Common Charismatic Arguments Against Discernment

Recently I was notified of a book review for Heaven is for Real, written from a Charismatic perspective. Aptly named Heaven Is for Real – A Charismatic’s Perspective, it is written by an individual going by the name of "TheBitterPastor". I had previously written an extensive review on the book, and done an episode of my podcast where I reviewed Eastern Orthodox writer Frederica Mathewes-Green's defense of it. Reading this review, I felt inspired to write it, not only to give a response to it (since, as we shall soon see, it actually deals very little with the book and movie Heaven is for Real), but to address several of the arguments made in the chapter. My goal here is to try to attempt to respond to contentions that are made often from the Charismatic and Hyper-Charismatic side, and to attempt to call my Charismatic brothers to reason. It is not meant as a personal attack against anyone in particular, especially the author. Many of these arguments are those I have found in Charismatic and (especially) Hyper-Charismatic circles, whenever someone starts to question so-called signs and wonders and miracles.

To visually differentiate between the review's text and anything else (quoted sources, bible verses, etc.), all quoted text from the review will be in purple. Everything else will be normal colored. All Bible translations, unless otherwise noted, will be from the New American Standard. With all that established, let's begin our review:

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, I’ve had the pleasure of reading different tweets and blog posts regarding Heaven Is for Real, the so-called account of Colton Burpo’s trip into heaven. Although the book has been out for a while now, the film has recaptured its popularity (or infamy) within certain church circles. Most of the commentary I have either heard or read has been relatively negative and predominately spouted from Baptist circles, those trained in Baptist seminaries and those who identify themselves as Cessationists. One influential critic of Heaven Is for Real who fits the bill in every one of these categories is John MacArthur.

One of the things I enjoy about being a part of The Anon Church is that we can interact with each other concerning differences, similarities and opinions of our like-minded faith. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I, being charismatic, would challenge people to be very careful before they rail accusations against those who have experienced supernatural things on the account of the Gospel. Many people who have criticized Colton Burpo’s heavenly account are those who have rarely if ever encountered any sort of supernatural activity in their own life—which is strange because the kingdom of God is all about the supernatural—not dead theology with only words and no substance to back it.

The biggest thing that stuck out to me in this opening section was the charge that "many people who have criticized Colton Burpo’s heavenly account are those who have rarely if ever encountered any sort of supernatural activity in their own life". The argument is therefore made that we must somehow first experience the supernatural before we criticize it. Logically speaking, before we criticize x, we must first experience x, and then we will be able to have a better grasp on x to comment on it.

This position is a popular one among some Charismatic circles...however it is an incredibly fallacious one, and for this simple reason: you do not need to make a truth statement based solely or heavily on experience. Do I need to take meth before saying that meth is bad for you? No. Do I need to get pregnant before I can say abortion is wrong? No. Do I need to be a black person before I say Jim Crow-style racism is wrong? No. Do I need to partake of the occult before I start to say the occult is wrong? No. To summarize, in order to make a truth statement regarding all of these questions and dilemmas, experience is not necessary, only the facts at hand.

So when someone shares their supernatural experience, is it absolutely necessary to partake in the supernatural before commenting on it, or having a valid opinion on it? Absolutely, positively no. We do not need to experience anything before commenting on whether or not it is right or wrong. What we can do is hold it up to a set standard, and discern from there. An example can be seen in the fact that I can say "Meth is bad" because all medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that meth is harmful to the body and produces terrible side effects, as well as leads into harsher social evils.

In regards to supernatural experiences, the one constant we have is the written word of God. By this, we are able to see what is and isn't an act of God, and by what standards we are to hold the teaching of an individual teaching from the word of God. It is precisely why the Reformers rejected so much of the nonsense coming from the Roman Catholic mystics of the Middle Ages: because, despite all the so-called signs and wonders that they performed, and all the supernatural experiences they had beheld...in the end, they contradicted God's word, and taught doctrines well beyond it.

Let me pause here a moment to clarify that I am not a "hyper-cessationist". The common continuationist straw man against cessationism is that cessationists believe God never acts supernaturally, or never does anything miraculous or out of the ordinary, which is simply untrue, and few cessationists I know think in such a way. I do not believe that is the norm for God to act, but it is not below God to act supernaturally, and it is not impossible for supernatural things to not occur. I myself have had supernatural experiences which I cannot fully explain; however, I do not hold those experiences to be the determining factor in how I perceive God to operate, or how I perceive He should operate, nor as what God desires me to base my life around. To quote Jonathan Edwards, "God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule."

The supernatural and a “living” testimony are important aspects of the Christian faith. If you recall, that is one reason the Pharisees and Jesus did not get along. The religious leaders were stuck in a rigid, dead theological perspective surrounded by tradition, rules and regulation that allowed for zero testimony and zero power. The ministry of Jesus shook things up because it challenged dead theologians and their legalistic views of Scripture.

It is a bit sad that, this far into the article, we have already had "The Pharisee Card" pulled upon the critics of Burpo's book (Todd Burpo himself accused his critics of being Pharisees). The Pharisee Card is really the Christian equivalent of Godwin's Law: in Godwin's Law, the longer a debate goes on, the greater the chance someone is going to be compared to the Nazis; with the Pharisee Card, the longer a Christian debate goes on, the greater the chance someone is going to be called a Pharisee.

However, let us put that aside and examine this charge about the Pharisees: it is said that "the religious leaders" were "stuck in a rigid, dead theological perspective surrounded by tradition, rules and regulation that allowed for zero testimony and zero power." The author likewise states that Christ's ministry "shook things up because it challenged dead theologians and their legalistic views of Scripture."

In truth, this is only half right. It is certainly attested to by history and scripture that the Pharisees were heavy on tradition, and were likewise legalistic in their view on scripture's commands. This is the testimony of most of the gospels. It is precisely why Christ promised rest for those who were "weary and heavy-laden", and asked them to take on his yoke (Matt 11:28-30). The Pharisees were those who tied up heavy burdens and laid them upon the shoulders of men, but were unwilling to "move them with so much as a finger" (Matt 23:4). They relied heavily upon the Law and their own Jewish lineage to save them (Matt 3:9), and hence emphasized the works of man over and against God's grace and mercy.

However, that the Pharisees denied the existence of miracles or the works of the supernatural is blatantly false. We see this especially in the charge Christ lays at those Pharisees who said he cast out devils by the power of the devil, when he says to them: "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" (Matt 12:27a; Luke 11:19a). The point of Christ's rebuke here was to ask the Pharisees just who their own sons (that is, followers and members) cast out demons, if he did it by the power of the devil. What this means is that even those among the Pharisees performed some kinds of signs and wonders, and yet the Pharisees did not condemn them. If the Pharisees really were hyper-cessationists who didn't believe in any kind of supernatural occurrence, then Christ's argument would make no sense, and the Pharisees could have easily refuted him with, "Uh, they don't cast out demons. What in the heck are you talking about?"

Some sources that discuss this (all speaking on the verse from Matthew):

The latter (people of your own school; see, in general, note on Matthew 8:12) are exorcists who have even pretended actually to cast out demons (Acts 19:13; Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 5, Bell. vii. 6. 3; Justin, c. Tryph. p. 311), who have emanated from the schools of the Pharisees, not the disciples of Jesus, as the majority of the Fathers have supposed. [Heinrich Meyer's commentary; source]

The children are the disciples of the Pharisees, who either really possessed the power of casting out evil spirits, or pretended to have that power. In either case the argument of Jesus was unanswerable. [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; source]

...[Christ] means, some among themselves, who pretended to have a power of exorcising and ejecting of devils, either in the name of Jesus, as some of them did, Mark 9:38 or in the name of their kings, righteous men, prophets and patriarchs, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and which practice, perhaps, they took up and made pretensions to, in imitation of Christ and his apostles; so as Christ healed men possessed of devils, they also affected to do the same. A story is reported, 'concerning Ben Talmion, that a miracle was wrought by R. Eleazar bar Jose, who healed a king's daughter at Rome, in whose body the devil entered, whose name was Ben Talmion...'" [John Gill's commentary; source]

It is also important to note how the Pharisees reacted to all of Christ's miracles. They never once contend against them with "miracles can't happen" - rather, they always argue about the circumstances around the miracles. Some examples:

• When a man with a withered hand comes near Christ, the concern of the Pharisees is not whether or not the man can be healed supernaturally, but if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath (Matt 12:10).
• When Christ exorcises demons, the Pharisees do not contend whether or not exorcisms can take place, only that Christ was doing it by the power of the devil, not God (Matt 9:34).
• When a paralytic comes to Christ for healing, the contention of the Pharisees is not "Healings don't take place", but rather that Christ, by saying the man's sins are forgiven, is blaspheming (Mark 2:6-7).
• When the lame man is healed by Jesus, the Pharisees do not get upset at him with "What are you talking about? Healings can't take place!" Rather, their anger is directed at the fact that the man was carrying his bed on the Sabbath, and Christ was healing on the Sabbath (John 5:10, 16).
• When the Pharisees interview the man born blind, their contention is not that such a miracle could never take place, but that Christ, being a supposed sinner, could not have been the one to make the miracle (John 9:24 - by the way, this point will be relevant later).

The point of all this is that the idea the Pharisees were somehow hyper-cessationists is simply untrue, and hence is a completely erroneous position to take.

Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that it is right for contemporary Christians to change the Gospel. However, you need to recognize that the Bible does not mention everything concerning the supernatural, or our like-minded faith. There are going to be things that we encounter that aren’t specifically mentioned in Scripture, or are otherwise obscure in the text. This is why we always need to be ready to pour new wine into new wineskins, so to speak. We need to be able to adapt to what God wants to do today. If we’re being completely honest, this was the Achilles heel of the religious leaders in the days of Christ.

Of course there are certain things God will do today which may not be specifically mentioned in scripture, but once again how do we discern what is and isn't the work of God? How do we know God is behind something, or something that God "wants to do today"? In fact, if something goes beyond the word of God, it might be worth pausing and simply examining to see if it goes against or contrary to what scripture tells us. For example, anything in which a person loses control of their ability to move and causes them to act against the will of their body - which was always a sign of demonic possession in scripture (Matt 17:14-15; Mark 5:5; etc.) - is most likely not under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps it can be put another way. In scientific experiments, you tend to have two groups: your constants, and your variables. Which is your standard for understanding how something operates? It is the constant. Constants are always the same, hence the name; variables change - again, hence the name. Scripture presents us with these constants, and the variables are judged by them.

The issue is that many in Charismatic circles desire other Christians to throw out those constants and experience and believe what goes well beyond the constants, and instead rely on the variables. Imagine a conversation like this:

Person A: "Hey man! I froze my water at 98°F!"
Person B: "Uh, that can't be - water typically freezes at 32°F. I think you got something else going on there, and that's why your water hardened."
Person A: "Look, you just live by cold, dead science! Get out of your facts and figures and just embrace this new science!"

This conversation wouldn't make any sense on a scientific level, of course. Most would recognize Person A is ignoring the constants of his field and is trying to dance around it by inventing new, undiscerning standards. Yet for many in Charismatic circles, it is precisely what they are desiring to happen within the church, only with the constants of God.

Jesus was big on supernatural acts and encounters. He was big on the demonstration of the power of God. This is something that is lacking in the church today–something that was not lacking at all in the early church. Jesus stated emphatically concerning the demonstration of the power of God:

"If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:37, 38 ESV)

Jesus made the declaration that works (meaning his supernatural works) were just as important as the teachings coming out of his mouth. It always amazes me when teachers like John MacArthur write books on subjects they have zero experience in. I’m curious: when was the last time a guy like John MacArthur cast a spirit out of someone, healed the sick, or demonstrated a miracle in his ministry?

The reason Christ performed many "supernatural acts" was because it was foretold the Messiah would perform such acts. This was precisely why Christ referred to the prophecies concerning the Messiah's miracles when John the Baptist's disciples asked if he was indeed the Messiah (Matt 11:2-6). Christ's signs and wonders were part of his mark as the Messiah, and confirmed just who he was.

The author's appeal to John 10:37-38 is also problematic. He concludes that Christ is saying supernatural works are just as important as the teachings coming from his mouth, and applies this to criticize Cessationists who have performed no miracles in their ministry. However, Christ is referring to his works as a proof of his Messianic status...as well as his divinity. In John's gospel, Christ's use of phrases such as "the Father is in me and I am in the Father" are in reference to the unity of the act of God the Father and God the Son in harmony within the Trinity. Remember that this is the same chapter in which Christ states: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:29-30). For this, the Jews pick up stones to stone him, because he, being a man, was making himself out to be God (John 10:31, 33). Again, Christ's use of "supernatural works" here is not the same thing as so-called supernatural works in Charismatic theology - unless, of course, the author wishes to state that we are also divine like Christ is.

Note, also, the repetition of the fallacious presupposition of "You need experience in something to criticize it". Our author states: "It always amazes me when teachers like John MacArthur write books on subjects they have zero experience in". If John MacArthur were arguing "I have experience in this, therefore I can criticize it," that point might be legitimate - however, that is not what Mister MacArthur says. Again, if I wanted to write a book on how bad meth was on the human body, would I have to go and experience meth for an extended period of time before I even thought about opening up a Word document? Absolutely not.

Yes, the religious are so quick to point out that Christians aren’t the ones doing the miracles—”It’s Jesus who does them!” True, but that’s exactly what the Pharisees said when a blind man claimed Jesus healed him (John 9:25). They said, “Give glory to God.” They were so incensed that supernatural power was existent in Jesus’ life that they wanted to put him in his place. It’s called religiosity.

The citation from John 9 is a bit misplaced, since (as we established earlier) the Jewish leadership was only hesitant to give any glory to Christ because they believed him to be sinner rather than Messiah, and were opposed to his ministry. You see this in the part of the verse which was not quoted: "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner" (John 9:24 - not verse 25). There is also a follow up comment they make to the formerly blind man, when they say: "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from." (John 9:29). Their contention with this healing was not merely that the healing occurred, but rather the healing occurred on the Sabbath (John 9:14), and hence, to the Pharisees, that made Christ a sinner. A sinner like Christ, they reasoned, could not perform such miracles (John 9:16). Therefore, it was not that the Pharisees denied miracles could exist - rather, it was whether or not Jesus could perform miracles.

I’m always leery of ministers who seem to know a lot about God and the supernatural, yet they’ve never encountered anything supernatural about God. These people think they know a lot about Scripture–holding conferences and seminars blasting those who are moving in God’s power–yet they greatly err in their theology because they don’t know the Bible or the power of God as well as they think (Matt. 22:29).

Once again, we have to ask: is experience necessary in a position or topic before stating whether or not the subject or topic is erroneous? Should I give birth to a few babies before I say abortion is murder? Should I be forced to endure 1950's Jim Crow laws before I go to a Martin Luther King Day parade?

In my life, I have encountered a great deal of supernatural incidents, both godly and demonic. I remember a couple of trips to Jamaica when our teams held revival meetings in which many people were healed of physical injuries and relieved from demonic influence. This kind of thing is very common in third-world nations where people practice higher levels of spirituality. Consequently, there are more supernatural encounters in these places.

However, there are also those in third-world countries such as Jamaica, who practice the black arts including Voodooism and Obeah. Many of these people attend Christian meetings either because they’re intrigued by Christianity or they plan to disrupt the meetings. Strangely enough, when the Holy Spirit is manifested in such a powerful way, these demon-possessed people begin to act out. Consequently, we saw people slithering on the ground like snakes, barking like dogs and just plain acting like a bunch of idiots.

What did we do about it?

Well, we didn’t go back to America and report how “ungodly” and “demonic” the meetings were. We didn’t go and write some silly book called Strange Fire where we rip apart and insult the power of God because we were too ignorant to recognize what was going on. Instead, we exorcised the spirits out of these people and introduced them to our Lord who was actually responsible for setting them free. Amen?

We didn’t stand there like a bunch of saps in a theological discussion and mull over how barking like a dog and slithering like a snake was not “godly.” We didn’t close up shop and head home because our nice, quiet little church service was being disrupted by the forces of evil. We dealt with it just like Jesus would have and just like Paul would have.

You got all that?

Of course, some of you may wonder how we were so sure that the spirits were actually cast out of people…

Well, when 20 out of 20 people all vomit up the same white foam out of their mouths, suddenly stop acting like a bunch of idiots, and begin praising God–that’s generally a good indicator.

Remember, if you will, that this is listed as a "Book Review." At this point, one has to wonder if this is more of a thinly veiled attempt to strike at John MacArthur and the Strange Fire Conference, since little has been mentioned about Heaven is for Real up to this point (and the author himself will admit this in a moment). I have to also admit that it is a bit strange to ask one side to show grace towards those who have experienced the supernatural, and yet turn around and call them "a bunch of saps." In fact, it is very ungracious.

Now, I am not going to enter a game of "who's side is more meaner", because I'll freely admit there are cessationists out there who are very ungracious. However, from extended personal experience, I have found - whether it be a random guy on the internet, or the pastor of a large church, or someone high up in a major ministry - that the Charismatic and Hyper-Charismatic response to discernment and criticism will often quickly devolve into ad hominems, personal attacks, snide remarks, etc. The minute you start to say "I don't think this is biblical" or "So-and-so is abusing scripture based on his personal experiences", you get the Pharisee card, you get accused of not really listening to God, etc. Again, I am not saying there aren't kind of rational Charismatics out there, but (again, from extended personal experience) whenever I and others encounter this kind of vitriol from the opposite side, we can only say, "Well...here we go again..."

Putting this aside - it is certainly true that there seem to be "more supernatural encounters" in "third-world countries", but as I spoke with my friend Kofi of Fiery Logic on a podcast episode about the state of African Christianity today, the very reason there are more supernatural encounters, and why Charismatic churches catch on so quickly, is because the paganistic rituals and the so-called "supernatural encounters" found in many circles of Charismatic churches are one and the same, or at least very practically identical. The "higher levels of spirituality" are not productive. I would suggest listening to the podcast, as we go into more detail there on the subject than this blog post permits.

The church in America has seen a move of God a few times in recent years, and many ignorant Christians have seen these “strange” manifestations described above and automatically concluded that these meetings “must be of the devil” because they don’t understand the spiritual dynamics going on. Of course, it is also safe to say that some of the Christians in attendance at these meetings didn’t understand it either and ended up attributing some of these demonic manifestations to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Being a person of faith in Jesus means being able to discern both demonic influence and the power of God. Paul did this very well in his ministry when he and Silas encountered a slave girl who was actually praising them for being “servants of the Most High God” (Acts 16:16-18). Paul recognized that it was demonic activity influencing this girl and not some righteous zeal for the faith.

The issue is, once again, there is very little sign of this in mainstream Charismatic thinking, or in much of what calls itself Charismatic theology. That is not to say there are no discerning Charismatics (they do exist, and God bless 'em), but while it is one thing to say we should accurately define what is and isn't the work of God, we need to see if such a notion is carried out in application. For example, the International House of Prayer would probably say they discern spirits...so why do they think a girl shaking uncontrollably for two whole hours is a sign of the Holy Spirit?

On a side note, it is interesting that our author claims "being a person of faith in Jesus means being able to discern both demonic influence and the power of God"...but again, how do we go about this? It cannot be by a special gift of the Holy Spirit, for the "distinguishing of spirits" (1 Cor 12:10) is listed by Paul as one of the "variety" of gifts (1 Cor 12:4), which God sends out "to each one individually just as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11), and which Paul makes quite clear, throughout the rest of the chapter, not every single Christian has (this passage also refutes the notion that all Christians are supposed to be able to speak in tongues).

The answer, once again, is by the word of Almighty God. As the prophet Isaiah said concerning mediums and spiritists: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20).

Yes, you may have noticed that I have not mentioned one thing regarding the film Heaven Is for Real. That’s because I don’t have much to say about it. I’ve read the book and saw nothing out-of-bounds with it. I’m of the strong opinion that if supernatural encounters point people to Christ and/or produce the power and manifestations of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, then I generally tread lightly. This does not mean that I completely agree with people’s recollections of their supernatural experiences. We’re human. We make mistakes. But I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of bordering on blasphemy.

Frankly, I was utterly flabbergasted that our author says he "read the book and saw nothing out-of-bounds with it". I will refer once again to my review of it, where I believe I demonstrate there is quite a lot that is "out-of-bounds" within the book, particularly when it comes to the resurrection.

Our author states: "I’m of the strong opinion that if supernatural encounters point people to Christ and/or produce the power and manifestations of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, then I generally tread lightly." This is the classic logical fallacy of arguing from pragmatism; that is, if someone provides a benefit, then it's a good thing (or at the very least, it's a tolerable thing). In this specific scenario, we have two problems:

First, there is little emphasis on scripture and its authority in this book. Yes, it claims that Colton Burpo's encounters can be backed up with scripture. Yes, Todd Burpo goes on interviews and says his son's account back be backed up with scripture. However, I invite my readers to sit down and really examine what scripture says about a lot of the things Colton talks about - especially those passages quoted by the Burpos. You will find that, the vast majority of the time, scripture is twisted and turned so that Colton's experiences can fit in there; in one situation (Todd Burpo's citation of Acts 6:15), a specific translation was employed so that a specific reading would give Todd Burpo exactly the interpretation he needed. It becomes quite clear that Colton's experiences were placed over scripture, rather than seen in light of it.

Second, much of the emphasis here is not on what scripture teaches and what happens on scripture, but rather on therapeutic concerns and desires. What happens to your family members after they die? What happens to the unborn, or babies, when they die? Do animals go to heaven? These questions and others are the main focus in Heaven is for Real. When you look at scripture, there is very little concern about what happens in Heaven, or what will really happen after we die (that's not to say it's never talked about, but it's not the focus). Rather, the focal point of most of the Bible (especially those "theological" parts) is our sin, our need for redemption, and the coming resurrection and glory. Heaven is for Real, and most books like it, distract people from those things, and focus instead on factors that are meant to tug at our heart strings...and hence there is the real seduction.

Could God have saved some people through providential use of the book? Maybe. Perhaps. I won't deny that possibility. However, nothing and no one alone saves a person - rather, God alone saves someone. That God can "draw a straight line with a crooked stick" does not mean the crooked stick itself is somehow blessed, nor should it be considered profitable for a Christian. I know some believers who were saved reading the New World Translation; that does not make the NWT a translation blessed by God.

Our author follows up his previous statement with: "I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of bordering on blasphemy." Our author is apparently of the mindset that, if one critiques the book or just flatly ignores it, might be erring towards blasphemy. Many, in fact, make these kinds of arguments in regards to supposed messages or revelations from God. However, we are forgetting that those who would readily accept what might be a fabrication are likewise erring towards blasphemy, and in fact would be breaking one of the ten commandments: using the Lord's name in vain, and "the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exo 20:7). If you want to know how seriously God takes using his name in vain, here are two other passages as examples:

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." [Deuteronomy 18:20]

“So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord God.” [Ezekiel 13:9:]

"Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who are prophesying in My name, although it was not I who sent them—yet they keep saying, ‘There will be no sword or famine in this land’—by sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end!" [Jeremiah 14:15]

The idea of "using God's name in vain" does not merely mean stubbing your toe and shouting "G' d' it!" It's likewise saying, "The Lord has told us this..." when really, the Lord never spoke, or you are twisting what the word of God says. Therefore, anyone who wants to support someone claiming to have witnessed or been told things by God - and it is actually absolutely false - are, in fact, erring on the side of judgment.

At this point, our author seems to have placed us, logically, between a rock and a hard place: do we err on the side leading into blasphemy, or err on the side leading into judgment? Let me present a quote from Diadochos of Photiki, a fifth century bishop:

We have now explained the distinction between good and bad dreams, as we ourselves heard it from those with experience. In our quest for purity, however, the safest rule is never to trust to anything that appears to us in our dreams. For dreams are generally nothing more than images reflecting our wandering thoughts, or else they are the mockery of demons. And if ever God in His goodness were to send us some vision and we were to refuse it, our beloved Lord Jesus would not be angry with us, for He would know we were acting in this way because of the tricks of the demons. [On Spiritual Knowledge, 38; The Philokalia, Volume I]

Diadochos of Photiki was not concerned with "erring on the side of blasphemy", because he fully realized that demonic deception was a very real thing. We are warned in scripture that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and if one studies the tales of monastics in the desert, many of the demonic temptations they speak of (whether you want to give credability to them or not) involved devils appearing as angels, and presenting messages that would appear, on the surface, to be mostly harmless. One has to also consider the countless Roman Catholic mystics who had visions and apparitions of Christ and the Virgin Mary that told them things which were simply heretical, or taught things that clearly did not come from God. There was good reason that the Reformers rejected these visions.

Therefore, if we ever encounter a situation in which we are unsure if Christ is truly involved - especially when it involves contradictions in scripture, or adding to the word of God - then it would be far safer to avoid it, and flee from it.

I’ve also listened to David Platt’s teaching on the Heaven Is for Real debate and thought he brought up some important points. However, I think he is mistaken on his interpretation of John 3:13 which reads, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” It is strange to assume that Jesus is referring to heavenly encounters seeing that Enoch was taken from his earthly existence to be with God (Gen. 5:24), and both Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples in glorified bodies, which indicates that they came from heaven (Matt. 17:1-5). Most likely, what Jesus was referring to was his actual physical ascension into heaven after his physical death and physical resurrection because no one has ever physically risen again and ascended into heaven. However, that interpretation is debatable.

I am not going to argue for or against David Platt's teaching on Heaven is for Real, since, at the time of this writing, I am not familiar with it

Many people have criticized some of the things Burpo claimed to have seen such as the Holy Spirit, who is apparently “blue” in color. This seems rather odd and deserves some questioning. However, you cannot disregard some of the other things that he witnessed that cannot be explained away, or even criticized such as seeing certain relatives in heaven whom he had never physically seen before, etc.

With all due respect, this is like a state prosecutor telling the jury, "I know some of the evidence suggests this man isn't guilty...but you can't disregard the evidence that says he is!" If there is evidence Colton Burpo did not hear from the true God, chances are he did not.

It is likewise problematic trying to bring up examples of relatives he saw in heaven that he formerly did not know about; mainly because it is similar to the argument made by those who support the doctrine of reincarnation. What I mean is, there are those who refer to the phenomenon of young children who suddenly begin making references to names, places, locations, etc., which they have no way of knowing...and yet can be found through research and documentation. Those who support the idea of reincarnation point to these examples and say, "See? You can't explain these things away. They're too fantastic. This must be evidence that reincarnation is true!" If we were consistent with how we are arguing in favor of Colton Burpo, we would have to argue that those who support reincarnation are likewise bringing up a good point.

However, whether it be children who supposedly know a random, insignificant person who died in the 1940's, or it's a four-year old boy claiming to have visited heaven, it is wrong to say that such things "cannot be explained away," since there is a very real and very real possibility, and one we mentioned before: demonic deception. The sad truth is that it is very possible for someone to have what they believe to be a legitimate spiritual experience...and yet which is an absolute forgery. Scripture gives such examples of such things happening:

Your prophets have seen for you false and foolish visions; And they have not exposed your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity, but they have seen for you false and misleading oracles. [Lamentations 2:14]

"Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?" [Ezekiel 13:7:]

Note very carefully: these prophets saw and experienced something. They weren't just making things up on the fly, nor going into the occult and asking advice from other gods; they thought they had experienced legitimate prophecies and visions from the Lord. If you want to see an application of this in the Bible's narrative, go to 2 Chronicles 18, where the prophet Micaiah speaks of seeing the throne room of God, and hearing God's plan to intentionally put lying spirits into the prophets, so that they will prophesy incorrectly and lead Ahab and his armies astray. Again, most of Ahab's prophets truly believed they had visions, or something prophetic to offer the war council, but they had all been deceived spiritually.

If I may be frank, this is something I notice lacking very much in many Charismatic circles: a sincere interest in looking out for demonic deception. If our attitude is one in which we think it is better to believe than be concerned, then we are naive about the workings in the spiritual world.

We need to be careful about what kinds of accusations we lay at God’s door because one day we will answer for it. If God wants to show a 4-year-old boy the glory of heaven and use his experience to confound the wise theologians of the world—then that’s his prerogative and there isn’t anything you can do to change that. Besides, how do you know that Jesus didn’t specifically choose a 4-year-old on purpose so that even the most stubborn person would recognize the fact that the youngster had no motive, no agenda and nothing to gain from peddling a “near death experience?” And don’t go accusing Colton Burpo of making millions off of his “vision” because he had no idea that a book deal and a film would come out of it being 4-years-old. I’ve even read tweets from people who mock the idea that Christians should even be entertaining what a “little boy” has to say about heaven.

Oh, the irony…

We are told: "If God wants to show a 4-year-old boy the glory of heaven and use his experience to confound the wise theologians of the world—then that’s his prerogative and there isn’t anything you can do to change that." I am not aware of any "wise theologians" being "confounded" by Colton Burpo's testimony (most have provided biblical arguments for why it's wrong, and have merely been met with "You're a Pharisee!"). Likewise, while it is true that God could want to do that, the question is did he. I'm sorry to say, Colton Burpo's testimony either adds to God's word (at which point, we have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation), or it contradicts it (at which point, we have to consider it false). When we see this happening, we have to go with the conclusion that Colton Burpo did not have a legitimate spiritual experience.

Also, it has never been my personal position that Colton or Todd Burpo have done anything merely for profit. It could be the case on Todd's part, or it could be both father and son think they are doing good. However, even if both have honorable desires, it is best to remember that the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven." When Muhammad began to preach against the idolatry and social corruption he saw in Mecca, he and his followers thought they were doing good - that didn't make it automatically right. Noble intentions do not equal right intentions.

Some of you would do well to read John 9 over and over again until it sinks in. You’ll notice how Jesus played a little game with the Pharisees—almost to the point of mocking them through his supernatural power. This chapter provides clear evidence that sometimes God bends our strict rigid traditions and rules in order to make a point. The message in this chapter is simple: Those who are blind will see the truth and those who think they see, will become blind.

The point of John 9 is that Christ has power over spiritual blindness and sight. That is why Christ called the Pharisees blind at the end: not to mock their opinion on supernatural signs and wonders (which we've already established is an erroneous argument), but rather to mock their view of themselves as saved and secured of God. Consider the last part of John 9:

Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains. [John 9:35-41]

Even after he had endured, the blind man had only one desire regarding the man who healed him: to believe in him. When Christ reveals who he is, the blind man falls down and worships him at once, showing his faith. Christ's statement that he came into this world for judgment, so that "those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind," he is referring to spiritual sight, and spiritual blindness. The Pharisees, who had called the blind man "born entirely in sins" (John 9:34), had believed themselves to be righteous above others. It is similar to Christ's words regarding why those who opposed him did not understand the parables: "to you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted...therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matt 13:11, 13).

John 9, in short, has nothing to do with "bending our strict rigid traditions and rules in order to make a point."

No, you don’t have to believe the testimony in Heaven Is for Real in order to keep your salvation (even as ironic as that sounds), but what I would like you to do is to be more careful before making a critical judgment regarding testimonies that have to do with our like-minded salvation–especially when it involves something that God may be doing. Don’t get me wrong, there have been supernatural encounters that I have heard about, which I have questioned. However, I do not have a blanket policy of willfully rejecting any and all supernatural encounters just because I feel like it.

If I did, that would make me no better than a Pharisee.

And the "review" ends as it began: with the Pharisee Card. This is based upon, as we established earlier, the utterly incorrect notion that the historical Pharisees had "a blanket policy of willfully rejecting any and all supernatural encounters," and they opposed Christ simply because he enacted supernatural feats and wonders. As we established before, the Pharisees were not hyper-cessationists, and therefore to in essence argue that you should be gracious towards spiritual revelations and experiences or you're a Pharisee is simply contrary to the Biblical and historical facts.

We are told that we won't lose our salvation if we don't believe in the testimony, although earlier we were told: "we need to be careful about what kinds of accusations we lay at God’s door because one day we will answer for it" (emphasis mine); and those who might criticize the book "err on the side...of bordering on blasphemy". We are even told (after the salvation comment) that we need to "be more careful before making a critical judgment...when it involves something that God may be doing." This is not new to our author - it is often how Hyper-Charismatics and some Charismatics argue in regards to revelations given to individuals. On the one hand, it's OK to disagree; on the other hand, it is ungracious, un-Christian, etc., to oppose these individuals and their teachings. In some cases, your very salvation may be questioned.

To my Charismatic brothers, I must be honest: this kind of thinking is an example of compartmentalization. The fact is, if Colton Burpo really did hear from God (and he's never claimed "this might be true"), and, as Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, says in the recommendations page for the book, "God has chosen to speak to us in this twenty-first century through the unblemished eyes of a child, revealing some of the mysteries of heaven", then Colton Burpo speaks with God's authority. As we saw in the passages we reviewed, there is no middle ground with "thus sayeth the Lord." Either Colton Burpo really did hear from God, and those who oppose him will, one day, answer for their sins; or Colton Burpo did not hear from God, and he and his family need to repent for speaking in the Lord's name when the Lord has not sent them.

As I said before, this was not meant to be merely an examination of a single post, but to address common arguments made against those who discern so-called revelations and supernatural acts. When this discerning happens, it is done out of love for God's word. I have had experiences in the past where people online pretended to be family members, trying to get financial "help" - just as I was eager to discern this to check for deception, so too do I want to discern to avoid spiritual deception. If anything, we should be far more concerned with spiritual deception than we should be with earthly identity theft.

No matter what our emotions may desire, and no matter what we think may pragmatically be beneficial, we must hold to the word of God. Let us say, with the Psalmist, "I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word" (Psa 119:16).

****

UPDATE - JANUARY 22, 2015: It has come to my attention that the article was taken down at the original website. I have not found it on the author's Medium page either (where it was formerly listed as well). I have not received any real explanation for this dual disappearance, though I do find it interesting.

Podcast: Variety Episode 3

In this episode, we review Frederica Mathewes-Green recommending Heaven is for Real (and saying some AMAZING things in defense of it), Rick Joyner speaking about the need for unity (and an "Issachar Anointing"), and then we play a brief custom-made clip about Mark Driscoll.



This link takes you to my review of Heaven is for Real.

A Simple Review of "Heaven is for Real"

Introduction

Back in about 2010 or so, a book came out called Heaven is for Real, written by Todd Burpo and discussing the experiences of his son, Colton Burpo, who supposedly went to heaven and experienced many things there. It has now been released as a major motion picture, and both book and film have reportedly done very well on the market (the book itself was a #1 New York Times Bestseller).

I knew the book existed, but I chose not to read it, as I had generally lost interest in supposed trips to heaven or hell after hearing Bill Wiese's and Mary K. Baxter's accounts. Most of them read like what I call "bad Dante Alighieri fanfiction," and I was always of the opinion that I had the Bible, which was written by the One who lived in heaven, therefore why would I need anyone else's account? Nonetheless, many people I knew or encountered had read the book, and swore up and down that they loved it. When the movie came out, I realized just how far this had gone (consider that, at the time of this writing, there isn't a movie for The Shack out in theaters...thank God). I decided to purchase it and read it for myself, and present a review for my readers. I know that other people have already written critiques, and some of what I say will probably be beating around the bush, but I hope this post will prove edifying for someone.

Surprisingly, the book was very easy to read. I actually finished reading it in one day. The chapters are short, it's only 154 pages, and, as I said, it reads quite easily. It also doesn't read like "bad Dante Alighieri fanfiction," but rather is presented in a kind of piecemeal fashion, with Colton's parents asking what happened, and him providing information bit by bit.

Nearly half of the book (perhaps just over two-fifths) is a description of the calamities that befell the Burpo family, leading up to the visions Colton had. Shortly after Todd Burpo, a pastor in the Wesleyan Church, has suffered from a broken leg, kidney stones, and breast cancer, he and his wife Sonja discover that their son, Colton, has appendicitis. Because this had been misdiagnosed by the doctors they originally went to, much of the dangerous fluid from his appendix had already seeped into most of his body. Taking him to a hospital further away from home, the parents begin to pray and hope that Colton will get better. Miraculously, he does.

Four months after the ordeal, Colton begins to make offhand comments about a visit to heaven, where he got to see Jesus. It gets more serious when he talks of meeting with his deceased great-grandfather, nicknamed "Pop," as well as meeting the child whom Sonja had miscarried with (something he reportedly had not been told about). Todd, curious about this, pries into Colton's mind, getting more and more information from him. Colton's claims and descriptions become the focus of the rest of the book.

Colton's Claims versus the Bible

It should be noted here that Todd Burpo has made a response to many of the critics who have already spoken out against his son's story:

"The Jesus in the Bible is the same Jesus who did this for Colton. If Christians don't like that they must be Pharisees... Christians and sinners still appreciate miracles. Pharisees never have and never will... In the Bible, Pharisees used to call themselves Jews. Today they call themselves Christians... The people who say Colton's trip to Heaven can't happen, I say, 'Read your Bible.'" [source]

Well then...it's only fair that we follow Burpo's advice and "read our Bible." Therefore, let's review some of the major claims made by Colton regarding what he saw in heaven, and see whether they confirm what is taught in scripture:

1) Jesus has a rainbow horse

One of the first big things Colton talks about is that Jesus has a rainbow horse. He explains to his dad that Jesus has a "rainbow horse" he got to pet (pg. 63). Later on, Colton even tells his grandmother about "Jesus' rainbow horse" (pg. 90).

Nowhere in scripture, however, is Jesus ever described as having a rainbow horse. The only part which comes close is the description of Christ riding a white horse (Rev 19:11), unless one counts Zechariah's vision of the pre-incarnate Christ riding a red horse (Zec 1:8). We would have to therefore simply accept Colton's words as extra-scriptural revelation regarding Christ owning a specific rainbow horse.

2) Colton's description of Jesus' face and clothes

Colton describes Jesus as having "brown hair and...hair on his face" (meaning a beard), with eyes that are "so pretty" (pg. 65). He goes on to explain that Christ wore a white outfit with a purple slash going across his chest, from his shoulder to under his arm (ibid). Colton even explains that "Jesus was the only one in heaven who had purple on" (ibid). On top of this, Jesus had a golden crown on his head with "this diamond thing in the middle of it and it was kind of pink" (pg. 65-66).

Of course, what has been pointed out throughout history is that there are no concise descriptions of Christ in his earthly ministry within scripture. The only exception is perhaps Isaiah 53:2b, which reads regarding the coming messiah: "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." This would contradict one description from the book that Jesus is "very masculine, really strong and big" and "his eyes are just beautiful" (pg. 143).

Within the New Testament itself, the only descriptions of Christ are found in his post-ascension state, such as what is found in Revelation 1:12-16. Here, Christ is described as having white hair, a golden sash around his chest (literally around his chest like a high priest - not worn like a sash, as Colton describes), eyes of flame, feet like furnished bronze, and having a voice like the roar of many waters. This is nothing like the down to earth vision that Colton had of Christ. To be fair, most take John's vision here to be entirely representational - however, no depiction of Christ after the resurrection and ascension has Jesus in this tamed expression so common in "trips to heaven" accounts. After the ascension, Christ always appears in the midst of his full glory.

Similarly, nowhere is a crown described as being seen on the resurrected, glorified Christ, save perhaps for one moment in Revelation, where it is simply described as a golden crown (Rev 14:14). Nowhere is a crown described with a pink diamond. Again, we would have to accept Colton's words here as extra-scriptural revelation.

3) Colton's description of Christ's wounds

In addition to Christ's facial features and clothes, Colton likewise described the wounds he saw on Christ's body. He initially calls them "markers" (pg. 65), saying they are red in color, and then gives the following description after his father asks where he saw these wounds:

Without hesitation, he stood to his feet. He held out his right hand, palm up and pointed to the center of it with his left. Then he held out his left palm and pointed with his right hand. Finally, Colton bent over and pointed to the tops of both his feet. [pg. 67]

To this, his father thinks in his head, "He saw this. He had to have" (ibid).

Had I been told this, however, I would have readily believed that he was absolutely wrong, because of the fact that Christ wasn't crucified in the palms, but in the wrists. The Greek word used in the New Testament that is often translated as "palms" or "hands" actually refers to not just the hand (as we know the word to mean today), but the wrist as well. Also, history proves that Romans crucified people at the wrists because it kept the arms up better that way - had they crucified the palms, the weight of the human body would have torn easily and the hands would not have stayed on the cross.

This should be evidence alone that, whatever Colton experienced, it was not a true vision of Christ.

4) Children in heaven do homework

When Todd asks Colton what he did in heaven, his son readily replies, "Homework... Jesus was my teacher... Jesus gave me work to do, and that was my favorite part of heaven" (pg. 71-72).

Nowhere is this "homework" explained. Likewise, nowhere does scripture speak of any "homework" being given in heaven, either at this moment or after the resurrection. This sounds more like a child's religious fantasy than an account that can be confirmed by scripture. If we are to accept it as true, then we must accept it as extra-scriptural revelation of what happens in heaven.

5) Colton's description of people in heaven

Colton claims that "everybody's got wings" in heaven, and with them they can fly (pg. 72). The size of the wings differs - Colton says he had little wings (ibid) while his deceased great-grandfather had big wings (pg. 87). He likewise claims that "all the people have a light above their head," (pg. 73). He likewise explains that all wear white garments, and wear sashes, of various colors, although angels wear yellow (pg. 75).

No such description, however, is found in scripture regarding those who have passed on. Wings are only described in regards to angels, and often involved more than two wings (see, for example, the six wings on the Seraphim in Isa 6:2). Nowhere are wings or bright light attributed to those humans who have passed on. When Samuel rises at the behest of the witch of Endor, he is described as being in a robe and nothing else - no wings or halos (1 Sam 28:14). When the apostle John describes believers standing before the throne of God (Rev 7:9-12), they are only described as having white robes, and no other distinguishing features - again, no wings or halos, let alone multicolored sashes.

Todd attempts to prove his son's account by citing the account of the man Daniel encounters (Dan 10:4-6). However, this was an angel, not a believer in heaven, and the "gold" that he wore was clearly said to be (by Burpo's own translation) "around his waist," not worn like a sash as Colton describes. Todd runs into a similar problem when he cites an angel in Revelation (Rev 10:1), which describes an angel but does not confirm Colton's statement that believers in heaven look like angels. Likewise, Todd appeals to the angel at Christ's tomb (Matt 28:3), who is described as having an "appearance like lightning," but which matches nothing described by what Colton had told him - and, once again, it does not describe believers in heaven.

The one passage Todd turns to that does talk about a believer, and not an angel, is Acts 6:15. Quoting from the NLT, he says: "[Stephen's] face became as bright as an angel's" (pg. 73). Appealing to this passage, however, presents several problems. For one, Stephen wasn't dead and in heaven - he was still alive, and on earth. For another, Todd Burpo is clearly choosing a translation (and honestly, not a very good one) that conforms with what he wants to prove: the original Greek literally renders "all in the council saw the face of his as the face of an angel." It says nothing about Stephen's face shining in the same way an angel does, and while some commentators have thought of it as such (hence the NLT's rendering), others have pointed out that it is a way of speaking about inward discernment (as similar phraseology is found in Gen 33:10, as well as in rabbinical literature). We must also remember that, contextually speaking, Stephen is about to begin speaking at length to the Sanhedrin about the past of the Jewish people, and the history of salvation, and the coming judgment upon them. Stephen is not shining in the face (for no one reacts to him as if he were), but rather he is appearing before them as a true and holy messenger of God (the word "angel" in the Greek also referring to "messenger").

Even stranger is that the book emphasizes that Colton wasn't dead when he experienced all these visions...why, then, was he made to look like people who had died? Todd cites the apostles Paul and John as examples of people who went to heaven while still alive, but neither of those men immediately grew wings, nor described themselves as being transformed into what a dead person becomes once they cross over.

In the end, Colton's description of people in heaven fits more into a Hallmark Christmas card - it does not fit into a biblical understanding of what angels or the deceased look like.

6) What time means in heaven

Colton tells his father that he was in heaven altogether for about three minutes (pg. 76). Todd is confused by this, as Colton seemed to have done a lot in those three minutes, but shrugs it off with: "Maybe there is no time in heaven. At least not as we understand it" (pg. 78).

Predictably, he turns to 2 Peter 3:8, where the apostle writes that, to the Lord, "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." However, this passage is not saying that one 24-hour day to the Lord is literally like a thousand years to us. When you look at the full context, Peter is speaking about judgment, and the supposed slowness of God's judgment. Peter is saying that we shouldn't be shocked if it takes God one year or a hundred years to deliver judgment upon a group of people, as a hundred years to God is really nothing, unlike what it means to us.

In order for us to accept that there is a weird understanding of time in heaven, we would have to accept Colton Burpo's claims as extra-scriptural revelation.

7) Gabriel sits at God's left hand

On Christmas of 2003, Colton began to tell his dad about seeing the throne room of God. Ge describes it as "really, really big, because God is the biggest one there is" (pg. 100). He likewise describes "Jesus' chair is right next to his Dad's" (ibid). Todd then asks who sat on the other side of God's throne, to which Colton replies, "Oh, that's easy, Dad. That's where the angel Gabriel is. He's really nice" (pg. 101).

Todd Burpo attempts to prove his son's account by citing Luke 1:13-15a, 18-19, specifically Gabriel's statement "I stand in the presence of God." Of course, scripture says that lots of angels stand in the presence of God (cf. Rev 7:11; 8:2), and Gabriel nowhere says "I sit at the left hand of God" (notice that, in the passage Burpo himself cites, Gabriel doesn't even use the word sit). In order to believe that Gabriel sits at the left hand of God's throne, you must simply accept Colton's account as extra-scriptural revelation.

8) What does the Holy Spirit look like?

While continuing the discussion from the previous point, Todd asks Colton where he sat in heaven. Colton says that he sitting by God the Holy Spirit (pg. 102). Todd asks Colton what the Holy Spirit looked like, to which Colton replies, "Hmm, that's kind of a hard one...he's kind of blue" (pg. 103).

At this point, I seriously had to put the book down and let my mind settle on what I had just read. The Holy Spirit is "kind of blue"? What passage in all of scripture confirms that? What passage of scripture even hints at that? I seriously almost stopped reading the book at this point - the musings of a young child had suddenly turned so goofy that I was amazed Todd and Sonja were still taking anything he said seriously.

Actual photograph of the Holy Spirit

Again, in order to believe that the Holy Spirit is blue, one would have to accept Colton's claim as extra-scriptural revelation. Then again, who in their right minds would do that? Unfortunately, it seems millions of people already have.

9) Nobody is old in heaven

When shown a picture of what his great-grandfather looked like younger, Colton says that this is what he looked like in heaven, and states matter-of-factly, "Dad, nobody's old in heaven. And nobody wears glasses" (pg. 121). At the end of the same chapter, Todd tells the reader: "The bad news is that in heaven, we'll still look like ourselves. The good news is, it'll be the younger version" (pg. 123).

This is rather interesting, given that, when Colton saw his miscarried sister, he described her as being as old as his current sister (who was very young at the time), only "a little bit smaller" (pg. 95). He likewise describes children being in heaven, seen in a childlike age. Why, however, are they seen as children and not full grown adults? Why are people not old, and yet they still are, in some circumstances, incredibly young? Do people grow up in heaven like they do on earth? Do they stop getting older at a magical age? Why are they not allowed to be old? This presents a contradiction with Colton's story.

In either case, nowhere in scripture does it explain how old we will be, or what we will look like. The apostle Paul does speak on our bodies after the resurrection, but merely says they will be glorified (1 Cor 15:42-49) - he doesn't say we will be a certain age, or that no one will appear elderly. One would therefore have to accept Colton's specific information as extra-scriptural revelation.

10) Angels have swords to keep the devil out

After watching the film The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Sonja comments to Colton that he won't have to worry about swords in heaven. Colton quickly replies, "There are too swords in heaven!" (pg. 132) When asked why they need swords in heaven, Colton says, "Mom, Satan's not in hell yet...The angels carry swords so they can keep Satan out of heaven!" (pg. 133).

Nowhere in scripture are angels recorded as needing swords to keep Satan out of heaven, let alone is it even described that angels stand guard to keep Satan out of heaven. Job 1:6 even describes Satan walking about heaven and coming before the presence of God, with no sign that he had to avoid sword-wielding angels to do it. Todd cites Christ's statement that he saw Satan fall from heaven (Luke 10:18), though this merely speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven, not about angels walking around heaven with swords to keep him out. One would have to, yet again, simply accept Colton's words as extra-scriptural revelation.

11) When do we get our glorified bodies?

One thing I noticed reading this book was that there seemed to be very little talk of the resurrection. Initially I thought there was only one real mention of a resurrection in the entire book, and that is when Colton says of his great grandfather: "He's in heaven. He's got a new body. Jesus told me if you don't go to heaven, you don't get a new body" (pg. 136). However, I later realized that this couldn't be about the resurrection, as Colton was talking of a new body while you're in heaven, and that his great grandfather already had this new body.

While Paul does speak of us inheriting an "imperishable body" that will "bear the image of the heavenly," it is only given to us at the resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:42-49). Nowhere is it said that we receive this upon death, or when we get to heaven. Therefore, unless Pop has been resurrected already and then ascended into heaven, Colton's claims about what "Jesus" told him are completely contradictory to the biblical teaching.

12) There will be a Battle of Armageddon at the end times

Humorously enough, Colton apparently was given insight into the future as well as the past or present. He described witnessing the supposed Battle of Armageddon at the end times:

"Dad, did you know there's going to be a war?... There's going to be a war, and it's going to destroy this world. Jesus and the angels and the good people are going to fight against Satan and the monsters and the bad people. I saw it... In heaven, the women and the children got to stand back and watch. So I stood back and watched... But the men, they had to fight..." [pg. 136]

When asked what the monsters were, Colton explains "like dragons and stuff" (pg. 137). As for those fighting the monsters, Colton says they "either get a sword or a bow and arrow, but I don't remember which" (pg. 138).

Todd cites two passages to confirm what Colton was saying: Revelation 9:6-10 and 20:1-3, 7-10. However, in the first passage (regarding the strange locust creatures), no one is recording fighting them, only that they are plaguing humanity. In the second passage, no monsters are mentioned, only that Satan will seduce the nations, turn them against the saints of God, and then God will come down and destroy them with fire. There is no mention of believers fighting monsters or dragons or the like.

Colton's description fits well with pop Dispensationalism or popular notions of the end times that you find in bookstores, but, again, it doesn't describe anything talked about in the Bible. We would have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation about the end times.

13) Animals are in heaven

In addition to the rainbow-colored horse, Colton claims that while in heaven he saw "dogs, birds, even a lion - and the lion was friendly, not fierce" (pg. 152).

Nowhere does scripture say animals are in heaven. Some will probably point to passages like Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 (the famous "lion and the lamb" passages), however, these are generally believed to be about the new creation after the resurrection, when peace will settle on the earth. In order for us to believe there are animals in heaven, we would have to take Colton's word for it, in which case we'd have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation.

14) The Virgin Mary still functions as Christ's mother

In a peculiar section at the end of the book, Todd gives an answer to a popular question asked by Roman Catholics:

A lot of our Catholic friends have asked whether Colton saw Mary, the mother of Jesus. The answer to that is also yes. He saw Mary kneeling before the throne of God and at other times, standing beside Jesus. "She still loves him like a mom," Colton said. [pg.152-153]

At this point, I began to wonder if some of the stuff Colton was claiming was just stuff he made up on the fly. It almost feels as if Colton is, at this point, merely accommodating the desires and needs of various people who ask him questions.

In any case, there is no evidence in scripture that the Virgin Mary functions in this role in heaven. We would have to accept Colton's description as extra-scriptural revelation.

The Gospel of Colton Burpo

As one can tell already, much of the focus of the book is on heaven. Nothing is said of a resurrection, the new creation when Christ returns, and the like. The message is almost entirely a cheerful one. Of course, there is mention of Satan, and at one point Colton Burpo says that someone recently deceased "had to know Jesus or he can't get into heaven" (pg. 57). However, there's no talk of eternal punishment. There's no talk of sins. There's no talk of judgment. There's not talk of mercy in spite of the judgment deserved. Even with the discussion of the end times battle, there's no mention of what will happen afterward to the bad guys after that.

How important is the resurrection? The apostle Paul connected it to the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:12-13), going on to say "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor 15:14). Christ's resurrection was "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20), meaning that Christ was the first to be raised in order that the future resurrection would be made possible (cf. 1 Cor 15:21-26). In fact, the apostle Paul portrayed Christ's resurrection as an important part of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). This resurrection, however, is blatantly missing from any part of Colton Burpo's presentation of the afterlife - indeed, it almost seems meaningless.

One of the greatest dangers from this is what the Gospel is presented as. When Todd asks his kids why Jesus died on the cross, Colton says that Jesus told him "Jesus died on the cross so we could go see his Dad" (pg. 111). Granted, I can try to be gracious and say (as Todd Burpo says throughout the book) that Colton is a little child, and hence is speaking from the plain language of a little child...although Colton's claiming Jesus himself said this. The greater problem is that Colton's father - who is a pastor - treats his religious opinion as the norm, and even seems to accept his wording as what Jesus himself desires people to know:

In my mind's eye, I saw Jesus, with Colton on his lap, brushing past all the seminary degrees, knocking down the theological treatises stacked high as skyscrapers, and boiling down fancy words like propitiation and soteriology to something a child could understand. [ibid]

Todd calls his son's words "the simplest and sweetest declaration of the gospel I had ever heard" (ibid), going on to ask Colton, "Hey, do you wanna preach on Sunday?" (pg. 112). This watered down, simplified version of the Gospel, therefore, is presented as something Jesus wants every Christian to believe in. One can almost hear the kind of snide attack against most organized theology, as if Colton Burpo's Jesus is telling people, "Just throw out church history, your confessions, your creeds, your study of the original language, and just enjoy this message."

One complaint that has been lodged against most visits-to-heaven accounts, or near-death experiences, is that they often forgo concerns about our sin and our righteousness before God, and focus instead on the therapeutic concerns of most individuals. We can readily see that here, where the Gospel is distilled into the feel good message of "Jesus loves you." While Christ certainly loves his flock, this presents problems with how the people who believe in this will understand scripture. For example, Colton Burpo emphasizes how much God loves children, and presents the idea that all children who die go to heaven...how, then, would Colton (let alone his father Todd) explain the places in scripture where children (even infants) are clearly killed by God in judgment, either in the flood, the tenth plague in Egypt, the invasion of Canaan, etc. For those who have studied and looked at God's holiness and justice, this isn't an issue...for people who adhere to a simplified gospel like that presented by Colton Burpo, however, this will present them with problems. It is these kinds of people who atheists that have actually studied what the scripture says will snatch up or make to look like a fool when the tough questions get asked. How will they reconcile Colton Burpo's promise that God "loves" literally all children every where, and then in the Old Testament judgment is clearly being passed in the form of what atheists call (erroneously) genocide and murder? They won't be able to, because their understanding of God's love is not a biblical one, but one found in the private revelations of a four-year old boy.

The fact is, Christ's love for us is love in a certain context. Christ loves us because we are given to him by the Father, and so he atoned for our sins, and bore the punishment that we deserved for those sins. That's something even a child can understand without using the big terms, and unfortunate this is not the gospel we are being told from the Burpo family.

Todd Burpo's Discernment

Todd Burpo, we must remember, is an ordained pastor. Therefore, it is part of his job to test all things, and make certain that they conform with the teachings of scripture. When his son began to tell him things about heaven and his visitations with Jesus, how did he react?

Personally, I was rather shocked with just how easily he and Sonja seemed to accept his son's testimony. In the prologue, when Todd explains the first time Colton hinted at his other-worldly experience, Colton says to his mother, "I remember [the hospital]. That's where the angels sang to me" (pg. xvii). Todd describes this as being something that sent him and his wife into a deep shock, when I think most parents would have just figured, "My kid had a nice little dream while he was under." They later state they can't be certain if it was a dream, since "he seems so sure" (pg. xx). At this, I have to wonder just how many children the Burpos have run into over time. When I was a little boy, I at one point claimed to my parents that, one Christmas night, I saw Rudolph's nose. I was certain of it. I said it in a tone that fully believed I had seen Rudolph. If my parents had been the Burpos, they might have gasped, eyed each other, and then whispered in shocked tones later on, "Did he see Rudolph? He just seems so sure!" (Heck, I'm even reminded of the Cottingley Fairies, where two young girls were absolutely sure they had taken photos of fairies, and to their dying day insisted that at least some of the photos were real). Similarly, Todd recounts how, while he and Sonja were going over the bills and what to pay, Colton comes up and says, "Jesus used Dr. O'Holleran to help fix me...You need to pay him" (pg. 54). Again, the parents are absolutely shocked their son would think this way...despite the fact I could name Christian parents who can tell similar stories about cute things their children have said, and in similar circumstances.

Even sillier is when Colton is telling his father of all the details in heaven, and his father acts as if the vividness of Colton's account is strange, saying "little boys don't exactly come up and offer you long, detailed histories" (pg. 62). I could point to a few little boys in my church alone who, if you gave them the chance, would spin you a yarn that would humble George R. R. Martin. While Colton did present information that he could never have possibly known, it just seemed like the Burpos were acting shocked and awed in situations that most parents would have brushed off. In some points, it was almost comical how quickly they reacted with awe at their young son doing what many young boys have done.

Even more comical is how Todd and Sonja seem to submit themselves to the theological lessons from their four-year old son. Talking about how he wanted to ask Colton questions about his so-called experience in heaven, Todd writes: "if he had really seen Jesus and the angels, I wanted to become the student, not the teacher!" (pg. 62) Often when Colton starts to go into an explanation of what he saw or heard, Todd will often tell the reader that he considered this a "new information alert" or "new information time" (which hints that he was aware something about his son's experiences were new or different). The Bible clearly outlines the mother and father as the spiritual leaders of the home, but in the Burpo household things seemed to become reversed.

What is unfortunate, however, is how Todd Burpo (who again, is a pastor) seems to handle scripture in this regard. As the previous notes show, he will almost always take something his son says, find a vague reference to it in scripture, or a loose connection to it in scripture, and immediately assumes that Colton's claim must be true. So, for example, Jesus saying that he saw Satan fall from heaven is somehow proof for Colton's claim that angels walk around with swords to keep the devil out. Likewise, the fact that the Bible uses the word "rainbow" or various forms of colors is proof that Colton, who saw various colors (including a rainbow horse), really did go to heaven. To illustrate how fallacious this interpretation of scripture is, imagine this following scenario:

Kid: "I had an out of body experience where I went to Texas."
Me: "Oh yeah? What was going on?"
Kid: "Well, I met the Queen of England in front of the Eiffel Tower and Godzilla was in the Kremlin next door, and it was raining hard..."
Me: "GASP! It rains in Texas! That must mean he really was in Texas!"

This is literally how dialogue and so-called "scriptural examination" happens in the book. Never mind, of course, that only part of the kid's account was based on truth, or that the rest of the information contradicted the possibility, or added to that reality - nope, because two minor points matched up with each other, the account must have been true. This contradicts the claim made on the back of the book that Colton gave "obscure details about heaven that matched the Bible exactly." Todd comes across as ready to compartmentalize the discrepancies and specifics of his son's account for whatever vague connection can be made to scripture, as seen in one instance where his son gave a description contradictory to what the Bible says, and yet he takes it as a description that "matched Scripture in every detail" (pg. 66). Sometimes (such as with the Holy Spirit being blue), there isn't even an attempt to prove Colton's words are compliant with scripture - his words are just taken at face value.

The problem may come from the fact that Todd seemed completely and utterly willing to immediately believe that Colton had entered heaven. He writes after his very first round of questions with Colton: "It dawned on me that maybe we'd been given a gift and that our job now was to unwrap it, slowly, carefully, and see what was inside" (pg. 64). Even Sonja, his wife, seems excited by this, and ready to accept whatever Colton has to say. Whereas most parents might present some reasonable hesitancy, none of this is seen in Todd and Sonja.

There is also no sign that Todd thought to himself that, if his son really did have an experience, there was a possibility it was from spiritual deception. The apostle Paul warned us that "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14), and Christ himself gave warnings of signs and wonders passed off as legitimate works of God (Matt 7:22-23; 24:24). One need only look to the history behind Mormonism, Islam, and countless other false religions and heresies to see that spiritual deception is very, very real. If Colton Burpo really did have a spiritual experience, then - given the contradictions with scripture, or strange visions that are nowhere confirmed in scripture - we would have to accept that it was a false experience.

By What Authority?

As the previous notes have suggested, a lot of Colton's claims cannot be substantiated from scripture. As a result, much of it (if not nearly all) is extra-scriptural revelation. Oftentimes, scripture even gets interpreted through the lens of what Colton says, so that we are presented with a new understanding of how to interpret certain passages. This leads us to an important question: who's authority are we going by? Are we going by scripture...or by Colton Burpo?

What shocked me as I read more and more of the book is just how much emphasis was not really being placed upon Christ and the Bible, but rather on Colton and his experiences. Over and over again, phrases like "because of Colton's story" or "due to what Colton said" or "thanks to Colton" were used in reference to someone feeling better, or feeling at peace with eternity. Todd's mother tells him: "Ever since this happened, I think more about what it might really be like in heaven...before, I'd heard, but now I know that someday I'm going to see" (pg. 150). If you look at the Praise for Heaven is for Real section at the very beginning of the book, you'll notice a comment by Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, which says, "God has chosen to speak to us in this twenty-first century through the unblemished eyes of a child, revealing some of the mysteries of heaven." Even Todd says that he and Sonja, through Colton, "had a glimpse through the veil that separates earth from eternity" (pg. 148).

This all confirms what we have been suggesting all along: that Colton Burpo has presented us with direct revelation from God Himself. He therefore has the same status and authority as the prophets of old, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the apostles of Christ's time. The logical conclusion of this is that anyone who even thinks of challenging Todd and Colton Burpo are challenging God Himself, and will be judged for it. Even if Todd Burpo has never said this (although his attitude towards critics is rather telling), it is, again, the logical conclusion from the statements made. There is no middle ground for "thus sayeth the Lord," or even "thus showeth me the Lord." Christians might as well purchase Heaven is for Real and add it to their Bibles, because that is how seriously many people take Colton's account.

Perhaps one final thing that alarmed me, near the end, was how people began to equate these supernatural experiences with belief in God. While speaking about a Lithuanian-American girl who had similar experiences to Colton, Todd describes that "her mom began to accept that Akiane's visions were real and that therefore, God must be real" (pg. 143). He also makes the alleged story that a nurse said to him, after Colton's recovery, "there has to be a God, because this is a miracle" (pg. 148). He likewise tells the story of a babysitter who heard some of Colton's testimony about his miscarried sibling, and says "Colton's story about his sister strengthened her Christian faith" (pg. 130). Todd even places talking about his faith in God on equal with talking about his son's experiences:

As a pastor, I was always comfortable talking about my faith, but now, in addition, I talk about what happened to my son. It's the truth and I talk about it, no apologies. [pg. 153]

This again places Colton Burpo and Heaven is for Real on the same level as the Bible. What was it the apostle John wrote about his own gospel? "These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). The apostle Paul likewise wrote: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17). Yet we might as well change the wording to: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Colton Burpo."

Of course, all of this completely contradicts the doctrine of sola scriptura, and the concept of the absolute sufficiency of scripture. The apostle Paul wrote: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). The phrase "man of God" is harkening back to the concept of an Old Testament messenger from God. The point the apostle Paul is making is that everything in inspired writ is what we need for our spiritual needs - we don't need a little kid coming back from heaven and telling us about Christ's rainbow horsey. To understand God, understand His plan of salvation, and understand what parts of the afterlife we need to focus on, we have the Bible - anything else is simply fluff.

Conclusion

Todd Burpo told his critics to "read their Bible." Well, I have read my Bible, Mister Burpo, and I have held your son's testimony to the light of scripture...and I'm sad to say, your son's account has come out wanting. Your son was most likely facing the effects of delirium from the anesthetic (a side effect that can be so strong the victim actually believes something happened), most likely with some demonic deception thrown in. You need to forsake your presupposition and truly read your Bible to see if your son had a legitimate experience. Then, you must repent of leading people astray with these so-called experiences of heaven. I'm sure you love your son, and I'm sure you want to help people, but you must realize the spiritual damage you do - especially when you respond to any form of discernment by calling your critics Pharisees.

When I began reading this book, I put a little note on one of the first pages: "Question - Will this book deal with Luke 16:27-31?" After finishing it up, I had to go back and write my answer: "Nope." To explain, this passage takes place in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: both men have died, and Lazarus is up in heaven, while the rich man is down in hell, suffering torment. At this point, a dialogue occurs between the rich man and Abraham:

"And [the rich man] said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” [Luke 16:27-31]

This passage completely contradicts nearly every near-death experience, or so-called visits to heaven and hell, that are out there on the market. The rich man wanted to do what Bill Wiese, Mary K. Baxter, and Colton Burpo all claimed to do: come back with supernatural experiences about the afterlife and tell people about it for their benefit. What does Abraham say? Basically, Abraham says, "Look, they have their Bibles, don't they? If the Bible isn't sufficient enough, what good is your experience in the afterlife going to do?" Yet with all these accounts and experiences, we are supposed to believe that, after almost 2000 years, Christ apparently changed his mind.

Some might contend here, "But people have been helped by this book!" In what way? By coming closer to God? Which God? The apostle Paul warned of the possibility of people being swayed by "another Jesus," "a different Spirit," and "a different gospel" (cf. 2 Cor 11:4). As we have seen, Colton Burpo could not have been learning from the real, true God, as the real, true God would not contradict His word in such a way. If anyone has been "helped," it has only been in a superficial, emotional way, and not one according to biblical truth. We should not forsake the teachings of scripture for an argument from pragmatism fallacy.

Ultimately, the seduction of this book is that it supposedly offers answers to questions many people have regarding the afterlife. The problem is, much of it is already answered in scripture. It pained me in the book when people make literal pilgrimages to Colton to ask if their believing family member is in heaven, when they can simply read Romans 8, Ephesians 1, Colossians 3, etc., and see for themselves that, if their loved ones have died in faith, they are secure in the arms of God. The problem is that for many in our society the Bible is not enough. They cannot agree with the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. They want more. They want something else. They want an extra kick to their fix. They want something spiritual that appeals to them and their personal emotions. The devil knows this, of course...and that is why the devil is only too happy to present himself as an angel of light to present some kind of "revelation" to give the people something sweet and tender that leads them away from a sufficiency in God's word.

Brothers and sisters, we must not permit Satan to seduce us in such a fashion. We must be like the Psalmist when he said to God "I will delight in your statutes" (Psa 119:16). To permit ourselves to be influenced by contrary visits to heaven are part of what the apostle Paul warned about he mentioned those who "will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths" (2 Tim 4:4). Let us look to the word of God for knowledge of our salvation, and let us look forward, most of all, to the coming resurrection, in which we shall be brought forward before Christ, blameless and holy, counted righteous not for anything we have done, but for what Christ did.