon. So I think we have to be careful that the similarity equals sameness. Uh, but to to again look at God calling, God calling is got some, it does have some real spiritist kind of vibes to it. I mentioned that it does encourage readers to speak to the dead, which is forbidden in Deuteronomy 18 and Leviticus 19. Um, and the teeth, the New Thought teaching, which is a very similar to like the name it and claim it thinking that we have today in the word of or some word of faith spaces. Maybe I'll say it that way for those who are particular. Uh, and it was edited by A.J. Russell, who was kind of in that New Age space at the height uh of its uh of its time. Ankerberg, uh, which is a uh encyclopedia of new age beliefs, uh, did uh which was published by uh Harvest House, a very well-known evangelical publisher, did claim that this book was a kind of new age uh space, independent kind of research, says, look, this is in fact a spiritist sort of book uh to kind of steer clear of. Now, I want to, in some sense, be um charitable in the same way that I've got really orthodox friends. My friend Matthew Escoville would be a great example. Matthew is a theologian. Uh, he has a PhD in patristic studies. I mean, he is a scholar of scholars, right? Uh, loves the Bible, loves theology, but was in a hyper charismatic space. And while in that space, he was really encouraged to check out the Passion Translation. He read it, he liked it, he was a big fan. Uh, when he heard concerns, then he went and looked to Dr. Brown. He was like, hey, look, this is just a paraphrase. It's great, even though that's not what the passion was claiming to be. Uh, and he recommended it and endorsed it and thought it was great. Uh, and then later to come find out that it was, in fact, some kind of large plagiarism, he writes this big public post, repenting of, you know, endorsing this book and being encouraged by it and edified by it and built up by it, and said, Hey, look, guys, mark and avoid, don't do this. Mike Winger shared it. It was great. But but here's the thing someone can read a thing that is a fabrication that has some new age mysticism mixed into it, and be inspired and encouraged by that thing without adopting necessarily the entire framework that produced that thing. But their discernment was bad, and because their discernment was bad, they were deceived in the process. I suspect that is what's happening with Sarah Young, uh, with Jesus calling and her reading of God calling, um, because God calling um does have a lot of these edges to it, a lot of these kind of spiritist things. But if you're reading it without any knowledge of that as a Christian, you could be completely deceived by it and think they're just talking about Jesus the entire time and the real Jesus of the Bible. Um, so I'm saying all of that again, not endorsing the book. I'm actually deeply concerned by the book. But Michael, again, I've monologued for quite a bit. Do you have any thoughts you want to add to this?

SPEAKER_02 17:55

Well, I think it's also important to note that this book is extremely popular. That's part of the reason why we're doing a review on it. Um, and it's gotten an extreme amount of criticism, a whole documentary dedicated to exposing uh the problems within it, um, which is some of the stuff we'll be addressing. Um so I I I think it's worth asking the question why is something like this so popular that both Josh and I go, ooh, this doesn't look great. Um it also wades into space in the charismatic world where we feel like there is so much charismatic access that we're trying to kind of hopefully bring some reform to. And not that we're the guys to do it, but we're at least going to try. Um but all that say, what what about this is so appealing to the masses? And um in my estimation, I think it's because there is a sense in which for many who follow uh the Christian faith, they do feel quite distant. Maybe um maybe because they haven't been brought in. I d I don't really know. I I'm I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Uh Josh, why do you think it got so popular?

SPEAKER_01 19:03

It it's extremely accessible. It is like you mentioned, it's kind of flowery, it's pretty feminine, um, and it's extra. You know, if you're a student of the Bible and you love the writings and teachings and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and you're looking for more, she actually says that this is an offering for that very thing that we're gonna read here in a moment. It's more. And uh, you know, if you wanted a Bible 2.0, in some sense this is that. Now uh you're gonna probably push back on me a little bit on this and and you know, you're good to do so if you'd like. Um, but I'm I'm concerned on a couple levels. If if I came to you and said, I've written a book on prayer, and I was deeply inspired by um, you know, courts of heaven, I think everyone should go, uh I don't think you have discernment. I should be suspicious of that book. I think if someone said, Hey, uh, I'm gonna write a book on scripture, but I was deeply inspired by the Passion Translation, again, you should be skeptical of that book. So I think that anyone picking up Jesus calling should be skeptical because it was inspired by a thing called God calling, and it clearly had no discernment there being inspired by a book like that. Additionally, you've heard me say a moment ago that I think it's okay to journal what you feel like God is communicating to you. You're not writing prophecy for all people everywhere. You know, I'm I'm hey, I'm I'm being encouraged by what I feel like the Lord is communicating. I'm gonna write that down to keep a log of it so that I go back and read it to be encouraged. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think there's anything wrong as a continuationist that, you know, I have a dream for my friend Michael Miller and I want to go share it with him. And hey, man, I think this is what God is saying. I want you to be encouraged and built up and inspired. I think it's an entirely different thing to say these are the words of Jesus, and I'm gonna publish them for all people everywhere. It functionally opens the canon, reopens the canon to say, hey, these are the words of God and I'm writing them to everyone else. So now people would say, Well, you know, uh they don't, you know, as long as it doesn't contradict scripture, and I go, that's not the same. Um, this is this reads as instruction and encouragement for all people everywhere.

SPEAKER_02 20:56

This this is why I mentioned earlier, Josh, that I feel like with this kind of content, it reminds me of the prophetic reviews we saw in 2020, which caused us to start, sorry, the prophetic words can be given in 2020, which caused us to start reviewing these sort of YouTube prophets out there. Because I feel like that does the same thing. It becomes a prophetic word for all people and all places, and functionally speaking, that sounds like scripture. Um whereas you and I don't necessarily believe pro prophecy is meant to function that way. So, uh Josh, would you then in the same breath write off every kind of public prophetic word that's given into the entire world as this sort of in the same way you you would write off this kind of depends the content.

SPEAKER_01 21:42

It depends the content. So if someone is teaching in a prophetic word, this is who God is, and it's not in the scriptures, right? This is what God feels, what God thinks, that that would be one thing. I think that it's another thing to also say, hey, this is what you must do in 2027. Again, that is instruction for all people everywhere. Um this is what 2020 is going 2027 is gonna hold for all people everywhere. I I I think again, um that that's a that's bothersome. When you know when someone says 2027 is gonna be the year of a transfer of wealth, yeah, that's a problem. Because what do you what do you mean? In some sense, it's super vague. So yeah, it applies to everyone. I'm gonna spend money at Chick-fil-A, so yes, there's a transfer of wealth. Um, but but the idea that the wealth of the richer riches of the of the the wicked are gonna be given over to the righteous, like how can that happen every year? And is it gonna happen with all the righteous, is some of the righteous? How can we that the word for all people everywhere in this year? Um so so yes, I I I want to be able to write that sort of thing off. But again, this is a different level. This isn't scripturated, this is written down, this is being passed around as the words of Jesus. Jesus. And that that's that's deeply troubling. In the same way that Miller, if you got up on the Lord's Day and you had a dream and you were like, hey guys, I think this is what Jesus is teaching us as a church, and you got up and taught the dream, and maybe you quoted a couple Bible verses to kind of support your underlying premise, that that would essentially be elevating your prophetic revelation up to the level of scripture. Um do me a favor, because I don't want to misrepresent Sarah. She has gone out of her way in her book to describe what her work is actually doing and that it should uh only the word of God, only the scriptures are inerrant. She's not claiming that her writings are inerrant. Um, but I think that we need to engage with her writings so that we can give commentary on that.

SPEAKER_02 23:31

The point you're making is not so much that she's claiming it's on par with scripture. If anything, she goes to lengths to say just the opposite. But functionally speaking, that's what it results as. That it claims to be a prophetic word for all people in all places that you should actually listen to as part of your daily devotion to the Lord. Um that's why it's problematic. And I I I I think you're actually proving my point that this is problematic to put it out on in the same way that some of these prophetic words are being put out in the YouTube a sphere for the whole world, as though somehow this word applies to all people, and the instructions given in that word should be followed. Um it functionally operates like scripture.

SPEAKER_01 24:13

That's right. That's right. Yeah. Um do me a favor though, because like you said, she goes out of her way to say this is not scripture. Uh, only the scriptures are inerrant, but but she is adding extra. And I think this quote shows that. So I'm gonna punch it over to you and I'll let you read it for me.

SPEAKER_02 24:30

Sure thing. The practice of listening to God has increased my intimacy with him more than any other spiritual discipline. So I want to share some of the messages I have received. In many parts of the world, Christians seem to be searching for a deeper experience of Jesus' presence and peace. The messages that follow address that felt need. The Bible is, of course, the only inerrant word of God. My writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard. I have written them from Jesus' point of view. For example, the first person, singular, I, me, mine, always refers to Christ. You refers to you, the reader. So the perspective is that of Jesus speaking to you. Okay. I have going. Oh, sorry. Yeah. I have included scripture references after each daily reading. As I listen to God, Bible verses or fragments of verses often come to mind. I have interwoven these into my messages. Words from the scriptures seem paraphrased, some quoted, are indicated in italics. Some of the references, documented verses used in this way, other references are less obvious. I included them to provide additional depth for the reader.

SPEAKER_01 25:36

So the the phrase that you say, like, why is this so popular? Is I think this phrase up here. In many parts of the world, Christians seem to be searching for deeper experience of Jesus' presence and peace. The message that follow, the messages that follow address that felt need. So I need more than just what's in here. And she's like, this message from Jesus addresses that felt need. I think that's why people jump on board with it, is because there is this desire of experience, which I don't think is necessarily bad. I think that we can and should pursue experience with God because the manifestation of God is a good and godly thing. It's a safe place to be. But simultaneously, we're adding to functionally what is the scripture, again, in the same way that I would teach uh a vision or a dream or some character, not me personally, but a charismatic would teach uh an exegete a vision and a dream, an angelic encounter, something the Bible tells us not to do because we're not supposed to teach upon our kind of own vain imaginations. So those are my initial thoughts. She is careful to say scripture is inerrant, my writings are not inerrant. I'm thankful for that. But again, functionally, she's trying to open the door to more presence and peace of Jesus through these writings that are the words of Christ. And that's gonna be a problem later on because we're gonna engage with some supposed new age quotes that I don't think are new age quotes, but then we're gonna engage with some stuff that she just gets factually wrong, which means that Jesus is getting his own biography wrong. Um, so there there are some problems that are gonna be coming down the pike here pretty soon. Uh any additional thoughts on this, Miller, before we move on?

SPEAKER_02 27:09

No, no, we're 30 minutes in. We haven't even really begun to quote the devotions themselves. So let's get into the some of the texts that that are uh criticized and some of the ones that we where we agree with those criticisms.

SPEAKER_01 28:13

Cool.

SPEAKER_02 28:13

Hit number one. When you seek my face, put aside thoughts of everything else. I am above all, as well as in all. Your communion with me transcends both time and circumstances. Be prepared to be blessed bountifully by my presence, for I am a God of unlimited abundance. Open wide your heart and mind to receive more and more of me. When your joy in me meets my joy in you, there are fireworks of heavenly ecstasy. This is eternal life here and now, a tiny foretaste of what awaits you in the life to come. Now you see only a poor reflection as in a mirror, but then you will see face to face.

SPEAKER_01 28:53

Okay, so let me engage with the kind of new age idea of this. They're gonna claim this is panantheism. I'll explain that in a moment. I'll let you know Miller posit his own thoughts and kind of respond with like maybe a steel manning of Sarah's position here. So the New Ager is gonna look at this and say, this is panantheistic. Uh, if you don't know what that phrase is, panantheism is the belief that the universe is contained within God, but that God is greater than the universe. Uh, the word comes from the Greek root meaning all in God, and it teaches that God is present in every part of nature, but also exists beyond it. So uh essentially, panantheism is going to suggest that nature uh contains the same ontology as God Himself, so that creation exists within God. So every part of creation is God, right? Like this Google router, it's part of God. This water bottle, part of God. It is not all of God, but part of him. Um that is kind of antithetical to the Christian worldview of God being omnipresent. The idea of God being omnipresent creates a distinction between the creator and the creation, so that God, the creation is not part of God. And yet, within the Christian world of uh monotheism, God is omnipresent, meaning that he fills the universe from the heights of the heavens to the lowest part of Sheol, God's present is there. He is all present everywhere. But the New Ager is going to argue that this claim that she makes that God is above all as well as in all, is in fact a new age teaching. And they're going to argue that this is contradictory to what we see in the Gospels, that the Gospels are going to claim that only believers are indwelled by the Spirit of God in John 14, 23. And this certainly idea that God is transcendent, yes, he is above all, that's great. But the idea that he is in all is speaking to this idea of the spark of the divine being within all of us. And the deep secret of becoming supernaturally attuned is realizing that that spark is in us as well. They're going to look at this claim saying God is above all and in all as a deep stumbling block for Christian orthodoxy, smuggling in new age ideas within Christian vocabulary. So that's essentially how they're going to interpret this. I feel like it's a mountain out of Molehill round. Uh Miller, you you tell me what you think.

SPEAKER_02 31:09

Uh I I would agree with you. I think they're taking it further than she intends. Um, and the language just by the language there, it could be interpreted a couple different ways. Um, and actually it does resemble a lot of what I mean, what she said she was doing in uh in the quote that I read earlier about how she would often paraphrase scripture, intermingling the words she feels like she gets with God from what she uh has read in scripture itself. Like she'll quote 1 Corinthians, see face to face uh 13. But then on a few times, I don't know if she's directly quoting these other passages. I mean, with at least with 1 Corinthians 13, that face-to-face passage, it's it's only there and in Numbers and in Deuteronomy. Um but with these other things, you see a couple of references that are worth mentioning, like Ephesians 4 6. It says, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. So should we then think that because that language sounds panentheistic, that Paul is also panantheistic? Well, no. Um again, just because something sounds panentheistic doesn't mean that it is. Um so the similarity issue is what you had mentioned on the front end, some of the criticisms you found to be uh unfair criticisms. This would be one of them. Um a couple other scriptures that are that sound similar. So she mentions um God's relationship to creation, how scripture affirms God's omnipresence. Well the language uh is uh similar uh in what her quote is verse what we see in Psalm 139, Jeremiah 23. So Psalm 139, verse 7 through 10 says, Where shall we go from your spirit, or where shall I hide from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there. If I make my bed and shield, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me and your right hand shall hold me. So if I go back to her quote and and I read this part about it where um let me see I am above all as well as in all, well, certainly there is if God is omnipresent, there is nowhere you can run from to get away from God. He really is there. Um and I I I don't think she's going beyond what the scriptures themselves teach, at least not in this quote. Josh, do you think any differently than I do?

SPEAKER_01 33:22

No, I think the the objector, like for me to come on the scene and say, hey, look, this sounds like Ephesians 4.6 and Colossians 3.11, that God is over all and in all. Um, they're gonna look at those passages and they're gonna say, well, hey, Josh, here's the thing. Uh, in context, what Paul is talking about is in all Jew and Greek, as long as they have been united to you know Christ by faith. Uh but I would just argue, again, theologically, that we're we're talking in terms of God's omnipresence and his manifest presence and his indwelling presence. Like we're talking about different things and different categories here. Um, and I think that what you're doing is you have to assume that she is saying the indwelling presence of Christ is in all, when she could just be referring to the omnipresence of Christ being everywhere. So again, here's the thing. I want to criticize Sarah for what I think Sarah's doing wrong, which again, I think is really bad, which I think is adding to scripture. When I look at this quote, you know, virtually all of the sources looked at this and said, Oh, this is panantheistic. And I go, really? Like this seems like a stretch to make this panantheistic. I think we should be charitable in our review and assessment of folks. And this seems like it could totally be understood as God being omnipresent and and everywhere, you know? Uh so I I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 34:43

So a lot of the criticism that was brought about in that documentary that Josh that we watched, uh, which we haven't mentioned here, maybe we shouldn't put a link to the code. No, I mentioned it. I mentioned it. Yeah. Oh, okay, you did. Um, well, uh, do you think that that criticism I noticed that a lot of the people they brought onto that program were former, well, one of them at least, two of them actually, were former New Agers. Um, and so oftentimes when you've come out of that background, you're like hyper uh sensitive, hyper aware, and hyper vigilant of anything that feels or sounds like New Age. And so New Age being panantheistic. Um, it would make sense that you would then project that onto others when maybe their language just sounds similar and you're not actually recognizing that it also sounds similar to scripture.

unknown 35:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 35:29

Do you think that's certainly it certainly doesn't help that she says that she was inspired by a book that was mega spooky, New Age, right? Like a new age book, a proto-new age kind of work. So, you know, like I don't fault them, I don't look at them and say, uh, you're judging with unjust weights. Um, I go, hey, I'm just not seeing it. It's just what I'm saying. Like, I'm saying I can see how you would see it for someone who's very sensitive to this, and then, hey, I've been inspired by that. But I I know people who, you know, would say that they were inspired by the word of faith movement, also wouldn't be able to find the word of faith. If I asked them about like seed time and harvest and like controlling the universe by their words, they would be like, no, like I don't I don't believe in any of that. I just think that guy made a huge impact of my life, and he said he was word of faith. And I go, oh, okay. Um, you know, and then I think people who are highly skeptical of the word of faith would follow around that person who was influenced and listen to every sermon and every writing and just assume that word of faith is on every page when they weren't really able to articulate it. I I just suspect, and I I'm I'm maybe I'm being too charitable here. I'm okay if that's the case and I need to be corrected. I am open to that. I just don't think that again, this is a good example of the new age. And and I think this next example is quite similar to the first.

SPEAKER_02 36:40

I'll give you one last little criticism. I it just language like uh in this quote that just I feel like it's so flowery and very feminine, feminine. I can't say the word right now, says, when my joy or when your joy in me meets my joy and you, there are fireworks of heavenly ecstasy. I don't know about you, Josh, but that actually like is super cringy to me. It makes me a little bit. Sounds gay. It does. I don't want fiery ecstasy. Like when I think of that, that's not how I think about my relationship with Christ. It reminds me of the well-meaning person who I'm like, hey, that that's cool, you go for it. But when I hear somebody praying, Daddy God, I'm like, I I just I can't do that. I just passed.

SPEAKER_00 37:31

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. No, oh, the ick times, yeah, real bad.

SPEAKER_02 37:35

Yes, yes, okay. I'll read the next quote. Sorry. Okay, the simple practice will help you see me in every situation, acknowledging my sovereign control over the universe. When you view events from this perspective, through the light of my universal presence, fear loses its grip on you. Adverse circumstances become growth opportunities when you affirm your trust in me, no matter what.

SPEAKER_01 38:00

Yeah, so the New Age folks, as far as I was aware, again, read the book, watched the documentary, trying to ground up all the resources possible. This was another quote that seemed to come up quite a few times. And I noticed that in the book in particular, just single lines, single sentences were quoted without larger context from paragraphs. That's why I'm trying to give you paragraphs to make sense of the context. Um, but they're going to look at this language of universal presence. Um, it's not ordinary devotional language, but it is ordinary devotional language within the new age metaphysical worldview. And that kind of terminology is used alongside things like love, light, and living uh channel, uh, these kinds of languages to speak of a universal spirit that exists in all things that we can kind of channel into and and and contain and restrain and experience. Um here, here's the thing though, I just it could just mean universal presence. It could just mean he's omnipresent. Um, you know, the language here, the concern is this framing uh of a fear relief through light of my universal presence, reframes this not into the trust in God's sovereignty and a personal God who is sovereign over all things, but of that vocabulary of the new age that we need to kind of experience the supernatural realm to assuage those kind of uh you know personal fears and experiences. And I just go, man, that it feels like a giant mountain out of a molehill once again. I don't have a whole lot of commentary to say about that other than that. Uh Miller, do you have anything you want to engage with uh quote number two?

SPEAKER_02 39:23

Not on this one. I I I felt the same way you did. It just felt like a reference to God's omnipresence. Um I think it was a little bit hypercritical on that particular criticism.

SPEAKER_01 39:32

So uh, you know, I'll read uh my notes in here. Uh there's no difficulty here when you look at passages like 1 Kings 8 27, uh God's the heights of the heavens, you know, uh Colossians 1 17. In him all things hold together. Universal here uh plausibly means an all-encompassing sovereignty, not a pantheistic presence. Uh so I I just I'm I'm just not on board. I I I I see the bad and I agree with the bad, but I just again not on this one. Uh Miller, you want to take us into quote number three, my friend?

SPEAKER_02 40:01

Yes, let me finish typing up a response. Somebody's accusing you of gossip in the chat because you said that uh we keep referencing the God calling and there's no connection. I'm like, yeah, there actually is.

SPEAKER_01 40:13

She's literally in the introduction, she said it.

SPEAKER_02 40:15

Yeah, he showed up later in the chat. He probably didn't watch the beginning of the video. And I mean, this guy, he always shows up to criticize what we say. Anything that's that doesn't reflect his form of charismatic Christianity. He's like, You guys are uh you know slandering and gossipers. It's like, well, dude, we we literally quoted her. It's not like we're making this up.

SPEAKER_01 40:34

I'm not I'm not uh interpreting her writing, I'm reading it out loud.

SPEAKER_02 40:38

Yeah. Okay, give me the next quote. Living close to me requires making me your first love, your highest priority. As you seek my presence above all else, you experience peace and joy in full measure. I also am blessed when you make me first in your life. While you journey through life in my presence, my glory brightens the world around you.

SPEAKER_01 41:00

Okay, so uh again, the this one I uh I could scratch my head trying to put on a new age hat, a former new age hat, trying to make sense of how they would read this. Um, but this is the kind of critique I can surmise for you. Uh the current story isn't about presence itself, but about ranking that and treating that experience of presence as though it should be sought above all else, uh, mirrors the kind of specific uh rather than the more subjective. Instead of the specific revelation found in scripture, the more kind of subject subjective personal experience. So uh knowing God, John 17.3 says to know God is to know Jesus Christ. I'm sorry, eternal life is to know God in Jesus Christ whom he has sent. So the idea is like if you want true knowledge, if you want grace and peace multiplied to you, it needs to be in the knowledge of Jesus. And as you have knowledge of Jesus, grace and peace are multiplied to you. It's not necessarily in this kind of transcendent peace experience. But they're gonna say, hey, this idea of driving to peace, driving to uh this experience of things is going to actually separate you from orthodoxy because you're gonna be driving after experiences. Uh, but I would just argue that I think the Bible, I don't know. I I'm gonna take all of the monologues in I need to do the new age position. Miller, you give some Christian feedback or else I'll take all of your uh all of your things to say. I can't do both sides.

SPEAKER_02 42:17

Uh I mean, I don't really have a ton of the uh much to add to this. Uh again, it's just it's super flowery language, not a big fan of that. But when it comes to see, you know, seeking God first, making him your highest priority. I mean, I I remember that as a young Jewish kid making the decision to follow Christ, and that meant, you know, he flat out said, like, hey, um, that may cause your family to hate you. I'm like, yeah, and that's what he asked for. He asked for a complete and total devotion. Um, I mean, what does it mean to give Christ your life if it's not exactly what she's describing here, like being him being number one? Um, so I I I personally agree with this. Like, I I think this actually is that's good, a good call to every Christian to make Jesus Christ your first and only priority, um, or your highest priority, not your only. I mean, I mentioned this earlier, but Oswald Chamber, uh, my utmost for his highest. That's actually kind of what she's endorsing here. Um, so I I like this. Uh as far as what she's saying in general, I believe it to be true. Um I I kind of wonder if the critique here has to do with manifest presence, the idea that God's presence will guide us and bringing us to into experience like brightness. Uh what did she say? When you journey through life in my presence, my glory brightens the world around you. Um I mean, depending on what you mean about that, I would actually say yeah, journeying with Christ in the most difficult dark times in my life has helped to brighten my perspective, uh, to have some hope in the outcome, not trusting in this life alone, but in the one to come. Christ gives us an eternal perspective. Um so yeah, I think that's it.

SPEAKER_01 44:01

Yeah, you know, I I go to like Psalm 27 where David speaking to the Lord says, You Lord, have said, seek my face, and my heart says, Your face shall I seek. And the word for face, you know, is the word for presence, right? Like it's it's it's God's presence. And and David speaks about dwelling in the house of the Lord forever and enjoying the presence and the delight of the Lord. I I look throughout the Psalms, uh, I look through, you know, Matthew, like you said, seek uh first the kingdom of God, and these things will be added unto you. Uh man, when I look at the scriptures, the idea of prioritizing God's spirit and his presence above all else is a good thing to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Um, and I don't think that there is a separation between knowledge and experience when it comes to this. I know that people are going to want it to, uh, but I think that they're one and the same. Um, you know, we we we we've heard the kind of charismatic caricature that you should seek the gift and not the giver. Uh, but the gift is the giver. Uh, the giver is the gift. They're one and the same. Um, the Holy Spirit, uh, the gifts of the Spirit are manifestations of the Holy Spirit. So it's like, oh, hey, you shouldn't seek an experience. Should I seek the Holy Spirit, the person, the third person of the Trinity? Well, yes, you should seek the Holy Spirit. It's like, what happens when the Holy Spirit manifests? That's an experience. So I just go, I again, I think we're making mountains out of a molehill. I understand that there's a danger of experientially based Christianity where no one wants to know the objective truth found in scripture. And that is an upside down kingdom. Um, but but I think when things are right side up, uh, as the Bible defines it, is that we are filled with knowledge of who God is. And then as we have that knowledge, we seek after. That very God. And from that we do, in fact, experience peace and joy and life everlasting. I don't think it's wrong to seek and experience that. Psalm 16, 11, you make known to me the paths of life. In your presence there is fullness of joy, and at your hand, pleasures forevermore. I go, hey, look, that's an experience of God. And I think that that certainly comes from the gospel and it comes from the scriptures. And I have a knowledge of that, but pleasure is a byproduct of that knowledge and of experiencing who God is. You know, the disciples say that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we touch our hands, that's what we've proclaimed to you concerning the words of life. I think it's important to have an experiential faith that is more than just cerebral brain-on-the-stick Christianity where I just know things about God. I'm not trying to criticize people because in fact, when I watched the documentary, they were careful to say things like, hey, uh, experience isn't bad, but it needs to come under the tier of uh objective scriptural authority. And I think that they did a good job on that. I just think that again, things like this are mountains out of molehills. Um, and uh, I'll be honest in saying that I do think God calling additionally makes a greater emphasis on experience rather than objective truth found in the scriptures. So I I also have that kind of concern. But let's move on to example number four, August 25th devotional.

SPEAKER_02 46:59

Sure. I am the eternal I am. I always have been and I always will be. In my presence, you experience love and light, peace and joy. I am intimately involved in all your moments, and I am training you to be aware of me at all times. Your assignment is to collaborate with me in this training process. I have taken up residence within you. I am your I am central in your innermost being. Your mind goes off in tangents from its holy center time and time, time after time. Do not be alarmed by your inability to remain focused on me. Simply bring your thoughts gently back to me each time they wander. The quickest way to redirect your mind to me is to whisper my name.

SPEAKER_01 47:40

Okay. Um, I'm gonna claim that the new age folks here are gonna look at this, or the former new age folks, again, I want to be clear on this, not new age folks, but former new agers are gonna read this and go, hey, look, look at the language that is being used here. I'm center in your innermost being. Again, I think she's claiming to be a Christian. So I think that this is being spoken to Christians. I again I assume. Um so I think it's uncharitable. They're gonna claim, hey, God's not in every single person, he's in believers, and which I will agree, his indwelling presence is only in believers. But that holy center language uh and instruction is redirectoring wandering minds to, again, their inner world, uh, which is a new age practice. Quiet the mind and just focus on the the God that's inside of you. I think that's how they're going to read this. However, man, this has just been a biblical practice for a long time. A lot of folks are gonna be really upset if I bring up Lexio Divina, they're gonna be very upset if I bring up Desert Fathers, they'll be upset if I talk about the cloud of unknowing or the rich Christian history of contemplative meditation, which is, I think, distinctly different than Eastern meditation. Uh, Eastern meditation, new age space is going to have you emptying your mind, um, whereas biblical meditation is going to be filling your mind with Christian thoughts and Christian ideas, meditating on the word of the Lord, meditating on who Jesus is and all that he's done. And in this passage here, you know, he's saying, look, um, I'm in you, I'm with you. When your mind gets distracted on these moments of meditation, center your mind back on Jesus. Again, I don't think Jesus spoke this. Again, I don't think this is right. Uh, I don't think this book is good, but I'm not going to look at this passage and claim that it's teaching some kind of new age mysticism where I'm trying to get in contact with a God that's inside of me so that I can have a revelation of the divine. I I just I don't think that's going on there. Uh Miller, your thoughts.

SPEAKER_02 49:25

I just think she's conflating. I mean to me, does sound like she's just quoting or um how do I say this? She probably doesn't realize that the God calling is new age panantheism. Um and in doing and not knowing that, she's actually taking things in there that she sees that seem to her to be true about the God she reads about in scripture. And so because of that, her meaning is probably different than the meaning of the God calling. Um I just I just think there's a conflation there that she's unaware of and she has no idea who she's sourcing. Um, so that's probably it there. Um and at the end of the day, what she says, I again I think is true here. Um same flower language, um, but I bet I be I I'd struggle to see what's actually wrong with this quote in particular.

SPEAKER_01 50:12

Yeah. We've got we've got we're getting into the quotes now because these are just examples of like, ah, I don't think it's super sensitive, substantive as a criticism. We're gonna get into some quotes that are objectively wrong that we're gonna engage with. You know, someone in the comment section says, hey, you need to go watch the documentary. They're engaging with some of that material. I'm not engaging exclusively with stuff in the documentary. I'm I'm also engaging with articles that I've read online, uh, other YouTubers, um, and then reading this book, Another Jesus Calling. Uh, I would encourage you guys, go do the research. I have zero problem with this. Go jump online, watch the documentary. I think it's very well done. I think it is more true than it is untrue. Uh, I I disagree with the way that they're seeing some things. I don't think that it is a negative documentary. I would encourage people to check it out. Uh, it's really thorough. Um, and Miller said, hey, I think they brought on one or two new agers. I think they brought on like 12. I think there was, I think most of the people in that documentary are former new agers. So so many of them out there. In fact, I reached out to my buddy Steven Bankars and he sent me uh at least one blog kind of going through that was on his website about the Jesus Calling book, uh, written by another contributor, but I think really substantive and good. So uh example uh, well, I've written it as example number one. I guess it's example number five from June 7th, uh, is the next example that we need to dive into. And I do think this one, again, is objectively wrong. So, Miller, do you wanna you wanna read this one for us? Sure.

SPEAKER_02 51:30

I am all around you like a cocoon of light. My presence with you is a promise, independent of your awareness of me. Many things can block this awareness, but the major culprit is worry. My children tend to accept worry as an inescapable fact of life. However, worry is a form of unbelief. It is anathema to me. Who is in charge of your life? If it is you, then you have good reason to worry. But if it is I, then worry is both unnecessary and counterproductive. When you start to feel anxious about something, relinquish the situation to me, back off a bit, redirecting your focus to me. I will either take care of the problem myself or show you how to handle it. In this world, you will have problems, but you need not lose sight of me.

SPEAKER_01 52:16

Okay, so I'm gonna do my best again to try to do the former New Ager position here, but I generally agree with them. Uh they they speak of a cocoon of light. Um, they flag that as a direct parallel and uh kind of quotation from New Age sources. Um, Barbara Max Hubbard, uh, the her Christ, uh, who taught followers to create a cocoon of light as part of humanity's collective transformation. The term has no biblical precedent, um, and the source material comes from New Age imagery. I think I can generally agree with that. Uh, the critique also catches the word play in the same passage. Rather, after invoking a cocoon of light, this is Jesus calls worry anathema to me. This is uh completely unbiblical. Um, Jesus would not call anathema worry. The word anathema means damned from destruction, separated from God. Uh, if any believer wrestles with worry and they're damned for destruction, we're all in trouble. Uh, these are not the words of Jesus. I can say very confidently, Jesus would not have said that. Um so there it is. Those are my thoughts.

SPEAKER_02 53:15

Yeah, I'm uh I'm guessing she probably doesn't know that the word anathema means eternally damned. Um I'm guessing she probably just thinks it means problematic. And so if we were going with her definitions, I don't know how you get around this. I'm like, I'm trying to be charitable here. Um how would you say this? Well, that's not what I meant it to mean. Yeah, but that's what you meant God to mean. You're claiming this was coming from God. That's right. So I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 53:50

You don't have to know what it means. Jesus knows what it means, and if you're claiming that Jesus is speaking, then Jesus is saying something Jesus would never say. Uh this phrase is used in Galatians 1.

SPEAKER_02 54:00

Yeah, but she might be saying, Well, Jesus is using my definitions, he was speaking to me, and it's like I don't think so. I think typically when God speaks, he'll correct your wrong definitions, uh, especially if they're words used in scripture. Like Jesus corrects Peter's uh understanding of the divide between Gentile and Jew in the new covenant um by giving him a trance, and in that it causes Peter to see what the scriptures have promised already to be true. So he corrects Peter's misunderstanding and doesn't correct uh or work within allow Peter to maintain his that misunderstanding and then project it to the whole world.

SPEAKER_01 54:36

So I mean it's it's it's the language, as I said, was in Jin uh Galatians 1 where Paul says, uh, hey, if I or another apostle or an angel from heaven come and preach another gospel, let them be anathema, damned for destruction, right? Like that's that's the the language that is being used there. It is used of absolute objective false doctrine that moves people outside of the faith. Um, to say that worry um is anathema, is to say that your works can get you in and out of heaven. Now, again, she's not claiming that, but that's what that word means. Um she's claiming that Jesus is saying it, though, which is actually the problem. So I would encourage people to um yeah, avoid uh like the plague. I've got two other quotes in here so we can wrap up. Uh Miller, do you want to read? Well, actually, it's three quotes, but only two screen graphics. Um, do you want to read this uh second example from August 23rd?

SPEAKER_02 55:28

Entrust your loved ones to me, release them into my protective care. They are much safer with me than in your cleaning hands. If you let a loved one become an idol in your heart, you endanger that one as well as yourself. Remember the extreme measures I used with Abraham and Isaac. I took Isaac to the very point of death to free Abraham from the son worship. Both Abraham and Isaac suffered terribly because of the father's undisciplined emotions. I detest idolatry, even in the form of parental love. Okay, give me your thoughts on that, buddy. I don't like it. Um, it assumes that Abraham was worshiping his son Isaac, that there was a form of idolatry taking place there. And that one she's going to have to back up biblically. Um, and I don't think you can. I think that's eisegesis. And I think it's I mean, maybe um, okay, this might be a bit controversial, but I I think of the difference between my wife and I when it comes to uh our kids, my wife's whole world is protecting those kids. Um my world is not so much protecting them, though I want to do that as well. I think about preparing them for the world that they're gonna have to face because mom and dad aren't gonna be around forever. And so, while my wife, she has anxiety that serves her in the protection of our kids and she's home with them all the time. Uh, I come home and I wrestle with my kids and I try to push my kids to do things they wouldn't have felt comfortable to do on their own. If they just had my wife, they'd be afraid of the world. Um, but because they also have me, they can hopefully face the world and take some risk. Um, so when when I read this, I also think this is coming from a you know a mom worried about our kids. And so, of course, she may isogete or read into the Abraham story, uh, the idolatry that's taking place. So I again this is subjective. I can't really know what's in her heart, but I'm just I'm thinking this so much of this I mentioned earlier fells really feminine and flowery, and this is actually kind of like a little bit more in that direction. It's showing some of her own world uh being put into something that she's then saying belongs to everybody.

SPEAKER_01 57:34

Um and to be fair, I've heard sermons where preachers will make that the application point of the text that Abraham, you know, idolized Isaac as the promise. And he had to give that up. Yeah, I've I've heard that. I'm pretty sure I've heard it at a gateway. Like uh I've heard it at uh tons of spaces. Uh now, is that the interpretation of the text? No, I don't think that's the interpretation of the text. Abraham is commended for his faith. Uh, in Hebrews, even saying that he had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead, like he was commended by God in that account. Nowhere in the account was he labeled for being sin. It really is, as you said, Isegesis, reading her interpretation or influence or life application into the text. Now, when I say um uh, you know, this was the way it was preached, I can't tell you definitively if that they were teaching the meaning of the text or if they were teaching an application of the text. Uh, and there is a difference, right, between saying this is what the text is saying uh in its authorial intent and this is how it can be applied to your life. Um, for example, you know, hey, be careful how you show up in church, not wearing, you know, braided hair and gold and jewelry and being super dolled up, you know, so there's not a divide amongst the rich and the poor. You know, I might apply that today to not whipping up to the church in your your escalade or your Bentley that's all decked out and fly, you know, when you're going driving into town, you know, and you've got a homeless ministry that you're dealing with uh at the time. Like it's it's it's a distinction, it's an application versus the meaning. And I can I could see possibly in a sermon where someone confused an application for the meaning. Um, let's use this final one as an example. And then it looks like we got a super chat in here. Someone wants to know, and maybe we engage with it. Let's do one more. Let's do one more quote and then we'll engage with uh Reformed Catholic uh uh his comment there. Uh Miller, I've never seen this before.

SPEAKER_02 59:21

A super chat?

SPEAKER_01 59:21

Yeah, it's when someone uh donates and it's like a way of like answer my question. I've given you money.

SPEAKER_00 59:26

It's like okay, we'll we'll do it. Uh Miller, uh, tell me about uh we caved the money, is what you're saying.

SPEAKER_01 59:33

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, here's the thing. I don't want someone to give money and like not have their question answered.

SPEAKER_00 59:38

Like I'd like to do that. I didn't even know that was an option. I've never seen them before.

SPEAKER_01 59:41

We must have turned it on recently because I've never seen it function. Uh here, do this, do the seventh one and we'll we'll uh we'll wrap it up. Sure.

SPEAKER_02 59:49

Uh January 28th, I am with you always. These were the last words I spoke before ascending into heaven. I continue continue to proclaim this promise to all who will listen. October 15th, try to stay conscious of me as you go step by step through this day. My presence with you is both a promise and protection. My final statement just before I ascended to heaven was surely I am with you always. That promise was for all of my followers without exception.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:15

Okay. So again, this is a problem. Jesus wasn't his last words. Like it they this is a good criticism from everyone who's written on it and talked about it. Those aren't last Jesus' last words, right? Uh that's the last words in the Gospel of Matthew, but it's not chronologically the last thing that Jesus said. And Jesus was on a mountain in Galilee when he spoke those words, but he ascends in the Mount of Olive on the Mount of Olives, uh, like in Acts, and tells the church what to do in Acts chapter uh uh one, seven through nine, uh, and records what he actually said, instructing them about knowing times and seasons uh and the promises of the power of the Holy Spirit to be the witnesses. Uh, there's two separate mountains, and it kind of has the exact opposite application of what she is arguing here. Um, yes, Jesus does tell his followers to trust in him, but like also be weary of the seasons and times. Um, so uh the opposite of the anathema quote for certain that worry is anathema. Uh Jesus is saying, hey guys, have a healthy level of self-awareness. Things are gonna be rough for a while. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Miller, do you have any thoughts on that closing comment? Uh it's just wrong. I don't know if there's anything else to say.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:22

No. This I don't I don't like doing this episode, Josh. It reminds me of doing the prophetic reviews. It's like all the yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:30

I think she's passed too. Like, I think she's passed on, which kind of makes me sad because it's like someone thinks she passed in 2023. Yeah, that's a it's a bummer. It's like I'm talking about dead folks. Like, I'd feel weird. Maybe not. In fact, I was thinking about doing it. I was like, I'd feel weird like responding to John MacArthur and being like, this is dumb. And I'm like, I can't do that anymore because he's dead. That feels weird. Maybe I will anyway. Who knows?

SPEAKER_02 1:01:51

It's already been done. Jack Deere wrote the uh official rebuttal that John MacArthur never engaged in.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:57

Okay, Miller, super chat here. I think you have five bucks. You gotta answer this question well. Is it blasphemy, Miller? Because I don't think these are the words of Jesus. I think she's adding to the canon. I think definitionally, if is she leading at people after other gods? Like, I don't think so. Um is she just like I don't know. You you weigh in. You let me know your thoughts. Is it blasphemy?

unknown 1:02:24

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:25

If you're saying the words of Jesus like what you mean by blasphemy, yeah, yeah. Okay, so Jesus used the word blasphemy against the spirit to mean one thing. Do you think there's any difference between blasphemy and blasphemy against the spirit? So, like the other time that blasphemy is used is with Hymeneus and Alexander, right? Jesus handed them over to Satan that they be taught not to blasphemy. Well, what was that was it they were doing? They were teaching a false gospel, a gospel with legalism, a gospel that would say you shouldn't marry an overrealized eschatology. Um, you know, forbidding what God had not forbidden for the sake of righteousness. Um I don't know if she's doing that. I do think she is attributing to God what is not God.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:06

Um I think that's blasphemy, though.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:09

I yeah. Well, I I don't depends what you mean. Um because like you and I would say that people when they give a prophetic word and they're wrong about that prophetic word, we're gonna say that in some sense they're attributing to God what is not God. I think the difference between what she's doing here is functionally, she's attributing to God something that's on par functionally with scripture, not necessarily ontologically. Um so man, I don't know. This is here's the thing the way that we even the way that we're gonna be. If I say blasphemy, then I I consider that to mean anathematized. Like this is a condemned person, and I'm really hesitant to issue that kind of claim on this particular issue.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:51

Hang out here with me because blasphemy against the sun will be forgiven, blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven, is what Jesus says, right? So I don't think that I'm condemning this person to hellfire if I say they've blasphemed. Um, in fact, the passage you quoted is that Hymenius and Alexander might be taught not to blaspheme by being delivered over to Satan. So I think that the assumption there is the same assumption that we see in 1 Corinthians 5 that this person might come to repentance, that they might be saved, right? So I think that would be the hope. And in this account, do I think this is definitionally blasphemy? I think it is. And I think there is a difference between a person who gets up on a stage and says, Hey, I think this is what the Lord is saying. Is this the case? And someone responds back, ah, it's not, and you go, Oh man, I'm sorry, I apologize. Like those weren't the words of the Lord. I got it wrong. It's another thing for a person to like inscripturate and say, This is the word of the Lord. Um, I think that is different. Um, and I think it's a it's a difference of intent, it's a difference, a difference of authority, like how much like weight I'm actually putting into it. Um yeah, so I I I think probably um I don't say that with any kind of glee. I don't want to say that, sure. But if my definition is is speaking on behalf of the Lord, I think she's doing this in a way that's like really bad. So probably I don't know if that's helpful. Sorry, sorry, it's not a more clean-cut answer. So super fan who's let me let me back up, Josh.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:11

Let me summarize here. You're saying yes, this is blasphemous, um, but no, you wouldn't consider it blasphemy against the spirit.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:19

Yeah, so yeah, I think the blasphemy of the spirit is really specific. I think what's happening is there are Pharisees who are seeing Jesus, religious teachers, whoever the people that were present in the account. They're present watching Jesus do miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, and I think they knew it was the Holy Spirit. But because of their own pride, because they wanted their position, because you know they they wanted to criminalize Jesus, they claimed that he was doing them by the power of Beelzebub. I think the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a very specific sin that involves attributing the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of Satan when you know it is. Like I actually know this is the Holy Spirit, but I'm gonna call it Satan because X, Y, and Z. I don't think the reason actually matters. I think it's having full knowledge of something. Um, this is God, and then saying it's the devil in order to intentionally willfully deceive people. Um, I think that's the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit found in that text. So those are my those are my two thoughts. Okay, guys, I hope this is helpful. If you're out there and this is your favorite book, I'm sorry, we just pooped over it. I know it's a bummer. I'm not saying that it couldn't have encouraged you and built you up again. We we read a lot of quotes that I go, hey, I I generally think it's true. Do I think Jesus said that? No. I think she probably had a um supernaturally informed imagination in that she had been reading the scriptures and had her mind transformed by those scriptures and was probably saying true things based on those things and her spiritual formation as a Christian. I I think that was probably the case. Um, I don't think that the words of Jesus. And then secondly, um, she got some things really, really wrong. Um so uh those are our thoughts. Hope that's helpful, guys. And we'll see you next Monday, Wednesday from 4 to 5 p.m. Central Standard Time.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:06

Miller, do you have anything you want to say? Only one other thing. I just noticed, Josh, we are like we're at 198,000 subscribers on YouTube. If you have not subscribed, why not? Uh we'd love to see that hit the 200,000 marks. So please subscribe if you watch the show or even occasionally so you get reminders about when we're doing stuff. Uh and also we've got conferences coming up, a big one on FC and Hearing God coming up at the uh here at the end of September, early October.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:32

Yeah. It's also probably very important to mention to folks that the uh the comment section will be blocked for you unless you subscribe. Uh, we activated that new feature as a way to get rid of spam and trolls. So uh if you're out there and you don't want to spam or troll, subscribe to the channel and you can engage with us in the comments and the live feed. Guys, thank you so much for tuning in. We'll see you next time.