The New Apostolic Reformation: Movement or Myth? With Dr. Doug Geivett, Holly Pivec, and Dr. Michael Brown — The Alisa Childers Podcast #19

Alisa Childers

4/19/2018 01:21:46 pm

David Furlong

4/19/2018 02:54:41 pm

Teasi Cannon

4/19/2018 03:26:13 pm

Sorry…here's the rest of my comment from above:

Dr. Brown admits to the abuses and the problems being out there in small measure, but will not admit to the abundantly well-documented abuses committed by colleagues he says are great men of God (Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons). It’s so confusing. I can only assume it’s because he either hasn’t dug in enough to witness what’s truly going on (he readily admits he hasn’t been to these places in years) or he in fact thinks fire tunnels, destiny (tarot) cards, spirit tuning forks, wakening sleeping angels in the desert, acting literally “drunk in the spirit,” and spirit mapping (just to name a few coming from or endorsed by Bethel) are all Biblical practices.

Some other questions I have are …how many added and false teachings does a ministry/teacher have to promote before we call that entire ministry false teaching? How many abuses do we accept by leaders before we say they aren’t true leaders? If a false teacher is a really nice guy, does that make him not a false teacher? After all, most cults teach lots of truth and are started by really nice folks. (I grew up in one…LOVED the founder!). And…Why are people who call out false teachings disdained in the charismatic church…when the New Testament is replete with commandments to call them out and to turn completely away from them?

I personally have NO desire to be a heresy hunter, and my true friends know my heart. I just love Jesus with my everything. And when Jesus himself says there will be MANY false teachers who look nice and sweet who come out from AMONG us…and many will say they’ve done miracles in His name, but He will say He never knew them…and not to seek after signs…well, I’m just crazy enough to take Him seriously. And I’m honest enough to know I could be deceived. If we think we never could be, we’re deceived already.

If we get honest…what we deem “the prophetic” these days honestly resembles New Age mysticism more often than anything Biblical. I can’t think of one true prophet of God who was popular and followed by the masses. In fact…Jesus says the biggest crowd will be those who fall away. (Matt. 7).

Delkin

4/22/2018 10:28:38 am

Hi Teasi – thank you for your thoughtful comment. I can tell you've given this a lot of thought and research. Just a few quick comments here:

"charging people thousands of dollars to learn how to practice a spiritual gift"

I've been to probably 5 conferences from "NAR" leaders over the last two years and the most I've ever paid was in the range of $100. The average price was actually around $50 or so. I'm a Baptist and our conferences are about the same price. As per the school BSSM, the tuition appears significantly less than a full-time Bible college.

"The best question to ask (as Doug says at the end of the podcast) is “Where is this practice/claim taught in the Bible?”"

I agree! And what I'd point out is exactly what Dr. Brown said. He essentially said "if it's in the Bible, we want it." And that's the position of what you would call the "NAR". Prophetic guidance, dreams, revelations and hearing the voice of God is the normal Christian life if Scripture is to set the pattern for "normal". Further, here is the percentage of the Gospel through Acts that is devoted to the miraculous: Matthew (44%), Mark (65%), Luke (29%), John (30%), Acts (27%). The miraculous is a clear theme of Scripture and those in the "NAR" are basically taking Sola Scriptura to the extreme. These groups are taking the classic Protestant phrases of "prescriptive not descriptive" and saying that all of it is "normal".

"I’m truly disappointed in the weakness of his position here."

I mean, what else could he say? Holly and Doug are accusing people of views they simply don't hold – people that Dr. Brown personally knows. Holly and Doug are making an attack on individuals and Dr. Brown is in the position to answer their accusations. Think through how you would respond if someone begins attacking your pastor, teacher, or friends, and accusing them of holding to heretical views no matter what they say to the contrary.

Believe it or not, I didn't hear Holly and Doug substantiate their claim that apostles and prophets should not be a part of the church using the Bible. Dr. Brown used Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 to show that apostleship is clearly listed as something to equip the church and even to be "earnestly desired". Holly and Doug appealed to a "Berean spirit"…but the Bereans "searched Scripture" as Acts 17 clearly says. Holly and Doug actually just appealed to conservative scholars that support their position and ignored all of the scholars that disagree with them.

"And when Jesus himself says there will be MANY false teachers who look nice and sweet who come out from AMONG us"

Just a quick comment on this as well. Jesus actually said, there will be many false "prophets" among us.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-15.htm

What's interesting here is that the word is precise and uniformly translated "prophets" among all of the major translations. Jesus expected there to be prophets after He was gone and He gave ways for us to know if they were false or true. In other words, there can be true prophets. His audience certainly understood a prophet to be someone who hears from God and prophetically proclaims what he has heard, as clearly modeled throughout the Scriptures. If prophets ceased then surely Jesus would have said, "beware of prophets…they won't exist after I'm gone!" Food for thought.

"well, I’m just crazy enough to take Him seriously"

I absolutely agree that we should seek to know Jesus with everything! Something to keep in mind is that those in "the NAR" are seeking to take Jesus' Great Commission seriously, just like you're seeking to take His other statements seriously. The Great Commission tells disciples to teach "everything" Jesus commanded His disciples to do. Working miracles was not only commanded, but expected of disciples in the Gospels (see the commissioning accounts in Matthew 10, and Luke 10, and Jesus' response to the disciples inability to heal the possessed boy in Matthew 17:16) – the "NAR" is taking Jesus just as seriously as you!

Anne Marie

4/19/2018 09:40:39 pm

Matthew Smith

4/20/2018 04:42:39 am

Throughout the entire interview, Brown's main response seemed to be "you're not.being nice."

He never actually engaged with what Holly and doug were saying. Which tells me that the "nasty websites" he referred to are correct in their assessment of him.

Chris

4/20/2018 07:30:05 am

Pastor Chris Rosebrough has rightly labeled Michael Brown as the "Apostle of Obfuscation". Brown cannot openly admit that the "so-called" NAR has serious issues because he is part and parcel of it going at least as far back as the Brownsville Revival. Since he cannot expose NAR heresy without implicating himself for his own role as an enabler for the movement, the best he can do is to continue throwing enough doubt at the issue to keep the more gullible members of his audience carrying on with business as usual.

As a former Pentecostal myself, I can absolutely agree with what Teasi said in her comments about the susceptibility of charismatics (and Pentecostals) to false doctrines, signs, and wonders. Their predisposition towards the supernatural makes them especially vulnerable to NAR-type phenomena. The role that faithful discerners such as Holly and Doug play in defending the church against all sorts of extra-biblical weirdness is a critical one in these days of ever-increasing deception.

Delkin

4/23/2018 10:12:48 am

"Pastor Chris Rosebrough has rightly labeled Michael Brown as the "Apostle of Obfuscation"."

Hey Chris, just a heads up on your source here. Pirate Christian Radio relies pretty heavily on Pulpit & Pen for many of their sources, articles, and references. Pulpit & Pen has been banned by one of the largest active groups of Reformed pastors and laypeople for: "a proven track record of gossiping, slandering, and spreading false information."

To see this decision and the following conversation, please look here:

Pulpit & Pen from Reformed

Delkin

4/21/2018 08:47:49 pm

Hey Alisa – I noticed that you were very careful to say that neither Holly nor Doug were calling Dr. Brown a liar. However, surely you do see that a number of comments on both your and Holly's website are outright falsehood about him or even maligning his name? Here's a sample:

"I think Brown is far more dangerous than most realize."

"He is part and parcel of it"

"Dr. Brown is in this movement up to his eyeballs."

Surely you see this is the fruit that Dr. Brown is talking about…right? He says he's not in this "movement" and now your listeners are accusing him of lying and being dangerous for denying it. So while they have never said "Dr. Brown is a liar", the fruit of the teaching is clearly being manifested in the words of Holly and Doug's followers.

Delkin

4/21/2018 09:50:58 pm

"Being misleading and glossing over the truth and propping up false teachers is a form of lying. Brown is doing this."

But that's just it…don't you see the embedded assumption in this statement is that Holly's position is "truth"? That's the problem…such a certainty in the incorrectness of an opponent, that they are "false teachers" and those who disagree are "lying". Really? How in the world can we be so certain?

"we would appreciate it if you didn’t make such false accusations."

I have made no false accusations – I have simply quoted the words said on this blog and pointed out that these words are accusing Dr. Brown of being a liar and are in direct conflict with what he has said. Michael Brown disagrees and therefore, he is, as you said it, "dangerous".

On Holly's blog, in a matter of seconds I can find accusations that those in the "NAR" are "demon possessed" and "false brothers"…regardless of which camp you are in, this simply is not loving and is not charitable handling of an opponent. Jesus said you know a tree by its fruit and that out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. This teaching is bearing fruit that is resulting in unloving comments towards others who claim the name of Christ…And that's the problem that I'm addressing.

Delkin

4/22/2018 11:17:08 am

Hey Bruce – please see my responses below:

"Have you taken the time to check out what documented doctrine the NAR propagates?"

Yes, I have.

"Have you researched the documented elaborate network that NAR Apostles and Prophets are associated with?"

This is where I have to agree with Dr. Brown – the "elaborate networks" of NAR apostles and prophets really does rhyme with a conspiracy theory, as I see it. Here's a good article that spells out some hallmarks of a conspiracy theory:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/

These twelve points describe the "elaborate networks" of apostles and prophets as I have heard the attack on the "NAR" presented.

I understand that you absolutely disagree with me here, but please understand that the discussion I've seen both here and on Holly's website is "if you deny, you're either blind or with the enemy" tone, which is classic conspiracy theory material.

Conspiracy theories can end up being true, but do understand the "NAR" polemic as clearly expressed by Holly and Doug meets many of the plain signs without any stretch of the imagination.

"Is the NAR Gospel the same Gospel that was delivered to the Church in the NT?"

I have never seen or heard of an "NAR Gospel". I have heard a few Gospel presentations from Bill Johnson and it's the same Gospel presentation that is given in my Baptist church. It's the same Jesus and it's the same salvation: by grace alone and through faith alone and in Christ alone.

If you are asking if Christianity with apostles and prophets is in line with the faith delivered to the saints, then I would have to say it is. This issue is narrowly confined to Protestantism.

The core reason Protestants don't accept modern apostles and prophets is that during the Reformation, the Pope was calling himself the last apostle of the faith and claimed that ongoing miracles were proof that the Catholic Church was the true Church. John Calvin and Martin Luther responded by resurrecting the theology of cessationism and claimed that all true miracles were worked through the hands of the apostles as a way of validating the Scriptures they would write. For this reason, "apostleship" has been banned in Protestant circles ever since. (For more and a rigorous academic discussion on this, see Dr. John Ruthven from Regent Theological in his "On the Cessation of the Charismata" and "What's Wrong with Protestant Theology" – he explores apostleship in depth).

"Perhaps you might want to rap the Apostle Paul on the knuckles for saying in Galatians 1:8-9 NIV"

I'm sure you've thought this through very carefully, but it is not apparent to me at all that there is even an "NAR" and that "they" are teaching a false Gospel. I'm not ready to say "let them be condemned" when I can't find a single instance of any of these preachers ever saying that salvation is by keeping the Law in some form or fashion (context of the verse you're using).

"The NAR movement is not a myth and to infer that it is, regardless of who you are, is to be grossly misinformed."

I struggle with this reasoning. I'm sure you don't mean this, but this doesn't seem approachable or even open for discussion. Reasonableness, in my opinion, starts from the position of "well, I could be wrong…let's search Scripture together". Instead, if someone disagrees, they are "grossly misinformed" as you have unambiguously stated. There is no quarter or space given for disagreement.

Instead of a reasoned discussion, it really seems that what I'm seeing is immediate and authoritative assertions that it's a false Gospel. There's no room for discussion given. In fact, disagreement seems to be met with immediate suspicion and accusation. That's a problem!

I thought the Gospel was Good News? I thought that even if we don't have perfect theology, Jesus is full of grace and mercy and saves those who call upon Him? Since when dos saving faith required the belief that apostles and prophets ceased around 90 AD upon the closing of the Canon? We have taken a secondary issue and made it primary…and this is not okay.

In the process of disagreeing with our brother, we have to guard against committing the very error we accuse them of by authoritatively giving no room for disagreement.

"Before you criticize the tone of Holly or Doug or some of the responders, you would do well to become familiar with the subject matter"

I am well aware of the subject matter. I've researched heavily, explored both sides, and come to the conclusion that is in line with Dr. Brown before even hearing of his position. I knew something was wrong when it became pretty clear that Holly and Doug were accusing others of beliefs they simply did not hold.

This was exemplified when Holly kept insisting that IHOP held to a belief regarding apostles and prophets that IHOP's statement literally word-for-word refutes.

Chris Smith

4/21/2018 11:15:36 pm

Fascinating interview. I am so grateful that you were able to get Holly Pivec, R. Douglas Geivett, and Michael Brown together to debate! I have read both of Pivec and Geivett's books and found the books to be well-researched and thoughtful.

My interest in the NAR movement (and yes, it IS a movement) stems from personal experience. It ruined the Presbyterian church I attended. I was the Sunday School director there and I think that if there is one way to truly point out to people how doctrinally dangerous this NAR movement is, is to look at what they teach their children.

Here is an example from the Bethel Church "Kid's Carrying the Kingdom" curriculum:

"Having the keys of power and authority means that we have the same position, recognition and abilities that Jesus had."

The same position and recognition? If we are equal with Jesus when it comes to position, recognition and abilities – then how are we saved? And that's the crux of this movement. I think more troubling than the apostles and prophets in offices is the diminishing of the role of Jesus Christ and that the focus on miracles is jeopardizing salvation for those who need to be saved, and for those who already are saved, their relationship with Jesus as their Lord and savior.

Delkin

4/22/2018 09:34:57 am

Hi Chris – I am very sorry to hear about the destruction seen at your church. I've experienced church splits and theological differences, so I can definitely relate to the pain.

"I think that if there is one way to truly point out to people how doctrinally dangerous this NAR movement is, is to look at what they teach their children."

Just a quick comment on Bethel's curriculum. This is actually pretty standard Charismatic theology in regards to power, authority, and sonship. Here's basically what they're saying:

Power and authority – in the commissioning accounts of the disciples, Jesus gave power and authority to heal the sick and cast out demons and then commanded His disciples to preach His name in this way. Then, in the Great Commission, Jesus told His disciples to teach His following disciples (every Christian since) to obey "everything" – which would certainly include the commands to heal the sick. Therefore, the Charismatics would say that we should be taught to heal the sick in simple obedience to Jesus' commands.

Same position as Jesus – this is based on the radical truths of the Gospel. Seated with Christ in the Heavens (Eph. 2:6), access to every spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3), literally "in Christ" (describes us several times in the New Testament). And on and on – basically Jesus is now our eldest brother and we literally can call God "daddy" and walk into His throne room.

I understand that many people would say that these truths are for the coming age, but Charismatics (in general) believe that this can be accessed now.

"I think more troubling than the apostles and prophets in offices is the diminishing of the role of Jesus Christ and that the focus on miracles is jeopardizing salvation for those who need to be saved"

They are saying nothing in regards to salvation – they are simply speaking the Charismatic view of a more active interpretation of these. There are a number of scholars which have addressed this topic in depth and a growing consensus is that miracles are actually expressions of the Gospel and not a diversion or side-show. In the words of Dr. Ruthven from Regent Theological:

"In the last 50 years the biblical theology movement, and increasingly evangelical scholars, have begun to understand that the gospel Jesus presented came “not in word but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). Miracles and spiritual gifts do not simply “prove” the gospel, they express it."

What’s Right About the Faith Movement – Jon Ruthven

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and point out that it appears your church is embracing general Charismatic teachings rather than anything particularly distinctive to the "NAR".

Delkin

4/22/2018 01:41:31 pm

"And biblically fruit is never ever presented as simply being about being nice."

Hey Dan – I never said that niceness was a sign of a true prophet. I was quoting Teasi who was saying that in irony.
I absolutely 100% agree that fruit is the main test of both a prophet and prophecy. If it doesn't promote Christ and edify the Body, then I am suspicious of it.

"But when a movement advocates heresy and this heresy and its advocacy has been well documented, we have a biblical mandate to call the leaders of such a movement false teachers. To fail to do so is bad fruit."

And this is the disagreement. According to Brown (and me), there is no movement. As a "Bapticostal", I have my feet in both streams so I can agree with Brown by saying that the charges of "heresy" are so outlandish that it's almost comical. Believe it or not, the reason I started commenting with "NAR" critics is that I did a double-take and basically said "wait, they think we believe what?!?"

I've had several discussions with "NAR" critics and I have yet to see a single theology or teaching that was presented in a way that shows that the critic actually understood the core of what was taught or said. Prime examples can be seen in this thread where someone basically said that "power and authority is NAR" or someone else saying that "NAR" is known as the Third Wave movement. Each of these statements are factually incorrect and yet are presented as truth.

"And his behavior is an implicit form of dishonesty and we must say this."

Sure – if the NAR was real and the people in it actually believed and taught the heresy that is being leveled at them, then right on. If people were really teaching that all natural and spiritual authorities must bow to their apostolic office as they usher in the second coming of Christ, then sure, I'd agree we've got heresy on our hands.

"But no one here has accused him of explicit deceit and so to imply that we have is to engage in false accusations."

Brown has literally said he is not in this movement. And people here have said "Dr. Brown is in this movement up to his eyeballs." That is an outright accusation that Brown is involved in deception (either knowingly or unknowingly) and willfully not taking him at his word. How would you feel if someone treated you this way? You've said you're a cessationist – imagine if I went around the internet writing that you actually believe in the modern gifts of the Spirit but you're keeping it under wraps while calling you dangerous and deceived. That's collectively what's being done to Brown.

Furthermore, you explicitly said that he is "far more dangerous than most realize". Who or what is dangerous? Brown. He is the subject of the sentence. This sure seems like a personal attack directed at him, not his beliefs. I see in this post that you have more fully spelled it out, but understand that from my perspective as someone not in your movement, this looks a lot like a personal insult and a charge against someone's character. If someone were to misrepresent your position and call you "dangerous" on the internet then I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy.

If you feel misunderstood in these areas, then please consider that this same level of misunderstanding is what we feel when it is said that we are engaged in a heretical movement. Not only that, you are implicitly linking these individuals with false gospels like Mormonism through your examples.

Delkin

4/22/2018 12:59:48 am

Hey Bruce – it seems that I can't reply directly to your comment so I'll reply by making a new thread here. Please see my responses below:

"Have you taken the time to check out what documented doctrine the NAR propagates?"

Yes, I have.

"Have you researched the documented elaborate network that NAR Apostles and Prophets are associated with?"

This is where I have to agree with Dr. Brown – the "elaborate networks" of NAR apostles and prophets really does rhyme with a conspiracy theory, as I see it. Here's a really good article that spells out some hallmarks of a conspiracy theory:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/

These twelve points describe the "elaborate networks" of apostles and prophets as I have heard the attack on the "NAR" presented.

I understand that you absolutely disagree with me here, but please understand that the discussion I've seen both here and on Holly's website is "if you deny, you're the enemy" tone, which is classic conspiracy theory material.

"Is the NAR Gospel the same Gospel that was delivered to the Church in the NT?"

I have never seen or heard of an "NAR Gospel". I have heard a few Gospel presentations from Bill Johnson (which I'm sure you believe is "NAR") and it's the same Gospel presentation that is given in my Baptist church. It's the same Jesus and it's the same salvation: by grace alone and through faith alone and in Christ alone.

If you are asking if Christianity with apostles and prophets is in line with the faith delivered to the saints, then I would have to say it is. This issue is narrowly confined to Protestantism.

The core reason Protestants don't accept modern apostles and prophets is that during the Reformation, the Pope was calling himself the last apostle of the faith and claimed that ongoing miracles were proof that the Catholic Church was the true Church. John Calvin and Martin Luther responded by resurrecting the theology of cessationism and claimed that all true miracles were worked through the hands of the apostles as a way of validating the Scriptures they would write. For this reason, "apostleship" has been taboo in Protestant circles ever since. (For more and a rigorous academic discussion on this, see Dr. John Ruthven from Regent Theological Seminary in his "On the Cessation of the Charismata" and "What's Wrong with Protestant Theology" – he explores apostleship in depth).

"Perhaps you might want to rap the Apostle Paul on the knuckles for saying in Galatians 1:8-9 NIV"

I'm sure you've thought this through very carefully, but it is not apparent to me at all that there is even an "NAR" and that "they" are teaching a false Gospel. I'm not ready to say "let them be condemned" when I can't find a single instance of any of these preachers ever saying that salvation is by keeping the Law in some form or fashion (context of the verse you're using).

"The NAR movement is not a myth and to infer that it is, regardless of who you are, is to be grossly misinformed."

See, I struggle with this reasoning. This doesn't seem…well…reasonable. Reasonableness, in my opinion, starts from the position of "well, I could be wrong…let's search Scripture together". Instead, if someone disagrees, they are "grossly misinformed" as you have unambiguously stated. There is no quarter or space given for disagreement. I really feel that James 3:17 speaks to this when it says we should seek God's wisdom which is "open to reason". All, on both sides need this!

But what I'm seeing instead is exactly what I've received in this thread here – immediate and authoritative assertions that it's a false Gospel leading millions to hell. There's no room for discussion given. In fact, disagreement seems to be met with immediate suspicion and accusation.

I thought the Gospel was Good News? I thought that even if we don't have perfect theology, Jesus is full of grace and mercy and saves those who call upon Him? Since when dos saving faith required the belief that apostles and prophets ceased around 90 AD upon the closing of the Canon? We have taken a secondary issue and made it primary…and this is not okay.

In the process of disagreeing with our brother, we have to guard against committing the very error we accuse them of by authoritatively giving no room for disagreement.

"Before you criticize the tone of Holly or Doug or some of the responders, you would do well to become familiar with the subject matter"

I am well aware of the subject matter. I've researched heavily, explored both sides, and come to the conclusion that is in line with Dr. Brown before even hearing of his position. I knew something was wrong when it became pretty clear that Holly and Doug were accusing others of beliefs they simply did not hold.

There are abusive people who call themselves apostles – let's correct them! But a secret movement that is gaining force and leading many astray in a great apostasy that will usher in the anti-Christ

Delkin

4/22/2018 04:59:23 pm

"Second, I have been studying and teaching church history for almost 20 years now and I can say without reservation that your treatment of the notion that the doctrine that there are no apostles in the church Today was a Reformation invention is completely inaccurate."

You are welcome to contest my sources:

– On the Cessation of the Charismata by Dr. Ruthven

And

– What's Wrong with Protestant Theology by Dr. Ruthven

Ruthven's work is essentially uncontested in this area and one of the strongest attacks again cessationism (particularly regarding BB Warfield's methods) written to-date. Here is a quote from What's Wrong with Protestant Theology:

"Did you ever wonder why, of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, almost no Protestant today – not even most Pentecostals – think the gift of apostleship continued? Now you know. The Protestants simply didn't want any more popes running around trying to boss the church, dictate their doctrines, and write new Scripture, so they quarantined them in the Apostolic age." – Introduction, Page 19

"…the doctrine that there are full blown apostles today is not a secondary issue, but cuts right to the heart of biblical authority."

In general, "we" view apostleship as a spiritual gift and not a question of Biblical authority.

"That to be an apostle was itself a spiritual gift is clearly revealed in such passages as Ephesians 4:7-12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28-31, although through inattention to these Scriptures apostleship is often thought of as though it constituted a category entirely separate from the other spiritual gifts. But the inclusion of apostles along with prophets, teachers, miracles, and tongues in the list of charismata like that of 1 Corinthians 12:28 can leave no ground for question on this point." – What's Wrong with Protestant Theology, footnote 17, page 21-22

Ruthven has written an entire appendix in On the Cessation of the Charismata that deals with the question of ongoing apostleship. Again, this work is largely uncontested by the remaining cessationist scholars. I'd encourage you to read it to understand our position. (Holly or Doug, if you are reading this, are you aware of this work and this in-depth discussion on apostleship? If you are unfamiliar with this, I'd encourage you to read this appendix to understand our beliefs better.)

I have no intention or belief that you will come over to "our side" on this issue. I am simply wanting to let you know that your assumptions that we are challenging biblical authority and radically departing from the truth of Scripture are unfounded. There are well-trained, well-respected theologians on both sides of this issue seeking to rightly-divide the Word.

It is for the honoring of the authority of Scripture itself that I accept apostleship and apostles as ongoing ministries to the Church.

(PS – I'm not sure if you're saying the argument that apostles are Scripture writers and therefore apostles have ceased? This is addressed in these works as well. Only 3 of the original 12 apostles wrote Scripture, constituting less than 36% of the entire New Testament by word count. If you include Paul, only 59% of the New Testament was written by those with the title "apostle". In other words, if you were an apostle, you only had a 25% of actually writing Scripture. The point: apostolic authority to write the very words of God is a statement not supported by the Bible itself. Just wanted to answer this if this is really what you're getting at.)

"And we are all for dialogue here; you are the one who constantly tries to dismiss everything we are saying by asserting that we are not being loving."

Constantly? I have said that name calling and immediately condemning the other side as preachers of a false gospel are unloving actions. In each situation I carefully quoted exactly what was said. Name calling and implicitly or explicitly calling someone a liar are unloving actions. I stand by that!

Delkin

4/23/2018 08:26:11 am

"Delkin, you commit so many errors of fact, logic, exegesis, method, and presentation, that they are too many for me to continue to try to address them all here through comments"

Okay, well, best of luck! I won't be reading your blog or engaging in the discussion, but I wish you well in your research.

If, at the end of the day, you'd like to understand the theological position of the vast majority of those of us who accept apostles and prophets as ongoing and valid roles within the church, I'd encourage you to pick up these books. On average, we're not heretics, Mormon-like, false gospel preachers, dangerous, deceived, post-modern, Bible-replacers, or condemned as has explicitly or implicitly been leveled at us in this thread. We are taking the plain teaching of Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 which shows that apostles and prophets are needed until we reach maturity and we are accepting it as God's Word for today.

History has an unfortunate habit of reflecting the theological position of its authors. I have a friend who set out to learn about D.L. Moody by reading two biographies. After he read them, I asked him what he thought about D.L. Moody's powerful encounter with God that changed the course of his ministry. My friend looked at me blankly and basically said, "what are you talking about?" The authors of both biographies completely omitted the history of D.L. Moody's own words and personal testimony in which he described the Holy Spirit coming upon him in power and transforming his ministry. The reason for the omission? By all appearances, the authors simply didn't accept the theological implications so they completely ignored Moody's own personal testimony and re-wrote history through omission. I would say this was an isolated incident, but this same type of selective reporting has found its way into even the highest arguments for the cessation of the charismata (which includes apostleship). Some fish we only catch by fishing in another stream.

May the Lord guide us all into deeper levels of wisdom, brother – best of luck with your blog and research!

Alisa Childers

4/22/2018 06:09:09 pm

Delkin

4/23/2018 03:53:20 pm

Hey Dan – I won't be baited and goaded into a debate with you. If you actually are interested in understanding what "we" believe, I would encourage you to read the works provided above.

I pray the Lord richly blesses your blog, ministry, and teaching brother.

Delkin

4/23/2018 04:36:28 pm

Hey Alisa – earlier in the thread, you said:

"I am deeply concerned about how influential NAR teachings and practices have become, particularly within the charismatic church."

I would be very interested in hearing your take on what you're seeing as troublesome "NAR" teachings and practices. You're the first continuationist I've ever encountered who 1) believes the NAR is even a thing and 2) is concerned about it. It could be beneficial to your readers to consider spelling out your personal concerns at some point.

Full disclosure: I'm a Bapticostal who does a lot of the naughty "NAR" stuff…and I fully believe most of the "NAR teachings and practices" are biblical expressions of Christianity which have been taken out of context. Hearing another individual who believes in the charismatic gifts voice her concerns would provide a good sounding board.

Alisa Childers

4/23/2018 07:03:26 pm

Sure Delkin, I’m happy to share my thoughts. First, I’m surprised you’ve never met another pentecostal/charismatic concerned about NAR. I know of many, including the entire denomination of Assemblies of God, who have denounced NAR teachings such as governing Apostles and Prophets, Dominionism, Impartation, and identifying territorial demonic spirits in strategic spiritual warfare.

I would agree with Holly and Doug’s definition of NAR, given during the opening statement.

Just a couple of thoughts. When Brown spoke of Che Ahn, he specifically said that Ahn is an "apostle over a network of hundreds and hundreds of churches around the world." He then said that people who want to be a part of a "movement" can come together…in reference to Che Ahn’s network. (That's around the 55 minute mark.) Brown admitted that “hundreds and hundreds” of churches are governed by this apostle. That is the very definition of NAR that Holly gave. I think given Brown’s own concession here, it’s a bit of a stretch to relate this with a “conspiracy theory,” especially given the tedious research and documentation provided in Holly and Doug’s books. I would encourage everyone to read those before forming an opinion.

Even though many NAR apostles claim that they don’t have the same authority as Paul and the twelve, in practice it plays out very differently. I agree with Brown that there are abuses everywhere—but there are specific abuses that result from coming under the government of an “Apostle.” I’ve witnessed this personally, and heard many testimonies….too many to be swept aside as the complaints of a few “disgruntled” church members. I've seen churches split over this, and members left confused and divided.

Here’s what it comes down to for me. Bill Johnson and others who are considered NAR continually end up at the same conferences, and endorsing each other’s books and teachings. They are clearly connected to each other. You can call it whatever you want, but the falsehood and fruit of these teachings, practices, and networks is deeply concerning to me.


I would encourage everyone to do what I’m doing….. go to youtube and watch videos of their own teachings and services. Especially with Jesus ’16 and ’17, you’ll see many NAR leaders along with Word of Faith preachers Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. Watch Bethel TV. Watch the IHOP videos. Read their books. Compare what you see and read with what you read in your Bible.

Start with the Passion Translation. The PT is promoted by Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, Lou Engle, James Goll, Patricia King, Graham Cooke, and others. It is promoted on its own website as being a balance between "formal and functional equivalent" translation (Like a balance between the ESV and NLT)—not a paraphrase. Here is direct quote from the website: "The Passion Translation is an excellent translation you can use as your primary text to seriously study God’s Word because it combines the best aspects of what is called formal and functional equivalence Bibles." Watch this video (from about the 15 minute mark) where it's author, Brian Simmons claims to have received "downloads" by Jesus, "secrets of the Hebrew language," and was promised an extra chapter of the Bible that we don't yet have. Every Christian should be deeply concerned about this: https://sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/brian-simmons/

I pray God leads us all to truth.

Alisa Childers

4/23/2018 07:43:30 pm

Scott

4/23/2018 11:36:19 pm

In 1993, my family was among the core group of folks planting a new church in a growing southern community. The church began its meetings in my parents’ home, and my Dad became the music minister. Over the course of 6 years, the church grew into an influential force within our city’s Christian community.

At this time, I was in my early 20s. Other than my own father, the lead pastor of this church was the single most important influence in my life. It isn’t a stretch to say he was my mentor. In retrospect, I can see that I was being groomed for leadership. My pastor saw me as a budding apostle, or at least some type of prophet. I was essentially a de facto member of the staff.

About 5 years in, I began to see some red flags. There was an increasing emphasis on authority. No personal decision of any church member was without the direct counsel of the pastor (or at least one of his senior staff). The pastor even involved himself in the sex lives of those he was close to. At the time, my ego (fueled by the leadership constantly telling me I was special) led me to believe that I was probably misreading the situation. Since my dad, as the music minister, was essentially the heartbeat of the church, I chose to ignore what I was seeing.

At year #6, I got a phone call from the lead pastor. He informed me that my parents were coming under church discipline **and that, if I had questions, I should speak only with him and avoid my parents**.

It took me about 2 days to process this, and then the scales fell off my eyes. This was a cult, and I had been a willing participant.

My parents were being disciplined, by the way, for reasons that still remain unclear. Since my dad was highly visible, his sudden departure almost caused the church to collapse. But, the lead pastor was able to manipulate the situation effectively enough to maintain decorum and carry on. The church remains in existence to this day. The wounds from that experience still reverberate throughout my family all these years later.

Now, if my story was unique, it wouldn't be worth sharing. But, this kind of thing happens regularly in churches that submit to the brand of theology now becoming associated with the NAR. I have been to the conferences and the revivals. I’ve repeatedly heard the exhortation: “God is going to pour out His spirit on THIS people, or THIS generation, in THIS way at THIS time.” But, here I am 20+ years later, and the exhortation hasn’t changed. I’m still hearing the same speech. I want to ask them: Why didn’t your prophecy materialize the first time you said this back when I was a young man? Isn’t the fact that you’re still making the same proclamation evidence that perhaps your prophecies are false? And, how much are you profiting from all of this?

And, also, why do you only engage in positive confession? In your words of knowledge and your prophecies, why is the mention of sin so rare? Why is it always “God’s gonna do big things through you”?

Here we are all these years later, and it turns out that the “big things” may be that God is allowing our nation to cave in on itself because of our sin… a sin the Church rarely speaks of anymore. Indeed, we’re often complicit.

Fast forward to last summer. The church I was attending began showing subtle signs of acceptance of certain positions that were a bit too familiar to me. I and a few other folks (who were not known for causing trouble, mind you) went to the leadership and we were immediately shown the door. Not only that, I was confronted by someone I thought was a friend. He threatened to take me before church leadership if I didn’t call out every single person with whom I’d discussed my concerns. When I told him that it was a small group of folks, and that most of them had met personally with the pastor, he told me he was going to leadership himself. This person’s assertion was the same as some on this thread – that the NAR is essentially a conspiracy theory. And, yet, here he was validating my concerns with his own behavior.

The most effective kind of lie is the one that is mostly true. How horrifying that this principle is now growing within the Body of Christ.