This title isn’t available with your membership

We’re working with the publisher to make it available as soon as possible. If you’d like to read it immediately, you can purchase this title individually.

Request Title
Who is the Holy Spirit, and exactly what does He do?

Many people find the Holy Spirit mysterious, confounding—even controversial. Why is the third person in the Godhead—the one Jesus said would be the believer’s ultimate source of truth and comfort—the source of such confusion?
 
In The God I Never Knew, Robert Morris clearly explains that the Holy Spirit’s chief desire is for relationship--to offer us the encouragement and guidance of a trusted friend. This insightful and biblically-based book moves beyond theological jargon, religious tradition, and cultural misconceptions to clarify what the Holy Spirit promises to do in your life:  
· Dwell within you
· Be your helper
· Guide you into all truth
· Comfort you
· Pray for you
· Show you things to come
· Never leave you

It’s time to experience the Holy Spirit in a fresh, new way—to meet the God you may have never known. 

Includes a small group study guide!



From the Hardcover edition.
Published: WaterBrook Multnomah an imprint of Random House Publishing Group on Aug 16, 2011
ISBN: 9780307729712
List price: $11.99
Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
Availability for The God I Never Knew by Robert Morris
Available as a separate purchase
  1. This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.
Clear rating

I had really high hopes with this book. Too bad that they were mostly completely disappointed.The book represents a Pentecostal's description of the Person, nature, and work of the Holy Spirit.There are some nice descriptions of the importance of understanding the Holy Spirit as a Person; there were also some good thoughts about how the Spirit might communicate with people with thoughts and things of that sort.Nevertheless, the work suffers from a complete flattening of any distance between the modern and the past. I grant that there are many views that act as if there can be no application of many of the passages described in the book for today, but the contrary assumption-- that it might as well be that Jesus et al are speaking to us as to His original audience-- has no greater commendation. John 14:26, for example, was not written to me, nor could it be written to me-- I was not around to hear what Jesus said. I wasn't there on the Mount of Olives in Acts 1, and I certainly wasn't there on the day of Pentecost. Just as it is foolish to think that there is no application, it's just as foolish to think that there is absolutely no difference and no distinction!The misunderstandings of Scripture in this book are legion. The author assumes that all 120 received the baptism of the Holy Spirit; no such statement is made, the antecedent of the pronoun in Acts 2:1 is the eleven disciples and Matthias in Acts 1:26, and Peter's audience speaks to Peter and the other apostles, not all 120, in Acts 2:37. The author likewise makes no distinction between the baptism of the Holy Spirit described in Acts 2, 10, and the laying on of hands of Acts 8, 19, etc., despite the fact that not only does the text make such a distinction, but also Peter himself in Acts 10 and 11-- what happens to Cornelius et al reminds him of what happened to the Twelve on the day of Pentecost, nothing else. The idea that Paul is addressing "prayer language" in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 is not only unnecessary, it also does not make sense of what Paul says. He first says that if he prays in a tongue, his understanding is unfruitful. Thus, he says, he will pray in the Spirit, but also with understanding. The conclusion is NOT that praying in Spirit = praying in tongues. In fact, it's quite the contrary-- Paul will pray in the Spirit but with his faculties of understanding, therefore, NOT in a tongue. And the "three baptism" concept flies in the face of the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4, does not respect context or different word choices, and the author's attempted proofs from the OT mostly fall flat. The idea that the extra "he" from Abram to Abraham represents Hebrew ruach? Where did the author ever come up with such an idea? I don't know and neither will you-- it's left without citation, as if we're just supposed to trust him. I study Hebrew. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't claim to know everything, though, but it's something that is not up for argument when he does not provide his sources. And that's a big problem with this book-- we're just left to trust the author as expositor, and he provides plenty of reason for doubt. His attitude toward those who disagree with him is quite unpleasant and unhelpful. The only reason I go through such things (and am derided for such a view by being called "misinformed" or "fearful, prejudiced, or prideful"-- as if someone is unable to doctrinally and Biblically disagree with the author without losing integrity) is because the author seems to not envision a circumstance where Jesus makes a specific promise to the Twelve, based on the specific authority granted to the Twelve and to no other (cf. Matthew 18:18), and such explains the two baptisms of the Spirit (one to fulfill the promise to the 12, the other to show Peter that God has accepted the Gentiles), and that once the revelation was complete, certain aspects of the Spirit's work would no longer prove necessary, as both 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 and the historical record suggest. Does this mean that the Spirit has no role? Absolutely not. And that's why I ultimately end up quite disappointed with this book. I was hoping for something that was going to be more middle of the road, understanding that it's not the first century and we're not the Twelve while understanding that the Spirit's role is too often diminished.If you're a Pentecostal, you'll love this book. If you're rabidly against Pentecostalism, you won't be able to stand this book. If you're like me and searching for an honest discussion of the Spirit that respects contextual boundaries but also the Spirit's continuing work, save your money and read Francis Chan or some other authors instead.read more
Is this review helpful? Yes | NoThank you for your feedback.

Reviews

I had really high hopes with this book. Too bad that they were mostly completely disappointed.The book represents a Pentecostal's description of the Person, nature, and work of the Holy Spirit.There are some nice descriptions of the importance of understanding the Holy Spirit as a Person; there were also some good thoughts about how the Spirit might communicate with people with thoughts and things of that sort.Nevertheless, the work suffers from a complete flattening of any distance between the modern and the past. I grant that there are many views that act as if there can be no application of many of the passages described in the book for today, but the contrary assumption-- that it might as well be that Jesus et al are speaking to us as to His original audience-- has no greater commendation. John 14:26, for example, was not written to me, nor could it be written to me-- I was not around to hear what Jesus said. I wasn't there on the Mount of Olives in Acts 1, and I certainly wasn't there on the day of Pentecost. Just as it is foolish to think that there is no application, it's just as foolish to think that there is absolutely no difference and no distinction!The misunderstandings of Scripture in this book are legion. The author assumes that all 120 received the baptism of the Holy Spirit; no such statement is made, the antecedent of the pronoun in Acts 2:1 is the eleven disciples and Matthias in Acts 1:26, and Peter's audience speaks to Peter and the other apostles, not all 120, in Acts 2:37. The author likewise makes no distinction between the baptism of the Holy Spirit described in Acts 2, 10, and the laying on of hands of Acts 8, 19, etc., despite the fact that not only does the text make such a distinction, but also Peter himself in Acts 10 and 11-- what happens to Cornelius et al reminds him of what happened to the Twelve on the day of Pentecost, nothing else. The idea that Paul is addressing "prayer language" in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 is not only unnecessary, it also does not make sense of what Paul says. He first says that if he prays in a tongue, his understanding is unfruitful. Thus, he says, he will pray in the Spirit, but also with understanding. The conclusion is NOT that praying in Spirit = praying in tongues. In fact, it's quite the contrary-- Paul will pray in the Spirit but with his faculties of understanding, therefore, NOT in a tongue. And the "three baptism" concept flies in the face of the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4, does not respect context or different word choices, and the author's attempted proofs from the OT mostly fall flat. The idea that the extra "he" from Abram to Abraham represents Hebrew ruach? Where did the author ever come up with such an idea? I don't know and neither will you-- it's left without citation, as if we're just supposed to trust him. I study Hebrew. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't claim to know everything, though, but it's something that is not up for argument when he does not provide his sources. And that's a big problem with this book-- we're just left to trust the author as expositor, and he provides plenty of reason for doubt. His attitude toward those who disagree with him is quite unpleasant and unhelpful. The only reason I go through such things (and am derided for such a view by being called "misinformed" or "fearful, prejudiced, or prideful"-- as if someone is unable to doctrinally and Biblically disagree with the author without losing integrity) is because the author seems to not envision a circumstance where Jesus makes a specific promise to the Twelve, based on the specific authority granted to the Twelve and to no other (cf. Matthew 18:18), and such explains the two baptisms of the Spirit (one to fulfill the promise to the 12, the other to show Peter that God has accepted the Gentiles), and that once the revelation was complete, certain aspects of the Spirit's work would no longer prove necessary, as both 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 and the historical record suggest. Does this mean that the Spirit has no role? Absolutely not. And that's why I ultimately end up quite disappointed with this book. I was hoping for something that was going to be more middle of the road, understanding that it's not the first century and we're not the Twelve while understanding that the Spirit's role is too often diminished.If you're a Pentecostal, you'll love this book. If you're rabidly against Pentecostalism, you won't be able to stand this book. If you're like me and searching for an honest discussion of the Spirit that respects contextual boundaries but also the Spirit's continuing work, save your money and read Francis Chan or some other authors instead.
Is this review helpful? Yes | NoThank you for your feedback.
scribd