(This is an old post done during the time when I considered that Tim Snell actually may have support for his Abuse of me. Here is a link to December 2009 proving that Tim Snell has NO SUPPORT for his claims about Modeling God: Tim Snell's Formal Support.)
(The most alarming claim by Tim Snell and the Christian Law Association (Dr. Gibbs) is that they don't believe that Jesus was fully man! They don't believe that Jesus could choose to do evil. This is stating Jesus was unable to bridge the gap for our Salvation. This is deception. Worse, this is a contradiction of the most famous Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus:
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15)
It ALL begins with understanding God's Nature. I don't understand HOW anyone can teach God's Word when they deny God's Being.)
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Gnosticism Reinvented, March 25, 2008
By Timothy Snell (Appleton, WI) - See all my reviews
"Modeling God" is a book that deals very little with scripture and a lot with John G. Lenhart. It is a very poorly written book...and ultimately not even "Christian" in terms of holding to what is broadly seen as "orthodox Christianity." Lenhart's theological construct is gnosticism reinvented, heretical to its very core.
Here is what Lenhart teaches: 1) Sin is relative. 2) Grace is something you pay for. 3) Jesus is not fully divine by nature. 4)There is no event where one accepts Christ and is saved. 5) There is no need to receive Christ. 6) The cross has little meaning in salvation. 7)That unless you have gained a "value" from God, prayer is worthless. 8) Marriages can be dissolved if they are "unprofitable" to one of the partners. Considering how much of the core of the Christian faith he rejects, the fact that he considers his work "evangelical" and "Christian" is amusing in and of itself.
I have read his book and encountered people who have been personally mentored by John. As a pastor in John's community I can attest that his teaching is divisive. Several people influenced by John have had their marriages desinigrate because of John's teaching (including John's own marriage). John is not welcome at virtually any church in our metropolitan area and been asked to leave his own church. That will give you a little flavor of how this book feels as it is lived out in a local area.
My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book. You'll be far more blessed.
Sentence 1: "Modeling God" has 146 scriptural references
Sentence 2: It asserts the same beliefs as "Orthodox Christianity"...the difference is it gives the WHY behind the belief
Sentence 3: "Modeling God" states that the spiritual connection to God is pre-emient over understanding the concepts in the book.
Sentence 1: I have repeatedly explained through e-mail what I "teach". Notice, this review doesn't claim to say what is written in "Modeling God". It goes BEYOND that to claim what I "teach". I don't teach what he states. I literally teach the opposite of several of these points. This claim will become problematic for Tim in the future.
Sentence 1: Sin is that which is done apart from faith (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: What is Sin?)
Sentence 2: Grace is something God freely gives AND we are responsible for our response. (Here is a link to explain this more clearly: Grace)
Sentence 3: Jesus is Fully divine by Nature (The tables in Modeling God just before and just after the one sentence that Tim focuses on in Modeling God shows Jesus is divine by Nature.)
Sentence 4: Becoming "born again" is the event where the individual states their will to consider the spiritual man pre-eminent over the physical man.
Sentence 5: Jesus is the ONLY way to God
Sentence 6: The cross provided the infinite value needed to pay for everyone's sins who ever lived
Sentence 7: You can gain value from others AND praying without value initiates an opportunity to gain value (Modeling God states that praying without value is NOT worthless...Modeling God actually states that it allows God to bring opportunities for you to earn value so the prayer can come about! Tim COMPLETELY ignored several passages in Modeling God to project the point HE wanted to make ONTO Modeling God.)
Sentence 8: This is NOT covered in "Modeling God"!!!!! Is he making this up? (This is another issue that is problematic for Tim. At the time of this post, there was NOTHING PUBLISHED from me about this topic. Tim loves to use the excuse that he doesn't have to find out what I meant concerning topics that are published. He says the information is published so he doesn't have to talk to the author. Here is an example of him intentionally choosing NOT to talk with me about a topic that wasn't published. His excuse to NOT talk to an author about their position stated in a published work is a rationalization. Besides, three months later I published a position on this: "When the marriage is Unprofitable and the ability to be Profitable is proven to be impossible, the couple OUGHT to divorce in order to minimize the Unprofitability." Notice, there is an "and" meaning that BOTH halves of this statement should be factual. This statement more than all the others PROVES Tim is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with his rationalizations.)
Sentence 9: "Evangelical" means to appeal to people through emotion. I don't consider "Modeling God" evangelical...
Sentence 1: I have only mentored one adult and Tim Snell did not talk to him.
Sentence 2: The misinterpretation of my teaching is divisive.
Sentence 3: This isn't true on several fronts...and Tim stated to me in an e-mail he doesn't have to back up this statement.
Sentence 4: I was never asked to leave a church. Again, he needs to back up this statement.
Sentence 5: He hasn't talked to anyone who is living out this book AND is upset.
Sentence 1: His opinion.
Sentence 2: I can show you the contradictions in CS Lewis' book. Tim has yet to accurately show the contradictions in "Modeling God".
JG Lenhart: "The ONLY statement that is factually correct is: "My encouragement would be to save your money are buy a good C.S. Lewis book." ...and I think Tim may end up rethinking that statement."
The rest of this post is factually wrong. Some of it would take a long explanation...some of it has no basis in fact. When it comes to the things that are personal (which he attempts to make look related to the book), I have to ask the questions:
1. Did God tell him to write factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
2. Did Tim make up these factually incorrect statements about my (and others') personal lives?
3. Did Tim write what others told him that was factually incorrect about my and (others') personal lives?
#1 would make him a hypocrite because he has a flawed process when it comes to hearing from God, yet he judges my process for hearing from God.
#2 would make him a liar
#3 would make him a gossiper
UPDATE: Tim had a link to his refutation that was lenharteatsrocks.com. He shared this link with several people...some of them even told him that it wasn't right to have a link like that. Tim immediately took down the link after getting a letter from my lawyer. On 9/27/09, Tim had an elder tell his congregation that the link was a light-hearted joke and that he took it down and apologized to me. Tim has NEVER admitted he has done ANYTHING wrong to me. This was a lie from the pulpit at Tim's church. Again, if it was light-hearted, why lie about apologizing to me...from the pulpit? When the dust settles over this entire situation, the question will be, "Why weren't people in Tim's church able to see their pastor was participating in ungodly behavior?"
Click The Rebuttal to return.