Beware the Goofy World of Dan Bohi
From Chuck Milhuff on Dans FB page"Dan the devil HATES what you are doing"
Well now we have reported that during Dan's meetings people are being slain in the spirit.
A comment from one who was at one of Dans rallies
"I could write a book about my experiences over the last eight years but I am hopeful that we will learn from the past. Of course I see that we are on Dan's calendar again in July. I find it interesting that Dan gave instructions in our local church that we will not allow being slain in the spirit (I believe he was given those boundaries). However, just a few days latter he was back at it in other churches. It was also documented in his newsletter. I guess he thinks it is ok to change his message depending on his audience. It seems hypocritical to me."
So in other words Dan has control of the manifestations of this spirit. If a church doesnt like something Dan simply wont make it happen.
Look at where the focus is here folks.
Its on man not the Holy Spirit.
If this was the true Holy Spirit He would not be controlled dependant on what a church or person desires.
If he wanted a whole congregation to fall down He for sure could do this.
So either people are goofing and falling out in Dans meetings just to be a team player.
Or Dan is channeling something else.
So to Chucks article I would say Chuck is mislead.
Here is an article written by a friend of me and Manny Silva's
A Return to Azusa Street:
The Message of Dan Bohi
These are more or less people whose experience is unsatisfactory, who have never been sanctified
wholly, or have lost the precious work out of their hearts, who will run after the hope of
exceptional or marvelous things, to their own further undoing. People who have the precious,
satisfactory experience of Christ revealed in the heart by the Holy Spirit, do not hanker after
strange fire, nor run after every suppositional gift, nor are they blown about by every wind of
doctrine. There is rest only in the old paths where the Holy Spirit Himself imparts to the soul
directly the witness of His cleansing and indwelling.1
On April 9th in 1906, a group of what would be now considered charismatic Christians
gathered into a building located at 312 Azusa Street in the city of Los Angeles, California. Led by
William Seymour, a holiness pastor who studied under the Pentecostal minister Charles Parham, this
group claimed to have come under the active and miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit, citing as
evidence the return of signs and wonders in their midst, as well as the professed evidence of speaking
in tongues. That day, the Azusa Street Revival, the movement which ultimately gave way to the
modern Pentecostal/charismatic movement within American evangelicalism, was born, and the
movement would continue for the better part of the next nine years.
The movement did not escape the notice of ministers on the outside, and a number of these
clergymen took the time to investigate the phenomenon, to see whether or not the things happening
at Azusa Street could be considered true works of the Holy Spirit. One of those ministers who
examined the happenings in this newly formed congregation was Phineas Bresee, the founder of the
Church of the Nazarene denomination, and a staunch adherent to the Wesleyan doctrine of holiness.
When the movement was introduced to outsiders such as Bresee, there was no doubt that Seymour
and other congregants of the church which claimed signs and wonders for itself hoped that such
"manifestations of the Spirit" would become a contagious force that would spread itself throughout
the other churches and spread like wildfire throughout the land. They hoped for acceptance, all the
while exalting what they perceived to be the divine work of God in their midst.
But while some ministers may have given ear to Seymour's pleas for legitimate recognition
and participation in the work of the Holy Spirit, Bresee rejected it instead, and he took to print in
order to state his opposition to the Asuza Street revival. In December of 1906, Bresee published in
the Nazarene Messenger a summary of the happenings at Azusa Street, and gave a negative
evaluation of the movement. In the eyes of Bresee, Azusa was a distraction to the things of God:
Anything that is out of the good old way of entire sanctification, by the truth, through the blood,
by the baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire, which entirely separates and burns up the chaff of
carnality, and then abides to teach, lead, and empower, may well be halted and carefully examined
before being admitted to confidence, or given the semi-endorsement of publication.2
Bresee saw the Pentecostal movement as nothing more than a diversion from biblical
Christianity. As a result, he wanted no part of the movement, and wanted his beloved Church of the
Nazarene (then only a fledgling denomination) to abstain from Azusa's corrupting influence. For as
long as he pastored, Bresee held fast to his conviction that Azusa Street was "fanaticism... fostered
with heretical teaching."3 He saw the holiness doctrine of the Nazarene church incompatible with the
pursuit of miracles and the seeking after of strange tongues.
By no means was Bresee the only minister to condemn the happenings at the Los Angeles
location. Other renowned and scholarly ministers, such as R.A. Torrey, G. Campbell Morgan, and H.
A. Ironside responded with similar disdain concerning the Azusa Street movement, and it has been
cited by authors that, by the time of the movement's end in 1915, the initially Christianized Azusa
Street Revival had degenerated into a spiritist movement, as occultists had begun to join in with the
congregation, doing so without any signs of repentance from dabbling in magic and witchcraft.
Whatever else William Seymour had intended for Azusa Street to be in the beginning, the evidence
suggests that it had become something very different and very distant from orthodox Christianity at
The modern church and Pentecostalism
However, this was not the end. While Azusa Street itself fizzled and died, the movement
succeeded in planting the seeds of the modern Pentecostal and charismatic movement into American
evangelicalism. Crossing boundaries of social, racial, and denominational sorts, and fueled by recent
church innovations such as the altar call (an invention of the nineteenth century pragmatic evangelist
Charles Finney), Pentecostalism in part or whole began to pervade the Sunday morning pews and
pulpits of a great many churches. The attraction came to parishioners in the forms of the attesting of
signs and wonders such as miraculous healing and prophetic visions, the speaking of tongues (and in
particular the "prayer tongue" used in services) and the exuberant, extroverted lifestyles of those who
participated in the movement, both in and out of church.
Along with this came an influx of "faith-healers," ministers who claimed for themselves the
ability given by God to supernaturally heal those who came forward in services and requested
healing, such as William Branham, Oral Roberts, Aimee Semple McPherson, and Kathryn Kuhlman.
Meetings scheduled for these evangelistic miracle workers often brought in massive audiences filled
with those hopeful to experience the healing touch from God, with a great many of them claiming to
have their petitions fulfilled through prayer, laying on of hands, or in being "slain in the Spirit."5
As a result of these things, people either began to flock to Pentecostal services in droves,
leaving their "dead" churches for what they considered to be a vibrant and Spirit-filled body of
believers, or they began to incorporate things seen in Pentecostalism (such as a more emotion-driven
approach to service time, or a heavier emphasis on "listening for God's voice" rather than seeking
God through the Scriptures) into their own congregations. More and more, the measure of
spirituality came not in the form of correct doctrine, but in the form of experience evaluated by
hearing "personal words from God," being "in the Spirit" during singing time via visible movement,
or the exercise of speaking in tongues, even if such activities disrupted the normal flow of a church
Of course, not all of this "new direction in the Holy Spirit" was accepted across the board
without question. Concern was raised over the fact that many of the earliest leaders of the Pentecostal
movement taught questionable doctrines, such as a denial of the Trinity and that Cain was the
product of a sexual union between the serpent and Eve. The movement also suffered as the result of
failed prophetic predictions, such as William Seymour's prediction of Christ's return in 1977, among
others.6 Doubts over the legitimacy of the healing ministries arose, as critics cited the fact that the
professing healers performed their "miracles" in a church or a tent meeting rather than in a hospital.
Nor did it help the movement when it was revealed that some of the healers (such as Ms. Kuhlman)
were raking in rather lucrative amounts of money.
Still, despite this, the movement enjoyed an overall measure of success, a success that
continues today, as the modern evangelical church overall has opened its doors to a good measure of
Pentecostalism. Popular evangelical figures such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer identify themselves
with the charismatic/Pentecostal movement, even though not all of their audience has membership in
Pentecostal churches. The modern style of contemporary worship accepted by many churches (both
Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal) is a style that only a generation or two ago was found almost
exclusively in charismatic/Pentecostal circles. A greater emphasis on listening to the voice of the
Holy Spirit in a manner separate from the study of the Scriptures can be found in a wide array of
sermons, articles, and books, even if the authors do not immediately identify with the Pentecostal
movement. In short, a significant portion of the American evangelical church has become, to a
greater or lesser degree, "Pentecostalized."
With regard to the above matters, the Nazarene denomination is no exception to this rule, as
many parishioners have seen their pews changed into folding seats, their organs and pianos replaced
by rhythm sections and praise leaders, and their pastors emphasize a relationship with God that at
times can come across as an almost mystical and existential experience. But perhaps the most
immediate and egregious change in this area can be seen with the arrival of a speaker who openly
and eagerly embraces most tenets, if not all, of the pentecostal/charismatic movement and is
undertaking an aggressive campaign to see such manifestations in the Nazarene denomination. This
speaker has been welcomed with open arms in many Nazarene churches in America, and his message
makes its way into the ears of multiple congregations across the nation. This speaker is a man by the
name of Dan Bohi.
Who is Dan Bohi?7
The son of a Nazarene evangelist who traveled extensively in his ministerial work, Dan Bohi
was raised in Olathe, Kansas, and (based upon the information gathered) grew up in a strong
Nazarene home. When it came time for college, Dan enrolled in Mid-America Nazarene University,
where he played college basketball and also met his future wife Debbie Owens. Upon graduation,
Dan ventured into the construction business with his father-in-law, which apparently brought about
for him a solid financial base so that he could take care of himself and his family.
In June of 1995, Bohi was involved in an accident. Severely injured due to a collision with a
heavy construction truck, Dan was laid up in the hospital for a considerable amount of time, with
little to do besides read the Bible, an exercise which he engaged in daily and for many hours. As a
result, Dan claimed to have a "personal encounter with Jesus that was truly life-changing," and not
long after his recovery from his accident, Dan Bohi decided to leave the world of construction and
venture into the work of evangelism.
Since then, Bohi has been at work full-time as an evangelist, and is sought after by many in
the Nazarene church. His schedule does not seem to include many empty Sundays, and it is not
unheard of for him to spend more than one day in any given location for the purpose of revival
meetings (or, as it was referred to in one church, "Spiritual Renewal"). Though he does not profess
to have any sort of formal ministerial training and has been referred to by other Nazarenes as a
layman, Dan Bohi believes that he is called by God to do what he does, and that his work is God's
work in the Nazarene church.
In addition to the claim of evangelism, Dan Bohi is considered to be a continuationist, which
means that he advocates what he believes to be the apostolic-era gifts of the Spirit, and declares that
these signs and wonders are to accompany the preaching of the Word of God today. To bolster this
assertion, Bohi has repeatedly testified that healings accompany his ministry, and his claims are
supported by many who have attended his meetings and believed that a manifestation of the Spirit
was present in one form or another, either through miraculous events or through the transformation
of lives. Echoing the messages heard in the charismatic and Pentecostal churches like the Assemblies
of God and The Vineyard Church, as well as topics spoken about by prominent "signs and wonders"
advocates such as Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, Dan Bohi invites the Church of the Nazarene
to join in with these movements and to experience what he believes to be the work of the Holy Spirit
in supernatural ways.
The Nazarene Reaction
The general mood of those who have been introduced to Dan Bohi has been one of
enthusiasm and favor. Many have testified to what they believe was a working of God in some way
while Dan was preaching. Some have claimed healing for issues such as alcoholism and broken
relationships. Others say they have experienced a renewed relationship with the Lord and a fresh
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on their lives. A cursory perusal of the Internet will reveal written
testimonies by people from the Nazarene church who attended a Bohi event and came away from it
relating a strong and powerful story.8
However, not all Nazarenes are pleased with the work of Dan Bohi.9 Some have expressed
concern for what they believe is Dan's overemphasis on spiritual experiences while downplaying
Scriptural focus. Others have taken issue with some of Bohi's statements that seem to indicate
questionable doctrine, including an apparently passive endorsement of prominent people in more
controversial charismatic movements. Still others express great concern that, at a time when the
Nazarene denomination is undergoing an internal struggle between liberal and conservative factions,
Dan Bohi's presence and teaching only serves to add another element of uncertainty and confusion to
the church, making it even more difficult for the church as a whole to remain on the correct path.
Of course, perception on either side can be a purely subjective matter. What is perceived by
one person to be good can be understood by somebody else to be bad, as an individual's perception
by itself is one possible point of view and nothing more. The more crucial question that needs to be
asked and answered concerning Dan Bohi is this: Is the totality of Dan Bohi's ministry, both in
doctrine and in practice, in alignment with the Word of God?
Rightly dividing the words...
As mentioned above, it is not the opinion of one person or another on either side of the
debate that matters in this discussion. What is important is that the things asserted by Dan Bohi in his
sermons be held under scrutiny to the words of Holy Scripture. In order to do that, it is necessary to
take what Mr. Bohi himself has stated while preaching from the platform and hold it next to the
doctrines and truths asserted in the Bible. Like the Bereans in the book of Acts, Christians ought not
to simply accept every single word coming from the mouth of a speaker as the truth, but have a duty
to scrutinize what is said by comparing it with Scripture (I John 4:1).
Before delving into this section, a word of reminder needs to be spoken here: When a
minister speaks from the pulpit, the things he says become a matter of public record, and he is
responsible for those words. He should therefore expect to be held accountable for the things said
publicly to his congregation (to say nothing of his accountability to God), as this is a matter of
examining words spoken in a public gathering, and not extracted through illegal surveillance of a
closed-door meeting. Any person taking upon themselves the right to make a public statement by
default also takes upon themselves the responsibility to answer for that statement, particularly if he is
proven to be wrong about any assertion said before the public, and a pastor is certainly no exception
to this rule. When a pastor's statement is found to be inaccurate, whether by mistake or by deliberate
deception, that pastor has no right to be offended should his statement be scrutinized by somebody
else. Furthermore, contrary to the common objection raised that such examinations are "witch hunts"
or "heresy hunts" by some Christian leaders, holding a minister to such accountability is a good
thing, something expected of us by God, and is a healthy exercise for the church to engage in, so as
to help keep false teaching at bay.
Therefore, in exploring the things said by Dan Bohi, it needs to be remembered that the
following are words that he has indeed said in public, and are available for others to hear. These
were not statements taken from secretive gatherings, nor are they taken out of context from their
The "Logos/Rhema" Teaching
In late February of 2011, Dan Bohi was asked to speak at the M11 conference, a gathering
sponsored by the Church of the Nazarene which took place in Lousiville, Kentucky. In the first ten
minutes of his talk, Bohi makes reference to his belief that better preaching is not going to be the
answer for the church, implying that what is needed is "to flow in the spirit."10 Later, during the same
message, he references the Biblical account of Jesus' time of temptation in the wilderness, making the
following statement concerning the actual words of Christ, and specifically with regard to the third
time He speaks to Satan: "The third time He doesn't state 'It is written;' He states 'It says.'" After this
remark, Bohi goes on to say the following:
I think when the written word and the Spirit come together, it no longer remains logos, it
becomes rhema. It becomes revelation. And see, without revelation we perish.11
The words logos and rhema are the words ascribed to Jesus' verbal response to Satan during
the three times Jesus was tempted. In the Biblical account, the first two instances in which Jesus
replies to Satan involve the use of the Greek word logos, which translate into the English for "word"
in the sense of something written down, hence the translation "It is written" for the beginning of
Christ's rebukes against the devil. However, in the third response, a different Greek word is used: not
logos but rhema, which in its strictest form translates to "word" in the sense of something said,
implying a spoken rather than written word, even though most English translations with regard to
this passage (such as the King James Version) render it as "It is written" rather than "It is said" for the
purpose of continuity.
What Dan Bohi is doing with this passage is making an implication that there is a significant
difference of spiritual proportion in Jesus' switching from logos to rhema. The meaning suggested by
his rhetoric is that logos is somehow an incomplete usage of the Word of God, and that the Holy
Spirit must be combined with the written word in order for the Word to become effective (thus
producing rhema). In the thinking of Bohi, the written Word alone is insufficient, but must have a
sort of infusion of the Spirit in order for anything transformational to occur in the life of a Christian.
As such, Bohi extracts from this passage a significant difference in meaning between logos and
rhema, and builds a doctrinal point upon this perceived difference, as seen in the quote above.
But is there such a difference in the two words? Is the passage referring to Christ's temptation
all about the superiority of rhema over logos? While there is little disagreement with regard to the
necessity of the Holy Spirit as an active Agent in tandem with the Scriptures, is there any indication
from the Bible that the term rhema truly implies some sort of spiritual superiority over and above the
usage of logos?
A good number of evangelical Christians with a solid background in the Greek language
would take serious issue with Dan Bohi's doctrinal assertion that logos and rhema possess any
significant difference in the sense he maintains. Lars Loever, a missionary to India, contends that the
two words, contrary to Dan Bohi's claim, are not on different spiritual levels from each other, but
instead are found to be interchangeable in many passages of Scripture:
First example: the term “word of God” as it is compared to a sword, is described both with rhema and
with logos. In Ephesians 6:17 “rhema” is used: “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word (RHEMA) of God.”
But in Hebrews 4:12 “logos” is used: “For the Word (LOGOS) of God is living and powerful, and
sharper than any two-edged sword , piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
If we were to rephrase these two verses according to the rhema/logos doctrine, it would be described
something like this: “Using the Word that God speaks especially to you (rhema) become a sword of
the Spirit. Using the Written word of God (logos) will discern your thoughts and intents of the heart.”
It doesn’t make much sense, does it? If it really was such a difference between logos and rhema as the
doctrine claims, only the word ”rhema” should be consistently used in BOTH verses, since both times
the word of God is compared to the “sword."12
Mr. Loever continues on, documenting the uses of the forms of logos and rhema with regard
to Paul's preaching of the Word (Acts 13:42-44) and in reference to Peter's usage of both terms in a
manner suggesting equivalence of meaning (I Peter 1:23-25).13 Clearly, such interchanging of the
Greek terms in the Bible does not suggest any type of superiority of the rhema over and above the
Damon Whitsell, who runs the group blog "The Word on the Word of Faith" has this to say
concerning the logos/rhema discussion: "In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and in the Greek
New Testament rhema and logos are used interchangeably. They are used synonymously and there is
no difference between logos and rhema at all."14
The website biblestudying.net also contains an article which documents the usage of these
words in Scripture. Using three parallel passages concerning Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial of Him
on the night of His arrest (Matthew 26:75, Mark 14:72, and Luke 22:61), the article goes states that:
The Matthew and Mark accounts refer to Jesus' word that Peter would deny him three times before the
rooster crowed using the Greek word "rhema" for Jesus' "word." The Luke account, however, refers to
Jesus' "word" that Peter would deny him three times before the rooster crowed using the Greek word
"logos" for Jesus' "word." By comparing these 3 accounts side by side we can see that both "rhema"
and "logos" can refer to a prophetic spoken word.15
That the two words are used in Scripture without any apparent preference for one over the
other in any significant way is directly at odds with Bohi's claim that the use of rhema is somehow
inherently superior to the use of logos. This is even more alarming when looking at John 1:1, where
Jesus is referred to as the Word (logos). Surely one would think that rhema would be preferred here
since the text refers to God Incarnate and not simply written words on a page!
If there were nothing more to this matter, one could simply rebuke Dan Bohi for a careless
mishandling of the Greek and move on. After all, while mishandling Greek is something that should
not be overlooked, it is not as serious a charge as a complete denial of a core Christian doctrine such
as Original Sin or the penal substitution atonement.
Unfortunately, this is not the end of the matter, nor can this be dismissed as a minor error to
be ignored. The false logos/rhema comparison which Dan Bohi has propagated did not originate
with him. On the contrary, this error has its roots in an evangelical movement which has taken the
Scriptures and turned them into a sort of "wax nose" for applying unscriptural doctrine from the
The logos/rhema comparison can be traced back to the Word of Faith movement, a
subdivision of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. Claiming to continue the work started at the
Azusa Street Revival, and spearheaded by leaders such as William Branham, Oral Roberts, Kenneth
Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Aimee Semple McPherson, Benny Hinn, and others, the Word of Faith
movement places a strong emphasis on signs and wonders.16 As with the rest of Pentecostalism/
charismaticism, the Word of Faith movement believes in regular manifestations of the Holy Spirit
regarding healings, personal words and revelations given directly from God, the use of speaking in
tongues in both the personal and corporate prayer times, and even such extreme forms of claimed
manifestations such as hysterical "laughing in the Spirit" (such as with Rodney Howard-Browne and
the Toronto Blessing movement). Core to the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement is the tenant
that one can receive anything desired from God provided that one exercise enough faith to receive it,
thus giving it the nickname of "Prosperity Teaching" or "Name-it-and-claim-it" theology. Failure to
obtain what one has asked for (such as divine healing from disease or receiving financial funds) is
often attributed to a lack of faith on the part of the hopeful believer or a failure to positively and
verbally confess aloud that which one claims in the name of Jesus for his own (rhema), rather than
considering the possibility that it is God's will for the request to be answered in a way different than
The principle of logos/rhema differentiation runs rampant throughout the Word of Faith
camp, and could be considered one of the foundational teachings of the movement. John
MacArthur, pastor at Grace Community Church in California, expounds upon the use of logos and
rhema in the Word of Faith movement by referencing the late Charles Farah, once a professor of
theological and historical studies at Oral Roberts University, and a major proponent of this teaching
as early as the 1970's:
Noting that there are two Greek words translated "word" he [Farah] devised the theory that logos is the
objective, historic Word and rhema is the personal, subjective Word. The problem with that idea is
that neither the Greek meaning nor the New Testament usage make any such distinction. The logos,
said Farah, becomes rhema when it speaks to you. The logos is forensic while the rhema is
experiential. Farah wrote, "The logos doesn't always become the rhema, God's Word to you." In other
words, the logos becomes rhema when it speaks to you. The historic, objective logos in Farah's
system, has no transforming impact until it becomes rhema-your own personal word from God.17
Even in this brief summary, one can see the similarities between Farah's doctrine and the
teaching given by Dan Bohi at the M11 conference in which he downplayed the necessity of
preaching while extolling rhema over and above logos.
But MacArthur does not stop there with his analysis. He goes on to issue a stern warning
concerning this doctrine:
That [referring to Farah's logos/rhema doctrine] sounds dangerously close to what neoorthodox
theologians have been saying for years: that the Bible becomes God's Word only when it speaks to
you. But God's Word is God's Word whether someone experiences its power or not. The Bible doesn't
depend on the experience of its readers to become the inspired word of God.18
In other words, according to MacArthur, those espousing the logos/rhema doctrine are at the
very least flirting with the same sort of thinking that ultimately undermines the objective authority of
the Bible itself.
At the very least, this information about the logos/rhema doctrine concerning what it is and
the persons and movements with which it is associated should make one wonder why Dan Bohi
would use this same sort of rhetoric in his message. As has been shown, there is neither Scriptural nor
rational ground for attributing such a radical difference in meaning to the two words, and this alone
raises questions concerning Dan Bohi's competence with regard to his knowledge of the original
Greek languages. And even if Bohi does not mean to imply the same things as those in the more
radical wing of Christianity, why would he chance such a wrong impression by proceeding with his
chosen phrasing, a phrasing utilized by individuals associated with a far more radical understanding
of the Bible, one that is radically different from traditional Nazarene doctrine?
Resurrections from the dead
I prayed for a man. My brother and I were in revival in Coffeeville, Kansas... and we prayed for a man
who was dead... and he came back to life. I prayed for a man when I did a revival at the Roy Clark
Theatre in Branson... and he came back to life. I prayed for a man in Olathe, Kansas at a Tuesday night
revival service at 9:04 pm... and he came back to life. I haven’t raised 600, like Heidi and Rolland.. but
I’ve done three because I’m a Nazarene and a Nazarene always has three points.
We prayed three times in our services for people that had been raised from the dead. I don’t feel
comfortable about that, ‘cause I’m a Nazarene. And I don’t like to disrupt people and I probably
wouldn’t pray for them if I knew they were dead but these people were dead and they came back alive.19
The two paragraphs above are direct quotations from Dan Bohi given during his message
"Walking in the Spirit Part 1." In both of these quoted portions, Bohi gives an apparent testimony to
something that can only be considered supernaturally miraculous: the resurrection of people from
the dead through prayer. According to Dan's own testimony, he has brought back three people from
the dead while giving a nod of acknowledgement toward a couple by the name of Heidi and Rolland
who have "raised 600" (These two people referenced by Bohi will be addressed later). Dan himself
admits that he is uncomfortable with it, although this does not seem to deter him from engaging in
the practice, which he believes has successfully raised people from the dead.
Obviously this is not a point which can be treated in a cavalier manner. To profess that
people have been raised from the dead though ministry is no small detail; on the contrary, it is
essentially claiming for oneself the same sort of miraculous workings that took place in the first
century during the ministry of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Without any question, that a minster of
God can claim resurrections occurring in their ministry would be at the very least a strong persuasion
in favor of the legitimacy of signs and wonders, not to mention the fact that such miracles,
accompanied by verified documentation, would be a strong factor in turning people to believe the
But the converse point is just as true, and just as significant: if a minister's claims to have
raised people from the dead turn out to be false, that minister is engaged in gross and heinous sin.
Such a man ought to step down immediately from his position as a minister and repent before God
and the church of bearing false witness in the name of Jesus Christ.
Before continuing, it needs to be established that the first and obvious impression given by
Mr. Bohi in the above quotes is that he is speaking of literal, bodily resurrections from the dead.
More elaboration will come concerning this, but for now it needs to be made clear that nothing in
those paragraphs nor in the remainder of the message suggests that Bohi is speaking spiritually or
metaphorically about resurrecting people from the dead, and it is highly encouraged that the reader
check the source for the quotes above and hear the words in their entire context to verify this.
So how should this be dealt with? How should Bohi's claims that at least three dead people
have been brought back to life as a result of his prayers be treated? Is he speaking the truth
concerning these resurrections, or is he sensationalizing his ministry for his own purposes? Before
coming to this conclusion, two important matters must be brought to light.
First, no verifiable documentation can be found to confirm his claims of three literal
resurrections. There has been no known verification of these resurrections through the presentation
of medical reports which would provide documentation for date, time, and cause of death, which
would in turn verify Bohi's claims of resurrection. Nothing about such resurrections or correlating
documentation can be found on Dan Bohi's website, which is rather surprising considering that the
magnificence of such evidence presented publicly would confirm the occurrence of the miracles and
dispel any doubts.
To add to the puzzlement, attempts have been made to contact Bohi's ministry requesting
more information concerning these resurrections. Bohi's ministry, for whatever reason, has not
responded to these requests. At the very least, this lack of verifiable evidence concerning the claims
of resurrection does not cast Bohi's assertions in a positive light.20
Second, history does not side with Dan Bohi concerning the resurrection of dead people in
the post-apostolic church era. There are no verifiable reports of the raising of people from the dead
in any sort of legitimate ministry. On the contrary, the most notable name associated with any sort of
resurrections is that of self-proclaimed healer and evangelist Smith Wigglesworth (1859-1947), who
also claimed to bring people back from the dead. This, however, is a most unfortunate association, as
not one of Wigglesworth's claims regarding resurrections is accompanied by any sort of official
evidence giving credence to his alleged resurrections.21
As such, this puts Dan Bohi in poor company with regard to his credibility concerning the
dead returning to life. The two factors listed above combine to raise serious doubts concerning the
legitimacy of the claims of resurrection. That Dan Bohi, 1.) has not produced any sort of verifiable
facts or documentation concerning his claimed resurrections and, 2.) is not supported by historical
evidence of resurrections happening in the church (or at least none verified by credible evidence) is
troubling, and does nothing to support his assertions stated above. As referenced earlier: this is not a
light matter to be dismissed out of hand. Any sort of false assertion made from the pulpit is sinful,
but far more heinous in nature is making unsubstantiated claims of the miraculous sort. For Dan Bohi
to say that he has resurrected three people from the dead through prayer yet provide no reliable
sources of confirmation to verify his declarations is irresponsible proclamation at the very least, and
duplicitous rhetoric at very worst.
In response to this, some Nazarenes have defended Bohi's statements as referring to people
who are spiritually dead rather than physically dead. They believe that Dan is not referring to literal
resurrection in these statements, but instead is using a figurative depiction of death to describe the
spiritual regeneration of people.22 However, the response of attributing a non-literal meaning to
Bohi's words falls short of its intent for the following reasons:
1.) By Dan Bohi's own admission in relation to his prayer for dead people, he states that he
didn't "feel comfortable with that," and that he "probably wouldn't pray for them if I knew they were
dead." If by his words he is referring to spiritually unregenerate people who are dead in their
trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2), why would such a thing be uncomfortable for him to do? What
would be so troublesome for a Christian (and a Christian evangelist at that!) concerning prayer for
spiritually dead people? Christians pray all the time for unbelieving friends and relatives, asking God
to regenerate hearts and open eyes toward the gospel. Why would Dan Bohi have a reluctance to
engage in an activity in which Christians from many different denominations (including the
Nazarene denomination) participate on a regular basis?
2.) In his quote, Bohi mentions that he has not raised six hundred like "Heidi and Rolland."
This is a reference to Heidi and Rolland Baker, a missionary couple in Africa who have claimed to
literally—not spiritually, but literally—raised the dead during their mission work. Heidi and Rolland
Baker are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation,23 as well as the Toronto Blessing movement,
a charismatic movement spearheaded by John Arnott (head pastor of the Toronto Airport Vineyard
Church) and associated with controversial speakers such as Rodney Howard-Browne, propagator of
the unscriptural "laughing revival."24 If Dan Bohi is speaking about spiritual rather than physical
resurrection, why would he bring up the names of two people prominently known for their
proclamations of physically raising the dead in their ministry? If Bohi wanted to compare "spiritual
resurrections" with anybody, wouldn't it be more proper to refer to John Wesley? Or George
Whitefield? Or Billy Graham? Why reach for an obscure reference to people known for a
controversial claim to literal resurrections when Bohi's aim is to give testimony to spiritual ones?
3.) Frankly, the context of the above statements does not even suggest that Dan Bohi might
be referring to anything other than actual, physical resurrection of dead people. Putting aside for a
moment the lack of language suggesting anything other than real resurrection from the dead, the fact
that Bohi claimed to have raised "only three" if he were talking about spiritual resurrections would
imply that only three people have been spiritually regenerated during his evangelistic ministry. In
light of testimonies given from Nazarenes claiming to be changed for the better during Bohi's
ministry (which surely must include spiritual regeneration), does that even make sense?
In light of these factors used to examine Dan Bohi's words, the plain point made is
inescapable: regardless of how some wish to spin or reinterpret the quotes given above, Dan Bohi
gives the very clear impression that he has literally raised people from the dead. That he does so
without putting forth any sort of verifiable documentation to justify his claims, and compares his
work with that of a missionary couple affiliated with a controversial charismatic movement, sends up
a red flag suggesting either careless wording concerning his assertions, duplicitous speech for the
sake of sensationalism, or an outright propagation of a charismatic tenet unsupported by the facts.
Personal Words from God
Even when giving his messages only superficial attention, it is obvious to any listener that
Dan Bohi emphasizes an immediacy of miraculous divine intervention in his messages. In fact, it
does not stretch the emphasis too far to state that, at the core of many of his messages, Bohi has a
strong desire for the Nazarene church to embrace a full-fledged continuationist understanding of
Christianity much like that of the charismatic and Pentecostal circles of evangelicalism, with a focus
upon an infilling of the Holy Spirit. After listening to some of his sermons, one might begin to
wonder whether or not Bohi has established the pursuit of signs and wonders as the foundational
doctrine upon which he builds all of his other teachings.
One of the continuationist tenets put forth by Bohi is the seeking of personal words from
God, the idea that God is supposed to speak to believers directly; not only through His Word, but
also through a real voice either "to the heart" or sometimes in a voice as audible as that of one person
directly speaking to another. Around the first eight and a half minutes into his sermon "Walking in
the Spirit Part 1," he claims that God healed him of his diabetes by telling him to drink water.25 In his
message at the M11 conference, Bohi admits to asking for a direct word from God, Who responded
by telling him to get a Bible.26 Later in the same message, he claimed that God told him directly
through the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel "til you die."27 He then goes on to say this:
I was doing this revival in Springfield and I was preaching on Elijah.. and about three-fourths of the
way through the Lord interrupted me and said, "Tell someone over here they're being healed." And,
you see, that's not comfortable for a guy who's been raised Nazarene, because that's what they do in the
Spirit church.... And so when the Lord tells me, "Hey, I want you to say someone over here's being
healed, I'm a little nervous and I'm thinking maybe He's confused. And I'm trying to tell him, "Hey
God, you got the wrong guy. My name is Danny Bohi, not Benny."28
That Dan Bohi believes he hears directly from God in personal words is not in question. Nor
it is overreaching to suggest, based upon the supernatural emphasis in his messages, that he would
like to see more of these "Personal Words from God" occur in the Nazarene church in general. His
overall thrust for signs and wonders to occupy a prevalent place in the present day Nazarene
congregations seems to be underscored by his claims of hearing direct revelation from God.
However, the encouragement of the practice of seeking after such direct communication with
the Holy Spirit runs at odds with the whole of Scripture. There is, in fact, no passage in the Bible,
either in the Old or New Testament, which remotely suggests that Christians are to be seeking after
such Personal Words from God. To the contrary, when we read the Bible, we see a continual
reference back to the established words of Scripture rather than the pursuit of supernatural voices
(John 5:39, I Timothy 3:16-17, Hebrews 4:12). When Jesus was tempted by Satan, his response was
the written Word (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). The apostle Paul warned the church of the Galatians against
compromising the word of the gospel, going so far as to state that any false gospel should be rejected
even if it were presented by an angelic being (Galatians 1:8). Furthermore, when Paul gave Timothy
instructions regarding his ministry, he said nothing about looking for Personal Words from God, but
rather turned his focus back to the written Word (II Timothy 2:15). The apostle John warns his
readers to not believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to see whether or not they are from God:
something that is obviously done by knowing and applying Scriptural doctrine (I John 4:1).
In fact, pursuing after direct divine revelations is a dangerous road for the Christian to
follow. Consider the words of the Welsh preacher Martin Lloyd-Jones on the matter:
Let us imagine I follow the mystic way. I begin to have experiences; I think God is speaking to me;
how do I know it is God who is speaking to me? How can I know I am not speaking to man; how can I
be sure that I am not the victim of hallucinations, since this has happened to many of the mystics? If I
believe in mysticism as such without the Bible, how do I know I am not being deluded by Satan as an
angel of light in order to keep me from the true and living God? I have no standard... The evangelical
doctrine tells me not to look into myself but to look into the Word of God; not to examine my self,
but to look at the revelation that has been given to me. It tells me that God can only be known in His
own way, the way which has been revealed in the Scriptures themselves.29
Dr. Lloyd-Jones points out an obvious truth that many in the continuationist movement
either do not stop to consider or do not care to consider: the very real possibility that these "direct
words from God" in fact may be delusional imaginations; or worse yet, influence from the devil.
Unlike the written Word, which has an objective standard and reference point for the believer to
return to and anchor himself, the claims of divine revelations are rooted in the subjective and the
experiential, and have as a basis in truth only the pragmatic outcome regarding what is said. For
example, if a man receives a divine message that the next day his boss will give him a thousand
dollar raise, and that raise comes to pass, he may conclude that his message came directly from God.
But in truth there is no way of knowing that for sure, as a demon could have given him this same
message just as easily. That the "revelation" turned out to be true does not necessarily mean that the
source of the divine revelation was God.
Throughout history, a great many movements that were questionable at best and heretical at
worst have been started by people claiming to receive Personal Words from God and other such
direct divine revelations. Muhammed, the founder of Islam, claimed to have direct revelation from
the angel Gabriel concerning the truth of Allah's religion. In the thirteenth century, a twelve-year-old
boy by the name of Stephen of Cloyes claimed to have a direct message from Jesus that he was to
take a "Children's Crusade" to Israel for the purpose of converting the Muslims: a crusade that was
ultimately deemed a failure.30 Joseph Smith, the founder of the heretical Mormon church, claimed
visitation not only from an angel named Moroni, but also directly from Jesus Christ and God the
Father, informing him that all of the contemporary Christian denominations "had turned aside from
the gospel," and it is through these revelations as well that Smith began teaching that God the Father
was a being of physical nature rather than spiritual.31 Ellen G. White, founder of the Seventh Day
Adventist group (which demands of its members an Old Testament adherence to Saturday and
emphasizes a nearly legalistic attitude concerning vegetarianism), claimed to receive visions from
God.32 William Seymour, the preacher responsible for the Azusa Street revival, believed that the
Holy Spirit had revealed to him that the Church would be raptured by the date 1977.33 In more
recent history, John Hinkle, a man associated with the charismatic movement, proclaimed that on
June 9th, 1994 the Lord would "rip the evil out of this world," a prophecy that, to this date, has had
no verification of fulfillment.34
At the very least, such accounts should give others such as Dan Bohi concern as to what they
think they may be hearing (assuming they are telling the truth when they say so) when they believe
God is giving them direct revelation. That so many others in history have espoused heretical
doctrines and sinful practices because "God told them" ought to give pause to anybody who believes
they have received a personal Word from God.35 Pastor Bob DeWaay of CIC Ministries has this to
say about direct revelations:
It is abusive to make (Personal Words from God) to be special revelations of God’s will either to an
individual or to a church. These “words” never have the quality of being “certainly from God.” When
we take them to be that when they are not, then we have become false prophets to our own selves or to
John MacArthur agrees with this assessment as well:
The only trustworthy source of divine truth, guidance for your own spiritual growth, and instruction
for the church is the written Word of God. No emotional urging or mystical experience can trump the
concrete, fundamental truth God has given us in Scripture. Does God still speak? Yes, but not in an
audible voice. He speaks through the pages of Scripture.37
Signs and Wonders?
As mentioned earlier, with regard to the actual matter of signs and wonders themselves, Dan
Bohi puts them front and center in his ministry. His messages are filled with testimonies of those who
claim to have received divine healing through his prayers and laying on of hands, and he anxiously
believes that such miraculous events are still available for the church at large and are to be exercised
for the purpose of making an evangelical impact upon the world.38 So zealous and fanatical is Dan
Bohi for this manifestation of gifts that one has to wonder why he has not openly referred to himself
as a charismatic, since his general message concerning the gifts of the Spirit contains very little that
differs from charismatics such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, or any other prominent
charismatic preacher when speaking on the same subject .
But as with the Personal Words from God, is this something that the church should be
actively pursuing? Is the seeking of signs and wonders as a regular part of a believer's life supported
by Scripture? Are we to embrace the doctrine of any speaker solely on the basis of their claims that
miracles have happened during their ministry?
Before we answer that, there is a misconception of Scripture that must be settled. When one
listens to Dan Bohi and others advocating the continuationist position, the impression is sometimes
given that each and every page of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is full of accounts involving
divine miracles. But this is far from the truth. The fact of the matter is that, when the entire time span
of thousands of years of Biblical history from Creation to the closing of the canon in Revelation is
taken into account, miracles are truly few and far between. With occasional exceptions found here
and there, the majority of Biblical miracles can be found in only three places: 1.) the time of Moses
and the exodus, 2.) the time of Elijah and Elisha, and 3.) the time of Jesus and the apostles. The fact
of the matter is that the Bible does not record direct, miraculous intervention by God as often as is
perceived by those seeking signs and wonders.
And when the Bible does address signs and wonders, it does not exalt them to the extent that
many do in the modern charismatic movement. On the contrary, the Bible always places miracles on
a lower level of importance than the written Word of God and the sound doctrine it contains. For
example, in Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Moses warns of the danger of heeding the voice of a false prophet
who would tempt the Israelites to serve other gods. But note the first part of this passage regarding
what it says about signs and wonders:
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous
sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us
follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," yo must not listen to the
words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love
him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow. (Deut
Do not miss the significance of that italicized phrase. This passage is quite clear concerning
the superiority of Scriptural doctrine (in this case, the forbidding of idolatry) over the working of
any sort of miraculous event. The Israelites were not to violate any of God's commands, even if the
false prophet propagating the violation performed a sign or wonder to confirm his unscriptural view.
The working of miracles was never to be used as the primary test of truth for the people of God.
Doctrine was always to be placed above signs and wonders in importance. This needs to be
remembered in light of the fact that cultic movements such as the Mormons and the Christian Science
movement (both of whom deny core Christian doctrines) affirm what they believe to be the real
working of miracles in their congregations.39
Related to this point is that a minister's gift of performing signs and wonders did not make
that minister infallible. In Galatians 2:11-16, Paul writes to the church about an incident occurring
between him and Peter, during which he had to publicly rebuke his fellow apostle for falling prey to
the influence of the Judaizers, a group attempting to place Christians under the law as a condition for
salvation. This is the same Peter who brought Tabitha back to life (Acts 9:40-43), who received a
divine vision from God three times concerning the clean and the unclean (Acts 10:9-16), and from
whom people hoped to receive a miracle from even the passing over of his shadow (Acts 5:15). This
same Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for giving in to the pressure of a false group. The lesson from
this for us is clear: even if a minister's claims concerning signs and wonders are true, it does not
necessarily follow that every word or action of that minister is to be received without question or
examination. The miracles are not to be exalted in such a way as to overshadow any incorrect
doctrine uttered from the pulpit.
Furthermore, the impression by Dan Bohi often given concerning these gifts is that the
church is unable to effectively function without them. Frankly, this is a foolish thing to say since it is
the gospel, and not miracles, that brings people to saving faith in Jesus Christ. God is not so helpless
that He cannot change hearts and lives without the sensational accompaniment of signs and wonders
in ministry; to imply otherwise is to rob the Holy Spirit of His efficacious power in conversion. In
addition, a great many men of God through church history have been used by God to bring
salvation to multitudes without the benefit of miracles, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan
Edwards, George Whitefield, and Bohi's own John Wesley (who, as far as is known, did not perform
any such signs and wonders as Bohi advocates, yet successfully brought the gospel to many hearts
and saw many conversions in his time preaching in England).40 Neither God nor His people are so
dependent upon the immediate displays of the visibly supernatural that the gospel would be fruitless.
On the contrary, the miracle of salvation is that it is the Holy Spirit who changes the heart,
transforming it not by virtue of any healing or other miracle on the outside, but by the regeneration
of one's very heart and soul on the inside.
Finally, there is a warning in Scripture that should be considered by all Christians, but
especially by those leaning toward the charismatic gifts. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus gives a grim
reminder to us that not everybody calling Him "Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven. He goes on
to give the defense offered by many of those who will not see eternal life ("Did we not prophesy in
your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?"). Note the reason
given by those expelled from the kingdom for their appeal to entrance in these verses: their works,
and in particular their miraculous works. They counter against Christ's command to depart from him
by pointing to their works as the reason for entrance, rather than running to the cross and trusting in
the finished work of Jesus Christ alone for their eternal life. This passage serves to remind all
Christians that a person's works, even works that appear to be on the level of miraculous, are not the
basis for entrance into eternal life.
As a fitting conclusion to this passage, the Nazarene Church would be wise to heed the words
spoken by Presbyterian Pastor Harold Polk which were said in passing with regard to chapter seven
Just because a man wears the collar, or bears the title of Christian clergy, whether in this church or
any other, and just because a person claims to be acting in the name, or to be led by the spirit of
Jesus Christ; this does not alone entitle that person to the respect, and to the obedience, of
So with all of this information, what is to be concluded concerning Dan Bohi? How should
his ministry, with its exaltation of the miraculous above the mundane, be viewed? How should the
things he has spoken from the pulpit concerning both teaching and testimony be treated and
evaluated? After examining all of the evidence, considering what Dan Bohi has said in light of
teachings and doctrines espoused in the charismatic community, and after examining prominent
points made in his messages via words on those same topics from respected authorities in the
evangelical world, and finally after subjecting his statements to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, one of
two conclusions have been reached from which a final verdict must be established. And regardless of
the conclusion taken, neither option is good; whether a man misleads by ignorance or misleads by
deceit, it does not change the fact that he still misleads.42
The first conclusion is the most gracious and least concerning position which can be reached
without ascribing a duplicitous motive: that Dan Bohi is misled in significant ways. His statements
with regard to the logos/rhema discussion denote ignorance in relation to the understanding and
usage of biblical Greek, which has in turn caused him to reach an unscriptural position concerning
the words. His testimony concerning raising people from the dead is not backed by verifiable
evidence, which at best is a terrible oversight on the part of his ministry for failing to produce any
such documentation; and if by his words regarding resurrections he means the regeneration of
spiritually dead people, his choice of wording for the initial topic is poor and ought to be publicly
retracted. His emphasis on signs, wonders, and personal words from God come across as an
exaltation of what he believes to be the Holy Spirit over and above the written Word, thus drawing
people towards spiritual experiences rather than directing them to the concrete foundation of the
Scriptures. And even if this is the correct conclusion pertaining to Mr. Bohi, which grants him the
benefit of the doubt by ascribing neglect and ignorance to his assertions, it still requires Nazarene
leadership to approach him, to point out to him the error of his ways, and to lead him back into a
more surefooted and biblically grounded manner of ministry.
However, the other possible conclusion to reach based upon the evidence is far more
troubling: that Dan Bohi is intentionally attempting to bring the Nazarene denomination into the
sphere of the charismatic movement. The possibility here is that Dan Bohi knows full well what he is
promoting, and the fact that he has referenced the charismatic church more than once in his
messages, including controversial people such as Heidi and Rolland Baker, suggests that this second
position is a very real possibility. Of equal plainness and apprehension is that much of his talk
smacks of the rhetoric used by extreme charismatic preachers, notably those in the Word of Faith
movement such as the late Oral Roberts and Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn;
men who have espoused theology that at the very least flirts with heresy and turns the gospel into a
theology that demands signs and wonders done for the service of the believer, making God in effect
a cosmic bellhop bound to the whim of His people. Even if Dan Bohi does not subscribe to the most
extreme excesses of the charismatic movement, his teaching is without a doubt a step in that
direction, and at times he seems more than willing to push the Nazarene church into the camp of
charismaticism, and doing so at the expense of falling prey to the fringe elements of that movement.
When charismaticism reared its head in Azusa Street, Phineas Bresee rightly wanted to
preserve the Church of the Nazarene, and kept his distance from the movement. Now, Dan Bohi with
his charismatic theology is attempting to reverse the course established by Bresee, trying to bring
"strange fire" into the congregation. The Church of the Nazarene needs to remember its roots, to
hold fast to the written Word of God in steadfast faith without becoming distracted by teachers such
as Dan Bohi who sacrifice what God has put forth in the Bible for perceived miracles and a faith
dependent upon experience rather than upon the promises and truths God has given in His Word. In
short, the Church of the Nazarene needs to walk by faith, and not by sight.
1 "Phineas Bresee" retrieved March 30th, 2013 from http://www.azusastreet.org/AzusaStreetBresee.htm
4 For an in-depth treatment of the Azusa Street Revival, go to http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2004/2004-08-24a.htm and http://
5 A history of many of the Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders can be found at "The Strange History of Pentecostalism" (http://
7 Dan Bohi Bio info retrieved March 30th, 2013from http://godfreynazarene.org/PDF/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Dan'sMinistryBio2.pdf
9 Two Nazarenes who have been at the forefront of concern with regard to Dan Bohi are Manny Silva (http://
reformednazarene.wordpress.com/) and Tim Wirth (http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/), both of whom have posted information concerning Mr.
Bohi on their respective websites.
10 "M11 Plenary Service-Dan Bohi" retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://vimeo.com/20791878
12 Loever, Lars, "Too much Greek? a challenge to the rhema/logos doctrine" Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from
14 "Rhema and Logos: There is No Difference!!!" Retrieved March 31st, 2013 from http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2010/04/16/
15 "The 'Rhema' and 'Logos' Word (Part 2)" Retrieved March 31st, 2013 from http://www.biblestudying.net/charismatic37.html
16 For more detailed information concerning leaders of the Word of Faith movement, please see the well-written articles found on the website
of Personal Freedom Outreach at http://pfo.org/res2a.htm
17 MacArthur, John, Charismatic Chaos,Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, pp45-46.
18 Ibid., p 46
19 Bohi, Dan, "Walking in the Spirit Part 1," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://www.graceandpeacemagazine.org/louisville-m11/180-
20 This Author is among those who has attempted to contact Dan Bohi's ministry. Twice, private messages were sent to Bohi's Facebook
ministry page requesting information concerning these resurrections. To this date, there has been no response of any type, not even an
acknowledgement that the sent request was received.
21 For more detail concerning Smith Wigglesworth and his alleged healing ministry, go to http://taministries.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/
22 A Nazarene named Mark who runs a blog entitled Holiness Unto the Lord is among those attempting to defend Dan Bohi for this response:
"There was talk in the first meeting about our ability to raise people from the dead. That brought up a large red flag for my wife and I. We
took notes and went home and prayed that God would reveal what Dan Bohi meant by this and was he literally talking about raising someone’s
physical body from the dead. The Patricia King/Joshua Mills group is actually trying to do this, going to funeral homes asking people to let them
‘practice.’ The very next day, the prayer we prayed was answered as Dan explained that, “people are dead in their sin, their trespasses and
are in need of us ‘resurrecting’ them by sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.” ("What is the deal with Dan?" Retrieved April 2nd from http://
However well-intentioned he may be in his defense of Dan Bohi, Mark misses the essence of Bohi's message. Nowhere in the quoted section
from "Walking in the Spirit Part 1" does Bohi imply that his talk of resurrecting people from the dead is to be understood in any sense other than
a literal sense. Unfortunately, in his haste to clear Dan Bohi's name, Mark ignores this stark fact.
23 See "Christianity Today Should Retract or Correct Cover Article on New Apostolic Leader Heidi Baker," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from
24 Hannegraaf, Hank, "The Counterfeit Revival," Retrieved April 1st from http://www.equip.org/articles/the-counterfeit-revival/ Also
recommended is John MacArthur's "The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-415/the-modernblasphemy-
25 Bohi, "Walking in the Spirit, Part 1." It is interesting to note that, immediately after stating this, Dan implies that his diabetes returned, as he
references the need to get insulin shots. He attributes this to the devil. However, Dan's recorded “self-healing" stands in stark contrast to the
healing work done by Jesus and the apostles in Scripture, which gives no indication that any healings were partial or temporary
26 Bohi, "M11 Plenary Service"
28 Ibid, "Benny" is undoubtedly a reference to Benny Hinn, a prominent member of the Word of Faith movement.
29 Lloyd-Jones, Martin, quoted in "The Lord Told Me-I Think!" emphasis added, Retrieved April 1st, 2013 from
30 "Children's Crusade," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade
31"Joseph Smith," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith
32 "Ellen G. White," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White
33 "The Strange History of Pentecostalism," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/strange1.htm
34 "The Prophets continue to prophesy..." Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://www.letusreason.org/Pent64.htm
35 Even if what is said via divine revelation is true, it does not necessarily validate the seeking after messages in the spirit. Christian talk radio
host Bob Larson once related a story in which a woman called in and told him that the "ghost of Elvis" talked to her and told her to worship
Jesus. While the woman did not claim that this voice was the Holy Ghost, the point here is the same for those who claim to be looking for and
receiving direct words from God: that the statement may be true does not mean that God is the one saying it. One only needs to look at the
possessed woman following Paul and Silas in Acts 16:16-18 to see an example of this.
Furthermore, not all people who claim direct revelation from God do so with honest intent. Peter Popoff, a popular faith healer, was caught
using a radio device in order to manipulate "healings" by which he would receive via radio information about certain audience members and
give the false impression of working miracles (for more information,goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff).
36 DeWaay, Bob, "The Problem with Personal Words from God" Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from http://cicministry.org/commentary/
37 MacArthur, "On hearing God's voice, the Dangers of this way of thinking, and the sufficiency of Scripture," Retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from
38One has to wonder why Dan Bohi, if he is so confident in his ability to heal as given by God, does not travel to a hospital and exercise his gift
39 While having its headquarters located in Kirtland, Ohio, the Mormon church claimed to experience charismatic gifts not unlike those
reported by modern charismatics and Pentecostals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement). And this
says nothing of the religions steeped in the occult, composed of many practitioners who maintain that they too have experienced supernatural
40 A comprehensive list of well-known and fruitful Christian ministers who believed that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer
in effect today can be found in the article "What Cessationism is Not," (http://thecripplegate.com/what_cessationism_is_not/). This article also
correctly explains the position of cessationism in contrast to continuationism in order to present the proper understanding that, while
cessationists do not believe that the Holy Spirit works in the same way He did during the apostolic era, the Spirit nevertheless is active and
41 Polk, Harold "Render unto Caesar... and unto God (pt 1)", sermon given on 4/18/2010, retrieved April 2nd, 2013 from
42 See "I've Got a Feeling!" History of the Modern Gospel, session 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly15dPJPQ5M). About eight minutes into the
video, a segment is featured depicting a phony evangelist who by his own admission at the end of the segment is an atheist. Yet the video of his services
looks no different in appearance than that of a modern faith healer or other charismatic preacher. While this is not meant to suggest that Dan Bohi or other
charismatics are not sincere in their beliefs, it does serve to question whether or not what is seen in charismatic, "Spirit-led"services such as this are truly
manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
All quoted Scripture is taken from the New International Version Classic Reference Bible. Copyright 1989, Zondervan Publishing House