Please read a brief summary of Lisa Harper here: https://michellelesley.com/2019/01/29/lisa-harper/
Lisa Harper has preached to men. A female teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly preach to or teach men in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Additionally, why would a church that agrees with scripture and does not believe in allowing women as pastors or preachers, then support these women by buying their books?
A Jesus Shaped Life- A book by Lisa Harper
Before writing this review, I read the entire book. This book is being offered in many women’s Bible (book studies), and in my opinion should be avoided. Yes, shoot me now, but this book is dangerous. I am certain some will say I am entirely too nitpicky. Nitpicky is defined as someone who is overly focused on small, unimportant details. However, it is exactly the small details that scripture warns us about. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Galatians 5:9
If you are a conservative Christian that believes the Bible alone is your source for everything you need to know about God, then reading this book is not for you. If you are a new Christian, then this book will leave you very confused. If you are a mature Christian, then you should quickly be able to discern some serious problems. Lisa Harper continually cites sources that are a mixed bag of theological views. Her seminary training has done what most seminary training does these days, and that is to lead you to believe there are sources of truth about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit other than the Bible.
Chapter 1
Lisa mentions the enneagram, which she lists only once in this book, but has mentioned it in some of her other material, therefore she obviously endorses the enneagram.
Very briefly, according to Doreen Virtue and Marcia Montenegro, The Enneagram brings focus to self and away from God. It glorifies the self. The Enneagram becomes a guide for your life. Richard Rohr popularized the Enneagram. Rohr is a catholic priest. He hears messages from God, practices contemplative prayer, and believes in universalism and pluralism. Also, Pantheism, panentheism, and unbiblical mysticism. Rohr appeared on Oprah discussing universalism. He teaches pluralism. He is quoted as saying he believes in the Christian doctrine, but also believes you can add other ideas from Buddhism and other religions. Rohr describes the enneagram in his book preface as an ancient Christian tool for discernment of spirits for the struggle of capital sin, our true self, and the encounter with our true self in God. I have no clue what that means, but it certainly sounds evil! Beth McCord also popularized the enneagram. She and her pastor husband admit they’ve taken many of their ideas about the enneagram from New Age. They say they’ve changed the enneagram to a Christian version. I don’t think so. The enneagram is dressed up astrology and God condemns this. (Deut. 13, Deut 18, Matthew 7:15-20). Bethel is actually using tarot cards now. False teachers today don’t abandon God, but they are now including other non-biblical and anti-biblical beliefs. This is prostitution. Promoters of the enneagram say you will get closer to God, be closer to your spouse, have better relationships with others, and learn more about yourself. Why are churches allowing this? Most respond they are using it as a tool to bring people into the church. Some actually respond they use it for discipleship. The purpose of the Church is not to get unbelievers in (although they are welcome). The purpose of the Church is to equip believers.
Also see: https://awordfitlyspoken.life/podcast/top-7-reasons-the-enneagram-is-unbiblical/
Lisa defines “theology” according to the Greek Fathers?
Lisa states:
“...Among the Greek Fathers it comes to have two specific references: it can denote either the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., of God’s being, as opposed to his dealings with the created order), or it can mean prayer (as it is only in prayer that God is truly known).”
Who are the Greek Fathers? Here, she is giving authority to people without listing who she specifically is talking about. She states “they” say that it is only in prayer that God is truly known? Scripture please? I’ve never heard the Bible state this.
Prayer IS NOT the only way that God is truly known. The Bible defines prayer as “talking to God.” Prayer is not meditation; it is the communication of the human soul with the Lord who created the soul. Prayer is the primary way for the believer in Jesus Christ to communicate his emotions and desires with God and to fellowship with God.
For the Christian, theology is simply the study of God. Lisa then defines theology more simply by stating: “Therefore, the basic definition of theology is “conversations about God. And conversation implies relationship, right?”
My first thought is that this definition, by using the word conversations, is opening a door that we may know God in other ways than studying the scripture. Red flag! Questionable and false teachers usually want to lead us away from the absolute authority of the Bible by introducing us to new ways to know God.
Under the heading “Finding Treasure in Divine Depths” she states that Christine Caine is her “Bestie”. She quotes Christine Caine as telling her:
“Lisa, I’ve noticed how American Christian culture tends to try and wedge the Holy Scriptures right up there alongside God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. But you know, the Bible is not actually a member of the Trinity.”
What? This is clearly an attempt to demean the authority of the Bible. The Bible is TRUTH for the Christian. The Bible is how we know God. We are not to use feelings, experiences, and our imaginations to know and understand God. One of the biggest problems I see in Churches today is a complete lack of Biblical knowledge, which leads to a Jesus that is imaginary. People don’t know the real Jesus because they don’t know His Word….thus they invent a Jesus. The old phrase “What would Jesus do?” was so wrong. The thing we need to do is to know “What Did Jesus Do”.
She basically tells us that this statement initially confused her until she began to peruse the literary masterpieces of NT Wright. I could probably write and entire article on NT Wright as well as Christine Caine, but here is just one headline: N.T. Wright Now Says You Can Deny the Bodily Resurrection and Still Be a Christian. Christine Caine is a Word of faith teacher and has been closely associated with Hillsong. So here in the first Chapter, Lisa is endorsing both Christine Caine and NT Wright. RED Flag! For information about Christine Caine please research Michelle Lesley at https://michellelesley.com/2016/03/04/chhave-no-regard-for-the-offerings-of-caine/
Lisa makes a point of telling us in Chapter 1 that the Bible didn't exist until the fourth century when is was canonized at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in AD 393 and 419.
Lisa quotes NT Wright as saying:
“When John declares that “in the beginning was the word,” he does not reach a climax with “and the word was written down” but “and the word became flesh.” The letter to the Hebrews speaks glowingly of God speaking through scripture in time past, but insists that now, at last, God has spoken through his own son (1:1–2). Since these are themselves “scriptural” statements, that means that scripture itself points—authoritatively, if it does indeed possess authority!—away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself, now delegated to Jesus Christ.”
Lisa states further – “Here’s the point I’m trying to make—the author of Hebrews wasn’t talking about a leather-bound Christian Bible when he preached that the Word of God was living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword because it didn’t even exist back then!”
So, here Lisa is telling us that while she used to believe that Jesus was the Word as described in John 1 (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God)…and in Hebrews 4:12 (For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart), she now realizes that she was wrong. The Bible is not Jesus. The Bible wasn’t even written until the 4th century, and she even includes NT Wright questioning the authority of scripture!
She is clearly downplaying the importance of the authority of the Bible!!
I find this very disturbing. The canonized Bible may not have been completed until AD 419, but there was certainly the Word in written form, and despite what some claim, many people could read what was written. God is repeatedly telling his people to write this down. Why would God do this if people could not read and write. The New Testament often states “According to the Scriptures”. Knowing and depending on the Word of God as our only source of authority is critical.
People had access to the written Old Testament texts, which were curated over time and available through scribes and scrolls, but not the complete, unified Bible we know today. The same with the New Testament. The Epistles or letters were written and circulated quickly after the resurrection of Jesus. Most Scholars date 1 Thessalonians around AD 49-51. The Gospel of Mark, considered the earliest Gospel, was likely written between AD 66 and 70.
Lisa is leading us away from the authority of Scripture and to a different gospel as we shall see.
As we read in 2 Timothy 1:16-17 – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Today we should and must rely completely on the written Word of God, and we are told that it is everything we need. The Bible was given by divine inspiration, making it the Word of God written by men who were inspired by the Spirit of God. The Bible was written by God (Jesus is God). The Bible is the Word (Jesus is the Word). The Bible is all about Jesus. Our Father certainly knew that we would need His word in written form to prevent us from being deceived.
We are further instructed to test everything we hear: 1 John 4:1 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” How do we test things? By the written Word of God!
Acts 17:10-11. “Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.”
As a reminder, here are 36 Bible verses about the importance of the written Word of God:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/importance_of_the_word
Lisa states in Chapter 1: “For instance, when Paul tells Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2), he’s not talking about expository teaching; he’s encouraging young Tim to keep Jesus at the center of every message he shares! I think one of the reasons we have such a high rate of biblical illiteracy among believers today is that we’ve segregated Jesus”.
NO! Jesus IS the written Word! The written Word is how we know Jesus today. The written Word is how we keep from being deceived. The reason for the high rate of biblical illiteracy today is because we have so many people going to book studies and NOT reading their Bibles! Just like Eve we are repeating the same sin. Please see my article on “The Eve Mentality”. I can remember when “book” studies from false teachers first started entering the church, and they were brought into the church primarily through women. God’s Word, was not enough for Eve, and apparently it’s not enough for women today, as well as men.
Chapter 2
Lisa mentions God’s unconditional love without explanation. I think there should be some explanation. The website gotquestions.org states: the unconditional love of God is mentioned frequently today, but is it correct? It should always be noted that God’s unconditional love does not mean that everyone will be saved (see Matthew 25:46). Nor does it mean that God will never discipline His children. To ignore God’s merciful love, to reject the Savior who bought us (2 Peter 2:1), is to subject ourselves to God’s wrath for eternity (Romans 1:18), not His unconditional love. For a child of God to willfully disobey God is to invite the Father’s correction (Hebrews 12:5–11). Does God love everyone? Yes, He shows mercy and kindness to all. In that sense His love is unconditional. Does God love Christians in a different way than He loves non-Christians? Yes. Because believers have exercised faith in God’s Son, they are saved. The unconditional, merciful love God has for everyone should bring us to faith, receiving with gratefulness the conditional, covenant love He grants those who receive Jesus as their Savior.
In Chapter 2 Lisa discusses the Nicene Creed. I am really suspicious about placing emphasis on the Creeds as standards of the Christian Faith, which she seems to do here. I have found that the creeds, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are vehicles for "ecumenism", a word which Lisa mentions twice in this chapter, but does not define. Walter A. Elwell, in The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, defines ecumenism as “the organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity among Christians.” Ecumenism can also be defined more broadly: “a movement that promotes worldwide unity among all religions through greater cooperation. However, we are not to be “yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14; see also Galatians 1:6–9). Light and darkness have no fellowship with each other. Now, Biblical separation does not require Christians to have no contact with unbelievers. Paul expresses a balanced view of separatism: “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world” (1 Corinthians 5:9-10). In other words, we are in the world, but not of it.
According to Dave Hunt and T.A. Macmahon of the Berean Call.org website, “The Nicene Creed states: “For our sake He was crucified.” But the fact that Jesus was crucified isn’t going to save anyone. He had to pay the penalty that His own infinite justice demanded for sin and neither of these creeds makes that clear. The creeds are not the gospel. They are watered down versions that they say we can all accept. And this is what brought the Evangelicals and Catholics together. They said we can both accept the Creeds, therefore we must all be Christians. You would never become a Christian through the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. So, the creeds present a condensation of a supposed faith. It’s not totally biblical, it does not include the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Nicene Creed—(Counsel of Nicea) was called by Constantine the emperor who could have cared less. All he wanted was to unite his empire. At that time, they were divided on whether Jesus was really God. Now the creeds do agree and make very clear that Jesus is God, but it doesn’t make clear why he died.” In her book, Lisa presents a much more favorable picture of Constantine with which I do not agree and I believe a careful study of history would reveal.
I can remember being appalled about the document called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, published in 1994 and endorsed by some rather prominent representatives of evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. This document is an example of ecumenism, but the Catholic Church and the Christian Church are vastly different, and there simply cannot be agreement between the two without denying the authority of Scripture alone. Without going into too much detail, a key distinction between Catholics and Christians is the view of the Bible. Catholics view the Bible (written by God himself through human authors) as having equal authority with the Church and tradition (it’s Jesus plus), whereas, Christians view the Bible as the supreme authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
A second key difference between Catholics and Christians is the understanding of how we come to God. Catholics tend to approach God through intermediaries, such as Mary or the saints. They maintain that a prayer addressed to Mary or the saints is simply a way of asking people in heaven to pray for people on earth and is no different from asking someone here on earth to pray on one’s behalf. Other Catholics admit that they pray to directly to Mary and the dead saints.
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, second edition, seems clear enough that prayers on earth can indeed be directed to Mary: “When we pray to [Mary], we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her” (part 4, § 1, ch. 2, art. 2, ¶ 2679, emphasis added).. The Bible makes it clear we are not to pray to Mary or to dead people. Christians approach God directly, offering prayers to no one other than Christ Himself. Christ is our one and only mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), and both Christ and the Holy Spirit are already interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Praying to Mary or dead people is not Biblical.
The most crucial difference between Catholics and Bible Christians is on the issue of salvation. The Bible presents salvation as a gift that is received the moment a person places faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptism and is "maintained" through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible, however, teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a changed heart (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
According to CARM.org, the Christian Apologetics Research Network, “On December 13th, 1545, the Roman Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent in an attempt to counter the doctrines raised and supported by the Christian Reformers. The council delivered many statements on various subjects and these Canons have never been denied by the Roman Catholic Church. Here is one in particular regarding salvation: CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Anathema means cursed. https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html This means that those who disagree with the doctrines of this Council are cursed. In Gal. 1:8-9, the word “anathema” is used and the curse must come from God. Therefore, we conclude that according to Roman Catholicism, anyone who disagrees with this Canon is cursed by God. The Roman Catholic church excommunicates those under anathema. In other words, ex-communication means being outside the Christian church and being outside the Catholic church means you are not saved.”
I mention all of this because the ecumenical movement, or in this case, the joining together of the Catholic church and Christian Church is a rapidly growing trend. It is biblically wrong, and as we shall see, Lisa places a great deal of emphasis in her book with truth that is found in other sources than the scripture, particularly those with Catholic backgrounds, yet in Jesus’ letter to the Church in Pergamum, He warns about accepting those who tolerate false doctrine ( Revelation 2:14-15). The Church is to be separate, breaking ties with heresy.
Chapter 3
In this chapter Lisa mentions Brennan Manning. Another red flag. She states: “His poignant writing made such an impact on me that in the thirty-five-plus years since I first perused Lion and Lamb, I’ve reread it numerous times, along with dozens of other books.”
Manning is criticized for teaching contemplative or centering prayer, a mind-emptying meditation technique that critics claim is derived from Eastern mysticism, not biblical practice. He recommends ceasing to think about God during prayer and often quotes medieval mystics, humanist philosophers, and New Age figures. His book “The Signature of Jesus” describes a vision where notorious figures like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin are welcomed into heaven, which critics interpret as evidence of universalism—the belief that all people will ultimately be saved. Though Manning denied being a universalist, critics argue his citations of known universalist theologians and his writings imply it. According to critics, Manning overemphasizes God's love and grace while downplaying attributes like holiness and justice. This results in a distorted view of sin, replacing conviction and repentance with a focus on psychological healing and self-acceptance (Google AI). Lisa certainly does this very thing in her book. In Manning’s book “The Signature of Jesus”, he says he is "deeply distressed" by what he calls the "idolatry of the Scriptures" and suggests that knowledge of God is not confined to the Bible. Critics contrast this with the traditional Protestant view of sola scriptura (scripture alone).
Chapter 4
In this chapter Lisa mentions gifts of the Holy Spirit and briefly discusses speaking in tongues. Regarding differing views on tongues, she talks about cessationism (a view to which I personally adhere) but also points to those who believe the gifts of tongues and prophecy still exist.
She presents multiple views on tongues accurately, but does not explain to which view she adheres and why. While there are some things in the Bible for which we might disagree, they should be few and far between. A Bible teacher or preacher should be able to state exactly what they believe and why they believe it. This is a pet peeve of mine. I have found this to be occurring in protestant churches. The Pastor will present multiple views of a subject, particularly eschatology and gifts of the Spirit, but will not simply tell us what He believes and why. This leaves me to conclude that he is afraid to state his views to avoid offending someone with a different view. That certainly is not the example set for us in the scripture and why in the world would you not say what you believe to be the truth with conviction?
1 Peter 3:15, says, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have". This verse, along with others like Luke 21:14, advises Christians to be ready to explain their beliefs. It is often interpreted as a call to be knowledgeable about one's faith so that it can be shared clearly and with integrity.
When speaking about the Day of Pentecost, Lisa states:
And when Holy Spirit “came upon” the disciples in Acts and empowered them to speak eloquently in languages they’d never even heard before so they could clearly proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to foreigners, He wasn’t dealing with dudes who had any special aptitude for linguistics. Instead, most of those men came from blue-collar backgrounds, which in ancient semitic culture meant they were illiterate (except for maybe Matt, who had an accounting background before becoming a disciple, and Paul, who went to law school—but he wasn’t a Christ follower yet at that particular Pentecost, so he doesn’t count).”
Is this true? Most people in our day take the term illiterate to mean one is unable to read or write. In Acts 4:13 we read “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.” Terms such as those translated ‘uneducated’ and ‘ordinary’ were sometimes used of illiterate persons, leading some sceptics to conclude that such men could not have written the letters ascribed to them. Some sceptics say that Peter and John could not therefore have penned the NT documents attributed to them. They argue that although many could read, few could write. Still less could they be expected to write in the fluent style of, say, Peter’s first letter.
William Barclay notes that the King James Version says that “the Sanhedrin regarded Peter and John as unlearned and ignorant men. The word translated “unlearned” means that they had no kind of technical education, especially in the intricate regulations of the law. The word translated “ignorant” means that they were laymen with no special professional qualifications. The Sanhedrin, as it were, regarded them as men without a college education and with no professional status. It is often difficult for the simple man to meet what might be called academic and professional snobbery. But the man in whose heart is Christ, possesses a real dignity which neither academic attainment nor professional status can give.” Were all Jews living in the time of Jesus illiterate peasants? What skeptics don’t often acknowledge is that The Mishnah and Dead Sea Scrolls show some Jews taught their kids to read. In fact, the Mishnah shows us they even encouraged girls to learn Greek. After the war with Rome, the Mishnah records some directions saying not to teach kids Greek. But this tips us off to the fact that some people were in fact teaching Jewish kids Greek.
This seems to line up with the Gospels. Over 60 times, Jesus asks the Pharisees and Sadducees and others “haven’t you read?” not “haven’t you heard?” Clearly, Jewish leaders could read and write. So, it isn’t true that all the Jews in Galilee were illiterate. But what about Jesus’ disciples?
We know that Luke was a medical physician (Colossians 4:14), so he could hardly be considered to be uneducated. Matthew was a tax collector and very likely would have known how to write in Greek, which was the primary language of commerce at the time. John seems to have been relatively well off (Mark 1:19-20 indicates that his father, Zebedee, was sufficiently wealthy that he could afford to pay hired servants). This means that he could plausibly have learned Greek at some point. Also, consider Peter. His large home was discovered and excavated in 2011. Someone with a place like this was probably not an illiterate peasant! In Acts Chapter 2, Peter begins to preach with such fervor and scholarly knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, that the leaders of Israel were completely flabbergasted at how an uneducated fisherman was able to navigate over 25 of the Hebrew texts and apply them to Jesus. Interestingly, four of Jesus’ disciples had Greek names: Philip, Andrew (Peter’s brother), Thaddeus and Bartholomew. Why would their parents give them Greek names if Greek didn’t have some kind of influence in their families? Also, Nazareth was close to a major Roman trade route. A sign written in Greek, called “The Nazareth Inscription,” was discovered here. It warns people not to rob graves. But why would it be written in Greek if no one could read Greek in Nazareth?
Twelve times Jesus said write and send:
Write in a book everything you see….Rev 1:11
Write down what you have seen….Rev. 1:19
Write letters… Rev. 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14
Write this down… Rev. 14:13
Write this… Rev. 19:19
Write in a book everything you see… Rev 21:11
I get a bit upset when I hear people say that hardly anyone in Bible times could read and write, and thus the reason I am giving an explanation on this comment about disciples being illiterate. Why? This misconception fuels the suspicion that the New Testament must contain forgeries. No one could read and write and therefore stories were passed orally from person to person. As a result, the scripture probably contains errors. NO, I believe that the Word of God is indeed the Word of God and without error. Often people that adhere to the belief that “truth” can be found in the writings of others (such as….the Greek fathers, the dessert fathers, a monk on a deserted island, a catholic priest in a remote village, whoever) will contain in their work the argument that most people were illiterate in Bible times, and therefore the Bible must contain errors. In all fairness, Lisa may not have meant this at all here, but I felt the need to add some clarification, because I hear this so often.
In Chapter 5, page 115 (kindle), Lisa again mentions what she terms the illiterate: “The majority of Jewish people during the time period of Jesus’s earthly ministry were just regular blue-collar folks trying to eke out a living as farmers or shepherds...most men, women, and children...didn’t have the luxury of a formal education and were illiterate.”
Again, we should explain what is meant by illiterate. It doesn’t necessarily mean they could not read or write, but that they were not formally educated.
Chapter 5
One comment that stood out on page 110 (kindle) is that Lisa describes the word water in scripture as meaning God’s grace. She states: “Since water is used as a metaphor for God’s grace throughout the Bible…” Actually, water is not used as a replacement word for grace. Do I sound nitpicky? Perhaps some will think so, but we must always interpret scripture in context, and we cannot forget that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.
According to gotquestions.org: “When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water,” He was referring to his need for spiritual cleansing and water is used as a figure for the new birth. Throughout the Old Testament, water is used figuratively of spiritual cleansing. For example, Ezekiel 36:25 says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities” (see also Numbers 19:17–19; and Psalm 51:2, 7). Regeneration is called a “washing” brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5; cf. Ephesians 5:26; John 13:10). Christians are washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). The “washing” Paul speaks of here is a spiritual one.
In the Bible, water symbolizes life, purification, and renewal, as well as judgment and destruction. From the creation narrative to the New Testament's baptism and "water of life," water's symbolism is woven throughout the scriptures to represent both life-giving and destructive power. The bottom line……read the Bible, read what comes before and what comes after. Context is very important in the scripture.
On page 117 (kindle), Lisa has been speaking about the woes against the Pharisees that Jesus proclaimed in Matthew 23. She rightly states: “Instead of demonstrating brokenness and repentance, they epitomized spiritual pride. And on several occasions, He rebuked them for showboating orthodoxy sans compassion.” By the way, sans means "without". I'm not sure why she chose to use this word twice in this book.
She goes on to say that Jesus stepped on their toes with this stinging public rebuke (in Matthew 23) and that they were so upset about this confrontation that it was the reason they began planning His murder. I beg to differ. The main reason for Jesus’ murder was that He claimed to be God. Certainly, He embarrassed them and made them angry, but a careful review of the scriptures will reveal that Jesus claiming to be God was the true catalyst.
Chapter 6
On page 127 (kindle), Lisa mentions that Abraham was the Father of 3 major world religions. “Even Abraham—the father of our three major world religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity..." This statement is simply not true. Abraham is not the Father of Islam. Ishmael is considered a patriarch of Islam based information found in the Qur’an. Who is Ishmael?
Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham through his maid Hagar. God had appeared to Abraham and promised that he would have a son and that he would be the father of many nations (Genesis 15). However, as time went on, Abraham had no children. His wife, Sarah, had been unable to conceive, and they began to question just how the promise would be fulfilled. In her impatience, Sarah took matters into her own hands and gave her maid to her husband, saying, “Go sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her” (Genesis 16:2-3). So Abram did as she said, and Hagar became pregnant.
To say that Abraham is the Father of Islam is incorrect and appears to be an ecumenical statement that uplifts and justifies the false religion of Islam. Red Flag!
On page 148 Lisa introduces the concept of Imago Dei (made in the image of God). She states:
“In other words, imago Dei is not a “thing” that’s implanted in us; it’s the very essence of who we are as people of God... It underscores how every single human being throughout history has been made in God’s image and is therefore inherently valuable and deserving of dignity. In other words, we weren’t made to be missed and marginalized, beaten and brutalized, or violated and victimized.” Quite frankly, I think much of the angry rhetoric prevalent in modern culture is a reflection of old wounds. People are just flat sick and tired of putting up with exploitation, manipulation, and degradation, whether it came from personal abuse like abandonment and sexual molestation or systemic abuse like misogyny and racism.”
Misogyny? God does not advocate any abuse in the scripture. He would most assuredly not only highlight abuse from men against women (misogyny), but also abuse from women against men, which in my opinion is a greater trend these days as our culture and churches ignore the fact that God has made men the spiritual leaders of the church and the family. Men are at the bottom of the totem pole today, and this should not be so!
Back on page 107 she states:
“I became a Christ follower as a little girl, not long after I was first sexually molested, so unfortunately the visceral feelings of being dirty and damaged were intertwined with hearing preachers with booming voices and bulging neck veins yell about how all humans were sinners who needed the blood of Jesus to cleanse our filthy hearts."
It seems obvious throughout her writing that Lisa’s abuse as a child has caused her great pain and results in anguish when she hears pastors preach about sin. As a result, she takes a great deal of time talking about how all humans have inherent worth. However, we should not talk about being inherently valuable without also fully explaining our inherent sin nature. We are not inherently valuable to God unless we come to know Jesus and are covered in HIS blood, because we must not ever forget that God HATES all sin. We are all certainly valuable to God because He clearly tells us that He wishes no one to perish….but perish we will if we do not know the Savior and love the truth. The Bible teaches that we are all born sinners with sinful, selfish natures. Unless we are born again by the Spirit of God, we will never see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Humanity is totally depraved; that is, all of us have a sinful nature that affects every part of us (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 7:14).
According to gotquestions.org,
“Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. The image of God (Latin, imago dei) refers to the immaterial part of humanity. It sets human beings apart from the animal world, fits them for the dominion God intended them to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables them to commune with their Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially. Mentally, humanity was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, human beings can reason and choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom. Morally, humanity was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (humanity included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he or she is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image. Socially, humanity was created for fellowship. This reflects God’s triune nature and His love. In Eden, humanity’s primary relationship was with God (Genesis 3:8 implies fellowship with God), and God made the first woman because “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Every time someone marries, makes a friend, hugs a child, or attends church, he or she is demonstrating the fact that we are made in the likeness of God. Part of being made in God’s image is that Adam had the capacity to make free choices. Although they were given a righteous nature, Adam and Eve made an evil choice to rebel against their Creator. In so doing, they marred the image of God within themselves, and passed that damaged likeness on to all their descendants (Romans 5:12). Today, we still bear the image of God (James 3:9), but we also bear the scars of sin. Mentally, morally, socially, and physically, we show the effects of sin.
We cannot overemphasize inherent worth and dignity without also including our inherent sin nature. We are born sinners, and for that reason we are unable to do good in order to please God in our natural state, or the flesh: “Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8). We were dead in our sins before Christ raised us to spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1)”. We lack any inherent spiritual good. We need a Savior!
On page 152 Lisa talks about Psalm 139 because she says
it’s “an epic ode to the immeasurable worth God ascribed to us before we were even born… God knows us completely and loves us unconditionally.” She writes about verses 2-6 and states: “In other words, God totally gets us….. It took a long time for me to genuinely believe that God didn’t send Jesus just to deliver me from my sins; He sent Jesus because He delights in me.” There are indeed verses in scripture about God taking delight in us: Psalm 18:19, Zephaniah 3:17. Yet scripture also tells us: “Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4). Lisa’s book is more about how the Lord delights in us, rather than how we should delight in the LORD!
There appears to be an overemphasis of self worth, yet the scripture clearly tells us in Ephesians 5:29 that no one ever hated his own flesh....we already love ourselves. God sent Jesus for several purposes of course, but primarily to save us from our sins. God sent Jesus to reveal to us the Father (Hebrews 1:3, John 14:9). God sent Jesus to do away with sin (Hebrews 9:26). Our religious actions cannot put away sin. Neither can feeling sorry, practicing self-denial, or holy living. Not even our death can get rid of sin. Sin is a blot on our soul, a stain in the fabric of our being that can only be washed away by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Jesus alone can put away our sin (1 Peter 2:24). Another biblical reason that God sent Jesus into the world is spelled out in 1 John 3:8: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” A fourth reason was to provide an example of a Holy Life. In the context of suffering for righteousness’ sake, Peter tells us that Christ has left us “an example, that [we] should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). All those who follow Christ ought to conduct themselves just as Jesus conducted Himself (1 John 2:6). We are to be holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16), and Jesus is our example.
Framing Psalm 139 as a statement of unconditional love can lead to a false understanding of grace and repentance. Preachers and teachers often describe God's love as unconditional. However, critics like R.C. Sproul argue that this can send the wrong message to non-believers, implying that they don't need to repent or that there are no consequences for rejecting God.
If God's love were entirely "without conditions," it could obscure the biblical necessity of embracing Christ for salvation. This perspective can overlook the importance of repentance and trust in Jesus Christ as the absolute condition for being saved from divine wrath, which without Christ, we all deserve.
A far better understanding of Psalm 139, which I strongly suggest, is found in the Believers Bible Commentary.
It is indeed a comforting Psalm to us, but it is also a psalm that shows us primarily the omniscience, omnipresence , omnipotence, of God and “after the psalmist contemplates these things he also thinks of those puny men who dare to turn against God, and he concludes that their punishment is well-deserved. Inevitably some will raise their eyebrows at David’s prayer in verses 19-22 as being something less than Christian in its tone. They will protest that the psalmist’s sentiments are judgmental and incompatible with divine love. For my own part I feel that the love of God has been emphasized all out of proportion to His holiness and righteousness. It is true that God is love, but it is not all the truth. That is only one of His attributes. And His love can never be exercised at the expense of any other attribute. Furthermore, the fact that God is love does not mean that He is incapable of hating; “the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psa 11:5); He hates all evildoers (Psa 5:5); He hates haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers (Pro 6:16-19). Edward J. Young reminds us: Before we proceed to condemn David for this prayer, it is well to note that we ourselves pray for the same thing, whenever we pray the words of the Lord’s prayer, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done” The coming of Christ’s kingdom will be preceded by the destruction of His foes, so to pray for the one is to pray for the other. David unashamedly longs for the time when God will slay the wicked, and when men of blood will have ceased their harassment of him forever (v. 19). These are the men who maliciously defy the Lord God and who lift themselves up against God with evil intent. David’s hatred of these men was not a matter of personal pique. Rather it was because they hated God and rebelled against the Most High. It was his zeal for the Lord’s honor that made him hate them with perfect hatred and count them as his own enemies. In this he reminds us of the Lord Jesus whose zeal for His Father’s house prompted Him to drive out the money changers. The strings of David’s harp were the chords of the heart of Jesus. Young explains: David hated, but his hatred was like God’s hatred; it proceeded from no evil emotion, but rather from the earnest and thoroughly sincere desire that the purposes of God must stand and that wickedness must perish. Had David not hated, he would have desired the success of evil and the downfall of God Himself. It is well to keep these thoughts in mind when we consider the nature of David’s hatred.
Instead of a correct approach to Psalm 139, Lisa states on page 158 that David is “reveling in the fact that because we bear God’s thumbprint, we have inherent dignity and inestimable value.” This is a lopsided description of David and Psalm 139, but it will sell books for sure, because we always like to hear how great we are! Instead of understanding that this Psalm lets us know that God knows everything about us, and there is nowhere we can hide from God, and that He even knows all our thoughts, which is both positive for the believer and negative for those trying to hide their sin from our all-knowing father, Lisa gives a distorted view of this Psalm.
On page 160 she proceeds to explain the verses regarding David’s negative “feelings.” See 139: 19-22.
She says “ when David confesses overtly negative feelings about the haters in his community—this can also be viewed in a positive light. Because yet again, we’re given a colorful example of a character in biblical history who didn’t curate their emotions for spiritual reasons. Being serious about our faith is congruent with not being fake about our feelings. Having a Jesus-shaped life does not mean we have to amputate our messy, all-too-human parts!”
Compare this to the Believer’s Bible Commentary as mentioned above. This just isn’t right at all. By the way, Lisa talks about the unconditional love of God 9 times in this book.
Chapter 8
On page 181, Lisa uses the scripture from Acts 2:42-47 to talk about the importance of community. “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42–47). She states:
“What an awesome neighborhood to live in! They were relational and caring (they “were together and had everything in common”), devoted to God and each other (they “continued to meet together in the temple courts” and “broke bread in their homes”)—plus they were fun to be around (they “ate together with glad and sincere hearts”). It’s no wonder their church was growing like a weed! What started out as 120 believers at the beginning of Acts (1:15) quickly swelled to over 3,000 following Peter’s first public declaration of the gospel message (Acts 2:41).”
No comment about the fact that they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching? No comment about how it was God Himself that grew the church because of their obedience? No, she instead says this on page 183:
“The first Christian church of Acts was an exhilarating place to be! Which was surely fueled by the fact that you didn’t have to have all your ducks in a row to be authentically welcomed into that hamlet of hope.”
With Lisa, the emphasis is not on God, but on people!
On page 184 she begins to relay a story about a boy named Patrick in AD 400 who was enslaved in Ireland and found faith in God. She tells us that Patrick had a dream where God instructed him how to escape. He later became a Catholic Priest and she explains:
By the way, this story is referring to Saint Patrick, the same Patrick celebrated for Saint Patrick’s day.
As we proceed she will begin to mention, without criticism, the thought that God speaks to people in dreams (which she will repeat with other people), and she begins to relay stories about Catholics in a positive light. I’ve already discussed the differences between Catholics and Christians. The beliefs of the Catholic Church are not biblical. The Catholic Church is not Christian.
I believe that God no longer speaks to us is dreams and visions. “God told me to tell you…” “I have a word from the Lord for you.” “I am a prophet of God.” “I know what the Bible says, but God spoke to me and…”
Claims like the above are increasingly common these days. Sadly, most people who say them do not understand how dangerous they are. Claiming direct revelation from God is essentially putting yourself in a place of equal authority with the Word of God.
Justin Peters makes this statement on his website: What Does Scripture Say?
https://justinpeters.org/is-jesus-appearing-to-muslims-in-dreams-and-visions/
“This claim needs to be measured against Scripture, not sentiment. Romans 10 makes it clear: “How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). Paul doesn’t ask how they will hear without a dream. He insists they must hear a preacher. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17). The ordinary, God-ordained means of salvation is the proclamation of the Gospel through human witnesses, not supernatural visions. Hebrews 1:1-2 underscores this as well: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…” The implication is clear: God no longer speaks in dreams and visions. He speaks through Christ as revealed in Scripture. And that revelation is sufficient. Even Peter, who witnessed the Transfiguration with his own eyes, said, “We have the prophetic word made more sure” (2 Peter 1:19). The written Word is more trustworthy than even the most glorious supernatural experience. If that’s true—and it is—then why would God bypass His own sufficient Word to revert to an inferior, subjective means of communication? Why would He do so in a way that undermines the Gospel, the Great Commission, and the very authority of Scripture itself? Perhaps you’re thinking, “I know someone who had a dream about Jesus and became a Christian.” Or maybe that’s your own story. So, are we saying Jesus can’t use a dream? No. God can do whatever He pleases. But the question isn’t what God can do—it’s what He does. And what He has revealed to us is that salvation comes through preaching the Gospel, not through mystical encounters.”
Chapter 9
Lisa begins this chapter discussing eschatology (the study of end times) with a quote:
This “second coming” of Christ our Bridegroom takes place every day within good men; often and many times, with new graces and gifts, in all those who make themselves ready for it, each according to his power. John of Ruysbroeck
This is a quote from a Catholic priest who lived from 1293 to 1381. According to catholic.org: John of Ruysbroeck (1293-1381) was a mystic whose writings influenced the devotia moderna movement , which held that internal spiritual reflection was more important than ritual in deepening the spiritual life. Educated in Brussels, he was ordained to the priesthood c. 1317.
No, the Second Coming of Christ is an event, and one that you should want to know about. I feel this quote makes light of this event, and turns the focus toward the power and gifts of men. She is setting the tone for this chapter with this quote.
Lisa then goes on to briefly explain the differing views of eschatology: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Again, while she provides a brief explanation, she does not explain what she believes or why she believes it. Her focus is to tell us not to worry about all this because Jesus wins in the end. Jesus does win, and because of Jesus, believers will win, but God tells us much more than “Jesus wins”, and He must have felt it important for us to know these things.
She quotes from Mark 13
“But in those days, following that distress, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. (13:24–27)”
Then she quotes from Matthew 27
“From noon until three in the afternoon, darkness came over the whole land. About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling for Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and offered him a drink. But the rest said, “Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” But Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. Suddenly, the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. (Matt. 27:45–51 CSB, emphasis mine).
She notes the familiarity between these two verses. Total darkness, colossal quaking, and makes a statement about how Jesus has already received the wrath of God and already dealt with the darkness of our sinfulness. She says that many theologians believe “Jesus has already taken the brunt of this apocalyptic prophecy?”
While it is true that Jesus took the punishment for our sins on the cross, judgment is still coming for unbelievers. It appears she is downplaying the negative, uplifting the positive, and all will be okay. No, everything will not be okay for those that do not trust Jesus, and we should be warning people about the future. She is trying to downplay the Wrath of God that is surely coming on those that reject the truth.
If you want to learn anything about eschatology, then don’t look for it in this book. Ask God to lead you to trustworthy teachers if you sincerely want to know the truth….and the truth can be known! That was my prayer and a prayer that God will answer. God led me to study the Bible and use the trusted commentary of J.Vernon McGee.
Chapter 10
On page 213 she tells a story about Madame Jean Guyon, a catholic, and states “as a teenager she discovered writings that advocated the devotional practice of inner prayer, which was quite different from the standard set prayers and meditations mandated for devotional practice by the Catholic church her family was entrenched in. In her autobiography, she enthuses about how these “prayers of the heart” made her feel closer to God. Through these personal—sometimes referred to as “mental” prayers—she found fresh grace and deeper intimacy with Jesus than she’d previously known.” She goes on to say that Jean Guyon married an abusive husband and due to this, as well as losing 3 of her 5 children, she sought comfort in both “Jesus and Bible Study”. She says that several years after her husband died, Jean “had a supernatural vision (a frequent occurrence for her during prayer) and was flooded with renewed fervor and joy and exclaimed that her passion for God was more vibrant than ever.” Jean then met a man by the name of François Lacombe. “Lacombe taught and modeled a meditative style of contemplative prayer and emphasized the cleansing of one’s inner life through a passive understanding of surrendering to the will of God, which greatly influenced Madame Guyon. Madame Guyon then spent the second half of her life writing and speaking about how to have a more fulfilling spiritual life and deeper intimacy with Jesus. (page 214-215.)
Next Lisa mentions a man named Thomas Chalmers. A minister in Scotland who became a fan of Guyon and eventually realized that in his obsessive quest for knowledge about God and His creation he’d forfeited an intimate relationship with the Lover of his soul.
On page 222 she brings in the name of Amanda Smith. “In 1837, ten years before Chalmers’s death in Scotland, Amanda Smith was born in America. Both of her parents, Samuel and Miriam Berry, were born into slavery on adjoining farms in the Baltimore area. Amanda Smith married and eventually had a vision of an angel and a vision of being elevated on a platform between two trees with a large Bible open in front of her as she preached to thousands of people. She goes on to become a methodist minister.
Giant red flags! By mentioning those involved in the Catholic church she is therefore endorsing catholicism, which is not Christian. She is also endorsing a type of prayer that is not mentioned in scripture. And, she is separating Jesus and the Bible. The Bible is Jesus. The Word is Jesus. We cannot separate them. The only way we learn and worship Jesus is from the scripture. She is also favorably speaking of contemplative prayer and apparently believes that God still speaks to us in visions and dreams. This is very dangerous. We should remember that satan disguises himself as an angel of light. I suggest reading some articles on contemplative prayer or visiting the youtube channel of Doreen Virtue who was once heavily involved in New Age. It is not a practice that is Biblical, and I believe it is an open door for the influence of demons.
Clearly throughout her book, Lisa Harper is subtlety leading the reader away from scripture and toward contemplative, inner, or meditative prayer. She is downplaying knowledge through scripture, though she does use scripture, and advocating we need more than scripture, or we will become like the pharisees, and we will miss the real Jesus. Lisa also leans toward universalism in that she does not distinguish between Catholics and Christians, or even mystics.
I remember recently hearing a pastor that told his congregation that Bible study is a good thing, but you still need to spend time with Jesus. I was completely confused. For me, the way I spend time with Jesus is through scripture and prayer (as described in Scripture). Beware of anyone who downplays the Bible and the importance of knowing as much of it as you possibly can. I would avoid Lisa Harper. She can be found on Right Now Media, as can many MANY other false or questionable teachers. They are all connected to each other….they are all in cohoots. Right Now Media has so many false teachers it would be difficult to vet each one (but that is another article in itself). No, my opinion is to stay away from them, and the Bible repeats this warning. In fact, scripture tells us to avoid them.
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. Romans 16:17
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)