Controversies‎ > ‎

Objection 3

Objection: Dan Mohler’s teaching is false because his teaching, in essence, puts Christians on the same level as Jesus - just like Jesus - on par with Jesus.


Thoughts: When people hear Dan using the phrase “Don’t say, ‘Well, that was Jesus’” and see Dan using hand motions that seem to bring Jesus and humans to an equal level, it raises red flags. Is Dan saying that Christians are meant to become Gods? Or that Jesus was not God? 

 

Context - The problem to be addressed - Understanding what Dan is trying to convey goes back to the problem that I believe Dan is trying to address in the first place: that people view Jesus, for all practical purposes, as God only. Jesus' divinity is almost universally appreciated, even if not truly embraced, in the church and in our culture. In fact, so much emphasis has been given to Jesus’ full divinity that His full humanity has not been appreciated at all. Jesus’ full humanity gets crowded out of the hearts and minds of His people. (see objection 1). 

 

Context - How Dan addresses the problem - So when Dan uses hand motions to place Jesus and humans on the same level I believe Dan is simply emphasizing what is underappreciated in our day: that Jesus was fully human and that there is something there that, with God’s help, we can follow. I also believe that Dan puts Jesus and man in the same arena ONLY in the sense that Jesus lived His life on earth as fully human and gave us a model to follow. Why do I believe this? First, because Dan says as much right before making the offending hand gestures, "His earthly ministry - Jesus in the flesh - We've made Him here [up high] and said, 'Well that was Jesus' and made us here [down low]" @ 5:51. And second, because to ascribe any other meaning to these hand gestures would be inconsistent with the larger body of what Dan teaches. 

 

Is Dan elevating believers to divine status? No, that would be inconsistent with what Dan teaches with regard to repentance for believers. If believers stumble into sin they are to run to the Father to get things right  instead of hiding in the garden as Adam and Eve did. If Dan is saying that believers become God, they would have no sin and have no need for repentance (see further discussion in objection 5).

 

Dan's thoughts on the distinction between believers and Jesus comes through clearly when Dan teaches with regard to healing - specifically, with regard to the situation where someone has been prayed for but who was not yet been healed (@9:09 - 10:23):


It's a no brainer question - wherever you grew up in church - whatever denomination - if you say, "If Jesus walked in the room and touched the sick person that you love, what would happen?" Nobody would have to think about their answer. They would say, "Well, they would be healed." I don't care what denomination... You could go to a cessationist setting and ask that question and they would say, "Well, he'd be healed. But we're not Jesus." Well, no we're not. No one ever said that we are. But He's in us - and Christ in us - the hope of glory - the body of Christ. As the Father sent Me, so I send you. If you have faith, you will say to the mountain 'move' and the mountain will move. And nothing will be impossible for YOU. Why do we miss all of that scripture, religiously saying, 'Yeah, but we're not Jesus.' Of course we're not Jesus - but He lives in us. And we're the body of Christ, which literally means the embodiment of the anointing. This thing is so simple. And we fight over it because we are sentimental and we have issues because we have lost loved ones. So we are trying to defend our feelings, instead of grow in the gospel.


Is Dan lowering the status of Jesus - robbing Jesus of His divinity? No, that would be inconsistent with Dan’s teachings on: the scene at Lazarus’ tomb, the persecution of Jesus by the Pharisees, Jesus being the revealed will of God to heal the sick, Jesus being the Truth, the incarnation and other various comments along the way (see objection 1).

 

Dan is not making Christians into Gods. Nor is he robbing Jesus of His divinity - a divinity which Dan embraces (see objection 1). He’s trying to show that because of Jesus' full humanity, there is something in common - something that can be followed. 


***


Similarly, when Dan uses the phrase, “Jesus modeled the life that you and I were created for” it sets off alarm bells. Is Dan saying that Christians are meant to become gods? Or that Jesus was somehow not God? Either would be troubling. 

 

Context of the phrase - This phrase is a reference to man being created in the image of God. That image - that likeness was lost at the fall such that man no longer looked anything like his heavenly Father. Through His sacrificial death on the cross Jesus made it possible for us to have access again to the Father, after of course, repentance, forgiveness, baptism and the infilling of the Holy Spirit (please see detailed explanation on the Overview page). And as we spend time in close relationship with Him, He begins to restore us to what He originally designed us to look like - to look more like Him - to look like His love.


Context - The problem to be addressed - If we see Jesus as God only, we would be setting ourselves up to give up on what Jesus called us to do… “Follow me.” But how can we follow Him if He is God only?


Context - The way Dan addresses the problem - With this phrase Dan is not making Christians into gods. Nor is he robbing Jesus of His divinity. Both of those interpretations would be at odds with the larger body of Dan’s teaching (details in "Don't say, 'Well that was Jesus'" section above). Dan is saying that Jesus (100% God, 100% man) submitted Himself to live as a human. He lived a life looking like His Father. And because He did this as a man, empowered by God - we have Someone that we can follow.





Please note: This web site is neither authored by nor associated with Dan Mohler or Neck Ministries
and is intended for noncommercial educational purposes.