IPS-Eye-White03

Section 7b ..
Sharing The Faith

 

003white03  Index To Articles on Sharing The Faith

IPS-Header04
Gospel-World-Bg03

Discussing the Bible With New Agers

by Elliot Miller

Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages.

See Overview of The New Age

Part One

Any conscientious effort to present the gospel to a New Ager eventually leads to a discussion of the Bible. Although such a debate is engaged on Christian turf, it is often the New Ager, not the Christian, who afterwards feels satisfied with the discussion. For example:

    Christian: Do you believe in Jesus?

    New Ager: Yes, I believe in Jesus -- and in Buddha, and Ramakrishna, and my own guru, too.

    Christian: But Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me."

    New Ager: That's right! I Am is the truth and the only way.

    Christian: What?

    New Ager: The I Am Presence or spark of divinity in each one of us!

    Christian: Wait a minute. Jesus was speaking about Himself...

    New Ager: Yes, and only when each one of us can say with Jesus, I Am, will we realize God as Jesus did.

    Christian: But 1 Timothy 2:5 says the man Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.

    New Ager: Oh, that means the only mediator is our Christ Consciousness or Higher Self.

    Christian: You're taking the Bible out of context.

    New Ager: The problem with you fundamentalists is you hang on its every word. We're in a New Age and much of the Bible is obsolete! Yet there are also timeless truths within it, and only when you accept the Universal Wisdom in all religions will you recognize those truths.

    Christian: Second Timothy 3:16 says all of Scripture is God's Word and profitable, so you can't prove what you're saying from the Bible.

    New Ager: You quote the Bible to prove the Bible and then tell me I lack proof? Actually, my guru does prove her teachings from the Bible, because she can unlock its esoteric meaning. But you fundamentalists are so obsessed with literal meaning you don't understand your own book. [End of discussion.]

    [See Section Why Christianity?]

In such a conversation the New Ager's faith in mysticism and his guru have hardly been shaken. The Christian, on the other hand, has hardly become encouraged about further witnessing to New Agers. Their words seem to miss each other as they speak from very different presuppositions. How can the Christian scale this barrier to effective evangelism? Let me suggest a basic approach.

Underlying the Christian-New Age debate is the question of how much respect one should show the Bible. For Christians the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. All of its teachings are true and in agreement. Each passage has one objective interpretation that must be sought.

To find the Bible's true meaning, careful consideration must be given to context -- in the immediate passage, Scripture as a whole, and the surrounding historical situation. In this way the Bible can speak for itself.

New Agers, on the other hand, not only disregard the Bible's claim to be uniquely inspired by God -- they don't even show it the respect any piece of literature deserves: to be understood objectively, on its own terms. This is because they approach it with biases derived from the authorities they do respect: intuition and experience. [See God And His Bible]

Because they have drunk from the well of mystical and psychic experience, and because they have become immersed in the occult teachings drawn from that well, New Agers usually accept only those ideas that seem to confirm their own intuitions. For example, if a teaching denies the divine oneness of all things and the underlying harmony of the world's religions, they reject it. However, since Christianity is one of those supposedly harmonious religions, many New Agers cannot accept that its Scriptures actually deny that harmony and oneness -- it must be that the "fundamentalists" are misinterpreting them.

New Agers consequently have great difficulty allowing the Bible to speak for itself. Looking for its hidden or mystical meaning, they completely miss its obvious historical meaning -- that is to say, its true meaning. For biblical revelation has always been primarily exoteric (plain and public) and not esoteric (cryptic and exclusive) (Isa. 45:19; 48:16; Mark 4:22; John 18:20; Acts 26:26). The God of the Bible made Himself known in history through prophetic words and miraculous deeds. Biblical salvation is therefore objective: it is first presented to the mind from outside sources as received through the five senses.

When New Agers subjectively remold Scripture in the image of esotericism they make a mistake a seeker of truth should never make. They presuppose that their own understanding of Ultimate Reality is the only possible one without seriously looking into opposing claims to truth. [Also See Esotericism and Biblical Interpretation]

We Christians should point out to such New Agers that they, too, are guilty of the "sin" of exclusivism. But while we exclude other views by forthrightly denying them, they do so by dishonestly affirming (i.e., redefining) them.

We are not asking them to blindly accept our interpretation of the Bible, but to seek an objective understanding of its teachings. If they find that it does present a view of reality in conflict with their own, we further ask them as truth-seekers to seriously consider the evidence in support of its claims before rejecting them.

Once New Agers agree to approach the Bible objectively, we have grounds for calling them to honesty when they take the Bible out of context. And once they begin to consider the claims of the Bible in context, the power of the gospel will have an opportunity to penetrate their minds and hearts.

Next: Christian responses to specific New Age reinterpretations of Scripture.
 

Part Two
New Agers present Christians with a challenging evangelistic opportunity. On the one hand, they have already accepted that they have a spiritual void in their lives and are actively attempting to fill it. Thus they are seemingly "half way home" to the kingdom of God. On the other hand, they have bought into a set of ideas that strongly prejudice their reading of the Bible.

In Part One I suggested a basic strategy for holding New Agers accountable when they begin to deal dishonestly with Scripture. Now I will demonstrate the following three-step approach to dealing with specific ways New Agers mishandle biblical texts: (1) Point out how the immediate context of the passage supports a different interpretation than the one they have offered. (2) Overwhelm them with examples from the larger context of the Bible that contradict their view. (3) Demonstrate that the source they quoted from the Bible to support their position actually adhered faithfully to that larger tradition that contradicts their view.

Although any number of doctrines that New Agers try to find in the Bible could be used to demonstrate this approach, space limitations dictate that I deal with only one here. I have chosen the foundational New Age belief in the divinity of all things.

Acts 17:28. To support their doctrine that humans and the world partake of the very being of God (pantheism: "God is all"; or, for some, panentheism: "God is in all"), New Agers sometimes cite the words of the apostle Paul in Acts 17:28, that "in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said..." (NASV). Is the apostle Paul here endorsing the pantheistic philosophy of the Stoic "poets" Aratus and Cleanthes, from whom he quotes? This is not a warranted conclusion.

Of course, Paul is seeking to find some common ground with his Greek audience on which to build his evangelistic appeal. So he cites a statement with which — at least to a certain extent — a Christian can agree. For the affirmation Paul quotes is, of itself, perfectly consistent with the biblical doctrine that God is omnipresent. In other words, since there is no place where God does not exist, He could be accurately thought of as completely encompassing His creation (nothing occurs anywhere in the universe that is not within the limitless range of His presence and being). This is all Paul means; his words do not affirm that the Creator and His creation share the same identity or essence. We can see this by looking at the overall body of Paul’s address.

It is evident that Paul disagrees at many points with pantheism in general and the Stoics in particular. He begins in verse 24 affirming that "God... made the world and all things in it." Clearly Paul believes in an ontological distinction between God and the world, with the world being dependent on God for its existence. Paul proceeds in verses 24-25 to affirm that God is in need of nothing within the creation to sustain His existence. This affirmation simply could not have been made in Stoic philosophy; nor can it be consistently made in New Age philosophy today. If the world is of one essence with God, then by definition God is not independent or free of the world.

Paul concludes by affirming in verses 30-31 that God now declares to all men that they should repent of idolatry because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness, through Jesus — whom He raised from the dead. Here we find that God is involved in a sovereign and personal manner with the world as its lawgiver and judge, and that He has intervened in human history miraculously to establish both salvation from, and judgment upon, human sin. None of these activities of God could be true within a pantheistic system, but all are perfectly consistent with the infinite, personal, holy God of Judeo-Christian theism.
[See Salvation and Section on The Resurrection]

Luke 17:20-21. Even more popular with New Agers are the words Jesus uttered in Luke 17:20-21. After being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied: "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you" (NIV). It seems that the entirety of New Age philosophy is often read into these words, and New Agers come away from this passage convinced that Jesus is one of them.

A serious consideration of the context of Luke 17, however, reveals that pantheism was the furthest thing from Jesus’ mind. We must first notice what Jesus did not say: He did not affirm that the very being or nature of God is "within you." He specifically was speaking about the kingdom of God, a concept with a well-defined meaning in biblical usage. The kingdom of God is the rule of God and Christ and the place where they rule (e.g., Rev. 11:15; 12:10). The citizens of the kingdom are those who do the will of God and Christ (Luke 11:2; Matt. 7:21).

The Pharisees wanted to know when the kingdom of God that Jesus often spoke of would appear. Although Jesus did teach that the kingdom would come at a future time in glory, He also taught that the kingdom comes in stages, and in its earliest phase was already present (see, e.g., Matt. 13:31-32). It was present in the sense that the reign of the King had already taken a foothold on earth as Jesus’ disciples obeyed His commands. See The Kingdom When?

This accords with the fact that the Greek word entos ("within you") can also be translated "in your midst" (see, e.g., the New American Standard Version). And so, Jesus’ point was, "You are looking for the kingdom to come only in a cataclysmic fashion ["with observation"], and thus you fail to notice that the King and His subjects are already in your presence."

With the proper understanding of what "kingdom of God" means, it is clear that Jesus would never have told the Pharisees that His kingdom presently existed inside their souls. For they were determined not to accept the messianic kingship of Jesus. [Also See What Was The Message of Jesus?]

The Larger Biblical Context. It is not only the immediate context of the above passages that rules out the New Agers’ interpretations, but, even more so, the overall context of biblical tradition. All of Scripture presupposes a subject-object relationship between God and His creation.

For example, humanity’s separation from God is never attributed to a subjective blindness to our true union with the divine, as in a pantheistic system of thought. Rather, it is sin or transgression of God’s holy law that has objectively and truly separated us from Him (Isa. 59:1-2).

In the first chapter of the Bible we find that the world was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by a divine decree (cf. Ps. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3; Rom. 4:17). That it was ex nihilo is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word (bara) used for the initial creation of the universe and man is never used in Scripture (unlike other Hebrew words for "create") with reference to preexisting material, out of which the created object would be fashioned. Thus God did not fashion the world out of Himself. At the core of man’s being he is a creature — there is no divine spark that can be fanned through meditation or other New Age practices.

The infinite gap between creator and creation revealed in Genesis 1 is maintained consistently throughout Scripture (e.g., Ps. 102:25-27; 113:4-6; 1 Kings 8:27). In fact, the identification of the creation with God is denounced as the very essence of idolatry (Rom. 1:18-25). The pride of man is condemned for the very reason that he is a mere creature, and only the Creator — who bestows on man whatever glory he possesses — is worthy of exaltation (Isa. 2:11, 17, 22; cf. Ps. 100:3). Furthermore, humans who make a profession of deity receive a special condemnation from Yahweh (Isa. 47:8-11; Ezek. 28:2, 6-9).

Now, it is within the setting of this overarching theism that Jesus and Paul conducted their ministries. While they made a few statements that might sound pantheistic to pantheists, the pantheist needs to understand that they were faithful representatives of the Jewish theism out of which they sprang. Thus, since their words can also be interpreted in theistic senses, the theistic interpretations should prevail.

Jesus: Hebrew or Hindu? When pressed, many New Agers would grant that Paul was probably not a pantheist. But they cannot afford to make the same concession regarding Jesus. Generally speaking, even they are compelled to acknowledge the superior spiritual status of Jesus in human history.  If He contradicted their beliefs this would seriously challenge their own faith in New Age mysticism. Thus New Age teachers have gone to great lengths to remold Jesus in the image of an Eastern mystical master.

    First, they tell us, Jesus Himself was a mere human like all of us. But, like all of us, He possessed within a divine or "Christ" principle. At the time of His baptism He finally manifested this Christ self, achieved "Christ consciousness" (divine self-awareness), and thereby became a "Christ." Therefore, they conclude, His unparallelled life is a proof for New Age (not "fundamentalist Christian") doctrine, since it shows forth the possibilities of human potential. By following Jesus’ example, they assure us, we too can become "Christs."

    Second, according to much of New Age literature (e.g., Levi’s The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ), Jesus obtained His wisdom and powers not so much from His Jewish background as from His alleged (though biblically unsupportable) wide travels through Asia and the Mediterranean world. In such remote places as the Himalayas he was supposedly trained in the "mysteries" of occult knowledge. (See The Lost Years of Jesus)

New Agers often add that Jesus disavowed distinctive doctrines from His Jewish heritage, such as blood atonement and the wrath of God against sin that necessitates such atonement. Some even go so far as to say that Jesus disavowed Yahweh (the "vengeful Jewish tribal deity") altogether in favor of His heavenly Father, whom He revealed as a new god to the Jewish people.

In response the Christian must show that the New Testament — the only extant record of Jesus’ life and teaching drawn from eyewitness testimony (as opposed to accounts based on the visions of nineteenth and twentieth century occultists!) — lends absolutely no support to the New Age view. Jesus told the woman at the well, "You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22; emphasis added). In His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17-18), Jesus endorsed the entire Old Testament law, stating that He came for the very purpose of fulfilling it (including blood atonement — cf. Matt. 26:27-28). To the Pharisees, the most "fundamentalist" sect of Judaism, He proclaimed that the Old Testament God they claimed to worship and His heavenly Fare d the same (John 8:54). In fact, Jesus claimed to be the Old Testament Yahweh incarnate (John 8:58; cf. Exodus 3:14-15) (See The Deity of Jesus Christ. Was He Lord, Liar Or Lunatic?)

Christians must warn New Agers that by abstracting the term Christ (Hebrew: mashiyach or Messiah, meaning "anointed one") from its historical Hebrew usage they have created a counterfeit "Jesus" in opposition to the living Lord (show them 1 Cor. 11:3-4). In its proper usage, "Christ" is not a cosmic principle, but the title of one specific person, the promised deliverer-king of Israel.

In Daniel 9:25-26 this individual’s coming was prophesied down to the very year, and His sacrificial death for our sins was foretold. And in stunning fulfillment of that prophecy Jesus was born, whom the angels called Christ at the time of His birth (Luke 2:11). It was the Holy Spirit who came upon Him at His baptism — not some mythic Christ consciousness. Thus the term Christ is never used in the New Testament with reference to anyone or anything but Jesus. In fact, the apostle John identified the ancient Gnostic (and today’s New Age) teaching that Jesus and Christ are two separate entities as the doctrine of the antichrist (1 John 2:22).
 

See Daniel Specified EXACTLY When The Messiah Would Appear
 

A Final Challenge to New Agers. After convincingly setting the biblical record straight, Christians can grant to New Agers that perhaps they have abused the Bible in ignorance. But from now on they know better than to use the teachings of the Bible and the name of Jesus to support New Age beliefs. If they wish to honestly continue down the New Age path they must first conclude that Jesus was simply deluded about God and His own mission. If they are not prepared to draw such a conclusion, they need to seriously wrestle with His person and claims on their lives.

As one who has surrendered to His claims, you can tell them there is nothing to dread. Rather, you have discovered that He alone is capable of filling that gnawing spiritual void within (John 6:35; 7:37; 8:31-32).

Gospel-Back

Sharing The Faith

www.inplainsite.org