If only every follower of John Wimber, Paul Cain, Jack Deere, Mike Bickle, Wes Campbell, and Bob Jones could read this.
January 14, 2008 by thegreycoats
I in no way, shape, or form support the people who produced the link, but this is a transcript of a radio show by Hank Hanegraff as he charts the course leading up to what is now the end-time restorationism movement. I also know that much of the information on the link is in the book Counterfeit Revival by Hank Hanegraff. All of the sources are provided in the book. Perhaps I will put those up in the near future. Anyways the whole movement is psycho, plain and simple.
in Him,
Devin Murphy
yup thats why we are gray coats.causewe cant ride the crazy train no more. does anyone think that this new generation of young people even know about this crap. cause i was just a kid when this stuff got started and they are way better at masking their lies nowadays. their like the old leper in brave heart who says ” i will deny this rebellion in our lands to the south and you my son shall embrace it in our lands to the north” they will denounce this kinda stuff on their web sites but they totally still teach it.
Cain is frightening. I do believe he has/had power. But, from God? No.
Power! unlimited Power! i dont think the guy is gettin his juice from the Almighty One. but i agree he at least ranks up there with a high level psychic
Sooo, you don’t believe in prophets and apostles or miracles for today? What scriptures do you use to justify your position?
Felix, can you find anything in our posts that justify your assertion of what we believe?
Also, do you believe that prophets today can have words that dont come true?
Then, please list the people that you believe are prophets and apostles.
Also, please dont give us any of the “Soooo” stuff. Let’s show some respect for eachother.
in Christ,
Devin
Felix,
First of all, perspectives are certainly varied concerning your line of questioning–even within the contributors to this blog. Here is my perspective, in short.
We know that both apostles and prophets are foundational to the formation of the church from Ephesians 2:20. But, when reading 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 notice that vs. 10 in particular tells us, “But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” NKJV
I take “that which is perfect” to refer to the dual witness of the completed canon (Old and New Testaments–sans apocrypha) and the established church which the Scripture supports. Paul is likely referring (prophetically in fact) to the “complete” revelation contained in the NT canon
to come. Newman’s apparatus notes that the greek word for both “perfect” and “complete” is the adjective teleios(τελειος) which is in this instance functioning as a noun, teleiov (τελειον)–”that which is perfect”–and is substantival.
That being said, prophetic inspiration, embodied apostolic witness, and signs and wonders are really unnecessary in regions where the final apostolic authority of the inspired Scriptures are prevalent and the Church has a well-established presence. However, in areas where Christianity is persecuted or unknown and where the Scripture is either untranslated or unavailable it is reasonable to believe reports of miraculous phenomena since in these cases a corollary to faith would be appropriate in lieu of Church and Bible.
Furthermore, the major body of orthodoxy is in definite agreement concerning the cessation of the apostolic gift. Even sound middle-of-the-road continuationists (non-radical Charismatics) will attest to this. There have historically been two agreed upon criteria for determining apostolic authority 1. Being with Jesus and 2. Being commissioned by Jesus. We know Paul to be the final apostle because, he says so here in 1 Corinthians 15:8–I’ll let you look that up.
Wayne Grudem, a top-notch NT scholar and promoter of a balanced continuationism, has this to say, “Since no one today can meet the qualifications of having seen the risen Jesus with his own eyes, there are no apostles today. In the place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT. Those NT scriptures fulfill, for the church today, the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.” (Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the NT today, p. 276).
I do not expect you to necessarily agree with my position concerning the spiritual gifts, prophecy, apostleship, etc. However, while prophecy (albeit a modified form) and miracles are debatably existent, it is beyond the pale of orthodoxy to claim a continued apostolic office.
Welcome to the site, hope you stick around.
well i am a continuationist with a complimentarian position. which means that i believe in the spiritual gifts today. however i think a prophet had better be spot on every time. and i would expect an apostle to at least have sound doctrine. why did you automatically assume that we were all cessationist.? Hmmmmmmmm.
natrimony,
you sound alot like R.C. Sproul. are you his son? =)
HAHAHAHA!!!
Greycoats,
You asked in your first comment whether the young people even know about this stuff. Without exception, those that I have spoken to have either no idea of the past or only know what has been put forward by Mike Bickle in his prophetic history cd’s. And due to the amazing and grand nature of all the claims, young people are immediately forced to make the decision as to whether these guys are for real or not. Since Mike appears very spiritual, is older, a charismatic speaker, and speaks with such conviction, the temptation to take his word for it is tremendous if you don’t have a significant commitment to truth and the Word.
hmmm. then we should do our best to at least try and show them cause this is the root of their teachings and unities with one another. ihop and morningstar i mean.
Ortho,
No, we’re not related although we are both communing members of the PCA. But I will definitely take that as a compliment.
Sproul’s explanation would be much more well defended than mine and would also differ. I believe my view is actually non-standard within the PCA. I am a self-labeled “soft-cessationist”–in that I see the charismatic giftings (excluding apostolicity) as foundational to the inception of the church within particular people groupings, prior to the widespread availability of the Scriptures, wherever and WHENEVER the Spirit chooses.
Here is an interesting Youtube point of view concerning IHOP. This man makes a couple of sight on statements–particularly concerning control issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gworC0-oQbw
I’m not a real Hanegraff fan either, but this is an excellent summary. It would be even more shocking if updated to include the last few years of Cain’s sordid lifestlye.
Aside from the details of the personalities involved, most revealing is the stuff about the New Breed and Cain’s “end time army”. IHOP may deny that they are Latter Rain/Dominion but they have never refuted these doctrines, which as I stated are woven into the fabric of IHOP.
You are correct, most yound adults today have no idea of this history. Some of us lived through it and will never forget.
-Bill
I found it interetsing that a friend of mine who is very solid in biblical theology was asked to teach a class on the Bible at a very Charismatic/IHOPish/Latter Rainish etc. etc. Masters Commission group. After he explained the proper way to study the bible and to be proper in hermanuetical interpretation of the scriptures, the kids (late teens, early twenties) asked or stated, “Why have we never been taught this in the past?”
This firnd told me you could hear a pin drop as he refuted the IHOP/WOF and others theology using the scriptures.
Wow Sam,
A group of young 3rd waver’s who actually listened to the Scriptures as opposed to a captivating personality, praise band, or prophetic prediction? Amazing. There may be hope yet.
there must be hope. or why do this at all. thanks sam. that was encouraging
I have the audio of Counterfeit Revival. Its quite amazing to hear these folks make the remarks themselves!
I dont much support Hanegraaff, but that was, in my opinion a fine work on the great decievers of our day.
however i think a prophet had better be spot on every time. and i would expect an apostle to at least have sound doctrine
AAAAAAAAMEN!
if the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable, then one who has a prophetic gift could stumble in anger, or in lust, or adultry, and still be restored to the church after repentance. That doesn’t make them a false prophet. No one is without sin, even prophets (except for one)! As far as those who don’t believe prophets exist nowadays, why did the angel tell John write down revelation concerning the Spirit of Prophesy, if none of his readers will ever have anything to do it?
sinning would not disqualify a man from the prophetic. but having less accuracy than a front psychic definitely should. being spot on every time is required by the word of God. hamburger helper is allowed only by the 3rd wave prophetic movement. also i would say that any man who uses his “gifting” to molest and fondel a mother and daughter is a false prophet. since they use the gift to there own ends. but it dont matter since the guy who did that hasnt ever been 100% accurate anyway. so i guess hes just a false prophet acting like one.
Key of David,
Do you really want an answer? Do you really want to engage in an intellectual discussion or are you just a typical “drive by”? Because, I get tired of answering drive bys.
somethin’ that bugs me is when people argue against cessationism, but dont even respond to the posts
we could grant that all of the gifts are here, just as it were on the day of pentecost, that doesnt mean anything about the whack stuff that bickle and his posse talk about
Devin,
Yes. And that is where the “new thing” mindset would kick in. The 3rd wave is all about bigger and better. It promotes a disatisfaction. Merely being adopted and included in God’s family isn’t enough. The leaders really capitalize on youthful, immature spiritual ambition and the desire for millenial rulership just as the mother of James and John did. The IHOP Omega generation are groomed to believe that by their faithfulness (this must be distinguished from faith) in prayer, fasting, and obedient worship they may take part in the restoration of a literal Davidic realm to come. They see themselves as that elite–the few, the brave–which is very cultish.
The Day of Pentecost was certainly not about establishing an elite forerunner army of David. Pentecost was about participation in a vibrant faith which prompted people to repent and be baptized for “the remission of sins.” This is the heart of Peter’s sermon and the work of the Holy Spirit–that people believe, receive, and rest in Christ’s finished work on the Cross. There is no thrust in the text whatsoever to view a future manifestation of signs and wonders as being necessary for contentment. The early New Testament church seems to be as content as it has ever been. Why should we expect anything more (as if there could be more) in regard to our spiritual lives than a regeneration from the grave by grace through faith? But this sort of common annointing just isn’t enough to truly usher in the reign of Christ and rule the earth alongside him.
Perhaps not. Hopefully, I on the other hand will be in good company with the psalmist opening the door of the house of my God for all who truly deserve what they’ve earned. The only thing is…the door leading into God’s presence opens both ways.
No, I truly am sincere in my concern for truth here. Ihop’s literal teaching of Matthew 5:19 is incredibly noble and I believe the Lord wishes more of His people would take it literally. This verse is used to motivate a secret lifestyle of prayer and fasting, serving and giving, and following the leadership of Jesus in our lives. This is the foundation or ‘rock’ (Matt 7:24) which Ihop has been built. If you must attack some ministries,(haha) I think your time would be better spent attacking the ministries out there that aren’t built on this. (Which is a great deal of them)
Mike Bickle’s primier, singular, main focus is raising up an army of people who pray the prayers Paul prayed (like Eph 1:17) for the churches -for the churches in the nations. This is what you guys are trying to tear down. That new wave movement stuff was over ten years ago. This is also noble and it’s how the Lord will release revival and pour out His Spirit in new and fresh ways.
Paul said we know in part and we prophesy in part. Infallibility was for the Old Testament prophets, not new covenant churches, this is why we seek confirmations of words, not blindly following every word by every man claiming to be a prophet. There’s actually very little public prophesy going on here at IHOP. Mostly we study the sermon on the mount, intercession, intimacy and end-times. On the IHOP web page is all the notes from the last two years meetings. Try refuting that and not meeting transcripts from something Mike Bickle did forever ago.
Key of David,
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue. How long have you been at/affiliated with IHOP? Are you enrolled in the forerunner school of ministry? If so we may have some mutual acquaintances.
But, to begin, it is important to realize that the root of what the International House of Prayer IS as an organization is based on a prophecy by Bob Jones. Check it out for yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBRgZP7ul8
Bob Jones has been discredited as a false prophet by Ernie Gruen and others who have not recanted their written testimonies from the late 80’s and early 90’s. Gruen questions Jones, Bickle and others as a credible witness–he pastored a 3000 member church at the time so a jealous motivation is highly dubious, he was simply an alert pastor who blew the whistle on abberant practice.
Jones’ mental stability has been questioned and he has certainly used his “prophetic gift” for personal, sexual gratification. If you follow the teachings of Bickle, who was Jones’ pastor and handler, then you are investing your eternal security in a faulty type of prophetic snake-oil salesmanship. IHOP’s foundation is not “The Rock” it is the Kansas City Fellowship, 3rd wave charismatic practice, and the Vineyard movement.
This report may have been written 20 years ago, which is incidently longer ago than many who attend IHOP or ascribe to its doctrines have been alive. However, despite a focus on “now awareness” we cannot rewrite history, no matter how gifted we may be at repackaging our past. Not even “apostles” have been granted this power.
It is a sad mistake to ignore the background and credibility of any self-proclaimed prophet, elder, or pastor. If I had robbed a bank 10 years ago (or been a known accomplice of a bank robber) I sincerely doubt I could ever be hired as a loan officer. The same principle holds true within the church, or rather in a church which holds to orthodox governing principles.
Forgiveness does not forego consequence. It is certain that God will never despise a broken and contrite heart. Our God shows us grace. This grace extends towards repentant false teachers and prophets. However, I know that he would not cosign for their readmittance to active ministry. The NT simply despises the work of falsity from within the ministry. Rehab won’t cut it. Speaking for God falsely, or endorsing anyone who does so is dangerous territory–no matter how far in the past the events occurred.
—Nathaniel
key of david
you post that you are sincerely interested in the truth. yet immediately afterwards you begin your rebuke as if we do not know who or what we are talking about. hmmmm…. do you know us ? we just as you have sat under this teaching for a good while and seen its fruit. i am one of the remnant, one of the john the baptist type ministers, one of the watchmen , a young lion, i am one who speaks into the spirit realm and proclaims things , i was there when the line of demarkation was drawn in the sand , i did not throw the baby out with the bath water until i discovered there was no baby in the tub. He was in a manger. have you ever heard any of those phrases before ? i have. i am attacking a bunch of false prophets who urge my younger brethren to falsely prophecy from their imaginations just as i was encouraged to do so. read our links. read the gruen report. fight us there. we want you to. but please don’t come with the same old “christianese” that says i want the truth i am sincere and then turns around and says let me tell you what the truth is. lets get objective first then subjective. not vice versa.
I came to the house of prayer in ‘05, and currently attend prayer meetings part time. I’m not yet at FSM. Thanks for being so civil here, I appreciate it so much brother.
I meant the foundation of the people who attend IHOP, when they come there they are taught Matt 5,67 as a core lifestyle, that’s the rock of the house of prayer as far as what they teach, so that’s why I’m here, I’ve sought far and wide and not seen it in American churches. But it’s the measuring stick for greatness in a church (Mat 5:19). IHOP passes with flying colors.
Okay so these orthodox governing principles that say a prophet cannot be restored, where are you basing them? In Matthew 18:15, Jesus says, “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
Gal 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in ANY trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.
So any trespass means any trespass, restoration is what HAS to happen.
I think most of us Ihoppers view Bob Jones and Paul Cains under the light of Romans 11:29, the prophetic gift is irrevocable by God or the Church. The Lord chose them before they fell, and yet He knew they were going to fall. He chooses the foolish things to shame the wise. (1 cor 1:27.) Jesus went to the cross to give saints repentance, after repentance, it says the sin is put into the sea of forgetfullness (Mic 7:19) and as far as the east is from the west is, that’s how far it is from us (Psa 103:12).
So basically your saying that David had no prophetic activity post Bathsheeba, and the calling for the killing of her husband to hide the sin? What about the book of Psalms etc? I shouldn’t ignore the background and crediblity of David?
something short here…
i am really down for lots and lots of prayer
but something to provoke that has to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and ressurected, i listen to a lot of ihop messages, and others that are friends of that ministry, including bill johnson, kris valloton, and bill johnson
i haven’t heard the Gospel, the precious thing that makes us pray, that makes us have hope, the precious message that speaks of a God who reconciles sinners with God
when was the last time the solid gospel message was preached from the pulpit of IHOP? please send me a link to the message
keyofdavid, greetings
do you believe that prophets can give false prophecies and still be prophets, sorry if you’ve already answered that, i haven’t read through all of your posts yet
welcome to the blog
in Christ,
Devin
wait who is saying a prophet cant be restored. you have to be a prophet in the first place yeah ? and how is a gift not revokable when ihop teaches that salvation is ?
So greycoats, I don’t think you really have a case for the gifts being revoked for stumbling in sin. But I see here your other issue is with the idea that anyone can hear the voice of God and then step out in faith prophesy. You seem a little bit like you want it to be like the Old Testament where we could stone someone for giving a false word..haha..
In the Old Testament all prophesy was direct revelation, it was just a matter of whether or not the Prophet had the courage to deliver the Word. In Jer 31:31-35 we see in the new covenant Prophesy is going to be clearly different, and all believers can do it. The OT Prophet Joel also saw this coming when he said in the last day even our sons and daughters would prophesy, as He poured out His prophetic Spirit on ALL flesh (Joel 2:28), though Acts was a downpayment of that, its fullness is in the last days, but I digress.
We are told by Paul that the better covenant has a better gift, as in it ALL have the potential to prophesy (1 cor 14:31). Though few cultivate the gift to the point of full maturity, and fewer still are fully called to the actual office. It is for this reason (that all can potentially prophesy) that we step out in faith and start to listen for the still small voice of the Lord, discerning it from our own. It is for that reason that we do not despise (or accuse) prophecies, but test all things; hold fast to what is good. (1 Thess 5:19:21). Paul says ‘only hold on to what is good, that which you test it and it doesn’t come to pass, throw it out, but don’t despises the bad.’ I don’t think it’s okay to despise the person who gave the bad either.
As we as a church are all different kinds of people with different maturity levels and struggles, we’re given grace to exercise our gifting. Paul twice tells us to desire spiritual gifts, but especially that we may prophesy (1 Cor 14:1,39). As we start the journey, it’s different than the Old Testament for we know in part, and we prophesy in part (13:9)
We aren’t giving prophecies of Judgment like the OT Prophets, our prophesy is to ‘edify, exhort and comfort. (1 Cor 14:3). He doesn’t usually thunder from heaven or speak through a burning bush or donkey, but rather, it’s a subtle internal revelation that must be cultivated through steping out in faith, and then tested, that we would not rely on the prophet, but God to confirm the word.
But if you do try to prophecy again, don’t do it from your imagination, try to hear the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:3
What did Paul say was most important?
have you read what i wrote ? i never tried to make a case for gifts being revoked. and second prove to me that prophecy is not the same as in the ot. he didnt usually thunder or talk through donkeys in the ot either. nowhere are we told that all beleivers can prophecy if they will just cultivate the gift. and lastly when even your big dogs are right about 60% of the time you tend to look like dime store charlatans. you are taught to only give words that encourage because your accuracy levels as a whole are so bad that you would (i mean the generic you not you personally) be proven false almost immediately. no i dont wanna stone people HAHAHA. its not funny. ive met folks who have been stoned by false peophecy. read how did we get here and where is here anyway and you may see where exactly im comin from. also you are taking the know in part verse so far out of context that it hardly warrents a response. that is not what the verse is talking about. the ot prophets new in part and prophecied in part yet where 100% accurate. so what does the verse mean ? not what youve been taught. thats fo sho
hey thats all for me tonight devin keep it real. peace
@ G-Coats: Where can we go that the Lord won’t be there with us? Even unbelievers can here the voice of God, I can make a case for that if you really want me to.
@ devin: I cannot even the number the amount of times I have heard it here about the message of Christ and Him crucfied being the main thing. Allen Hood is amazing to hear on it. Check it out here: http://www.ihopmp3store.com/Shop/Sections/Items/Item.aspx?item_id=1000011288. That’s one of many series of messages on the cross right there. But it’s referenced in most sermons, it’s the core of all we do here. check out every sundays notes here: http://www.ihop.org/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000000380
However we do think that the End-times and Intimacy are great motivators for the lifestyle of the cross. Gal 2:20 is frequently mentioned as the goal here. So we talk about endtimes on saturday nights and Intimacy on fridays, the links are there on that last page, but you’ll find the cross at the center there too.
thanks for those links, i’ll check them out
on a totally random sidenote:
keyofdavid: i was looking at your blog, and saw that you have gregory boyd’s blog linked from it, do you know that he is an open-theist? i mean, all the differences on views of the gifts and all that aside, one thing that i would hope that you know is essential is that God is omnisceint, gregory boyd does not believe that
just a thought, i like having you around to challenge us, you are one in a million from our experience, i, too, like jarrod am going to call it a night
much love,
devin
@ Goats: I maintain that Jer 31:31 is talking about a new covenant with a different method of determining accuracy, which Paul outlines in the New Testament. That method that we are to never despise prophecies, but test all things; hold fast to what is good. (1 Thess 5:19:21). But the burden of proof is on you; at what point to we stop holding fast to what is good and throw away all? You say 60% but that is not biblical. That is just a percentage you made up because you despise Ihop prophesy.
Paul twice tells us to desire spiritual gifts, but especially that we may prophesy (1 Cor 14:1,39). But you’re saying that if we ever start getting it wrong we should stop desiring to prophesy? If with Bob Jones we do what Paul says and were to test all his words and hold fast to his good words, leave the bad, when do we stop holding fast? When should he stop desiring to prophesy? At what point do we become like you and start despising the prophesy? Because you’re setting an example here that you want others to follow, let’s line it all out and make your guidelines clear, so we can apply them to other ‘prophets.’
But let’s make sure your guidelines are biblical first.
1. I’ll say that the “Goats” thing was a typo, and if it wasn’t this is your warning to not say that sort of thing or your comments will get deleted
2. the 60 percent reference was most likely from this:
http://signofjonah.wordpress.com/2006/06/07/extended-thoughts-on-bob-jones/
Key of David,
There is a good bit here. So grab a beverage and settle in. All Biblical quotations are NKJV, ESV, and GNT respectively.
Matt.5.19-20
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus’ commentary in Matthew 5.19 is speaking to the core issue of righteousness. v.20 clears up any question as to our ability to obey the law and thereby become righteous. Christ fulfills the law–in Himself. But, the covenant of works is still in effect and many will continue to attempt to fulfill it. In order to obey “these commands” better than the scribes and Pharisees did one would have to perform them personally, perfectly, and perpetually.
Matthew’s audience are those very Jews who admired the Talmudic expression of Judaism–the conservatives. Matthew relates Jesus’ exposition of the true nature of the law which is far more impossible to actually keep than anyone had ever dreamed. This points to the unique office of the Messiah which Jesus had already fulfilled at the time of Matthew’s gospel.
Grace is free for us. But it was not free for Christ. He did the work of obedience on our behalf which fulfilled the entire law perfectly, personally, and perpetually. By taking on the role of 2nd Adam he satisfied God’s requirement on our behalf, lived a law-abiding life, and reversed the imputation of sin which we inherited from the first Adam at the fall. The reversal results in an imputation of righteousness. This aspect of the atonement (recapitulation) allows us to live freely and securely in the righteousness of Christ.
Only by this righteousness, an alien righteousness credited to us by our surety who is Christ the Lord, may “our” righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
This is a righteousness which comes by faith. Faith is a gift of grace whereby we may be included, adopted, and set apart for sanctification in this life and a future glorification in heaven. Our victorious life depends on this faith–not our faithfulness. We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Good works accompany faith as a witness. Faith results in works. The equation is a yield, not an equality. Obedience does not equal faith.
The faithful do fast and pray–because they have received the gift of faith; these works are born from assurance. Men and women do not fast and pray in order to assure themselves of their faith. Faithfulness does not secure the churches victory, but faith itself.
By that token we should not say that the measure of a church’s greatness is its ability to keep commands, but to believe in He who DID keep every command. It is He who is great in the kingdom of heaven who is our “means of entering”, apart from him we will surely, “by no means enter it.”
Onward: First of all I did not say that “a prophet cannot be restored” but that they should not be readmitted to active ministry. Galatians 6:1b “restore” (καταρτίζω)–”repair” or “adjust”. This would suggest the work of coming alongside, or accountability, to the sinning member. Neither the verb nor the context speak to a restoration to a specific office, function, or ministry. The natural meaning would be admonishment to come alongside offending members who are entrapped in waywardness. Restoration is what should happen but not restoration to a position of teaching, in the case of Cain and Jones the warning of Paul is seen by those upon whom a “stricter judgement is required.”James 3:1
Martin Luther in his commentary on Galatians remarks:
“Pastors and ministers must, of course, rebuke the fallen, but when they see that the fallen are sorry they are to comfort them by excusing the fault as well as they can. As unyielding as the Holy Spirit is in the matter of maintaining and defending the doctrine of faith, so mild and merciful is He toward men for their sins as long as sinners repent.”
1 Tim.3.6-7 speaks to overseers–Bickle is here indicted by way of association since he was both pastor and endorser of Cain and Jones: 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
The passage you cite in Romans 11 is specifically speaking to God’s covenant faithfulness to his nation Israel.
John Murray notes in his commentary that:
“Israel are both “enemies” and “beloved” at the same time, enemies as regards the gospel,
beloved as regards the election. This contrast means that by their rejection of the gospel
they have been cast away and the gospel had been given to the Gentiles but that
nevertheless by reason of election and on account of their relation to the fathers they were
beloved…. “Beloved” thus means that God has not suspended or rescinded his relation
to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with the fathers. Unfaithful
as Israel have been and broken off for that reason, yet God still sustains his peculiar
relation of love to them, a relation that will be demonstrated and vindicated in the
restoration (vss. 12, 15, 26).57″
The extrapolation of this verse to refer to spiritual giftings is a dubious equivocation. The hermeneutic which seeks to use this as a prooftext fails to recognize the meaning of gifting within Paul’s commentary on the nation of Israel. It is just bad biblical interpretation.
Certainly, as I’ve stated before, God is forgiving. And he does not hold the sin of the believer against them. But, he is fiercely protective of His flock and forgiveness does not forego consequence.
Finally, King David fulfilled a specific typological purpose pointing to the coming Messiah. Can you even put him in the same category as Paul Cain and Bob Jones? I really think you would be forced into some blaring inconsistencies if you equate the prophetic ministries of David and Cain/Jones. But we can do it if you really want to.
—Nathaniel
It was Bob Jones that gave the 60% figure to the accuracy of prophecy and not from someone who hates IHOP…. It’s documented all over the place.
Key of David,
I would (after catching up on the discussion) like to address your use of the verse in Thessalonians referencing Paul’s admonition not to despise prophecies when you get a chance.
key of david. i have just read down the thread. and i am not sure if you even read the link that this post is about. but hey in the spirit of freindship letme just say. you obviously have a hard time with logic. the burden of proof concerning the accuracy of prophecy lies my dear one on you not i. your friends and you are the ones who have changed the meaning and use of prophecy and given it a new standard which i might add a whole lot of the church not just america but international disagrees with. second if your mind is open to not despise any prophecy then does that mean you like the celestine prophecys as well. or mabye alittle Nostradomus who coincidently is right about as much as some of your own. if this is the case then your open mind is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. and i would like to echo sam bob jones gave that number not some ihop hater. but you got the wrong idea. we dont hate ihop. we love our brethren ihopers included. we want to share some objective facts about a movement that has been around longer than you have probably been breathin. why ? cause it likes to rewrite its history. but for real.i dont despise prophecy. and wether you know this or not is not my problem. but i do despise psychic powers i have to cultivate that unbelievers can do too. you said you could make that case that unbelievers can prophesy hmmm like the high priest or balaam ? Go ahead make your case i wanna here it.
Check out my fellow ihopper here for a clear view of imputed righteousness. http://matthartke.wordpress.com/past-studies/
I’m aware of the context of the irrevocable gifts and callings verse, but the verse speaks of who God is in His relation to man and He never changes.
Yeah if David wasn’t disqualified by his sin why should Bob Jones be? It’s just not clear to me. It seems like his giftings and callings were irrevocable by his sin.
@others:My point is not where did you get 60%, I’ve known Bob Jones says that. My point is that why do we stop holding fast to the words that are good at the rate 60% of accuracy? That seems to be clearly unbiblical.
@gcoats-so you are saying that we should despise church prophesy on the grounds that psychics exist. weird.
no thats not what i am saying and i think you know it. but thanks for the jab there guy
@KeyofDavid
Do you believe that after Christ came that the way prophecy operates has changed? Did God change His mind and say that the O.T. guidelines are no longer valid in this area? Or are you saying that God has just become more tolerant with us and looks the other way when we are wrong or our flesh is in major mode when it comes to prophecy and for that matter any of the Gifts of the Spirit?
@ Sam: I think my 3st post here is really clear on why sin doesn’t make one no longer a prophet in the Old Testament or New, for all fall short. and my 4th post is really clear on a new covenant where Paul gives new guidelines for a different prophetic ministry where all can prophesy.
no my freind you are not clear. and paul does not give new guidlines for prophecy. but yet again the burden of proof lies on your shoulders
Key of David,
Mr. Hartke is at least honest in his deviation from the standard position of orthodoxy as set forth by the Reformers when he states:
“Nevertheless, that is what traditional Reformed theology says, and most Protestants accept it for that reason. I realize this is bold and assertive, to come against a main tenet of the established, historical theology of the Reformation. My motivation is not a fashionable disregard for tradition, however, but rather an upholding of traditions methodology - of Martin Luther’s methodology - to never set tradition over Scripture.”
First of all, using Luther against himself won’t do. To claim that a Reformed view of imputation is traditional rather than foundational (untrue to the Biblical record) is a dangerous perspective indeed. If you have doubts I suggest that you read the commentaries of Luther and Calvin on Romans, “The Institutes” and “Table Talk”.
Your best company on this topic will be N.T. Wright (an Anglican pastor and theologian) who would also certainly agree that Lutheran perspectives on imputed righteousness got it wrong. However, if you care to take up that debate I strongly urge you to gain a passing awareness of the assertions which scholarship addressing the New Perspective on Paul makes. N.T. Wright and E.P. Sanders despise traditional imputation language as well as muddying the waters of a historical understanding of justification by faith. If I, and many other Evangelicals (John Piper–which IHOP endorses, R.C. Sproul, and D.A. Carson to name a few) find the arguments of these Doctors of Theology uncongent then why would I entertain their regurgitation by one IHOP blogger?
This perspective generally despises Evangelicalism. I hate to tell you this but the framers of the New Perspective would most likely have this one point (denial of imputation) in common with you and your friend. With that stated, I am not surprised that you and/or IHOP would so elevate the Bridal Paradigm as to cast off the historic view of imputation–dominionism is an extreme form of Arminianism with distinct Pelagian dynamics. Hartke illustrates this when he says, ‘I believe it [imputation] contradicts the Bridal Paradigm.’
Sadly, Hartke’s view is headed in a Romish direction. The idea that Paul, in relating the work of imputation, “does not describe it (righteousness) as consisting of a positive transfer of Christ’s perfection, but of an absence of the negative transfer of our sins,” simply puts our account at zero. This is not Good News . For it is not then a salvation by grace alone. An “absence of the negative transfer” leaves much wanting in regard to our account before God.
The difference then must be made up somehow. Since Hartke refuses the meritorial transfer of Christ’s perfect life then by what token are we indeed approved before God? In this instance Christ’s atoning work becomes a starting point and the words “It is finished” are not truly expedient to the believer. Merit is the opposite of grace.
Onward: The Romans 11 test speaks to who Israel is in relation to God, not who God is in relation to man. Your hermeneutic is allegorical and similar to Origen’s system whereby each Scripture has three interpretations, a literal, moral, and spiritual meaning. Origen was condemned as a heretic and his hermeneutic has been resoundingly discarded within the bounds of Evangelical scholarship beginning with Augustin. Augustin’s system is still used today whereby first one consults clearer passages of Scripture, second the “rule of faith”–the church’s traditional interpretation of the text, and thirdly the context is used to mediate any remaining dispute.
What are we left with? Ah, Bob Jones. You write, “It seems like his giftings and callings were irrevocable by his sin.” No, the meaning of the verse is a description of election. The gifting and calling of Israel is irrevocable by God because He has chosen them. Their sin is not a hindrance to God’s saving power. You cannot fit this passage into a pneumatological framework. If Bob Jones is indeed included in God’s family then he will in no way be cast away–that could be a possible use of this Scripture, but even so, there are more clear passages which deal with election and eternal security.
Finally, David=Bob Jones. You said earlier that, “Though few cultivate the gift to the point of full maturity, and fewer still are fully called to the actual office. It is for this reason (that all can potentially prophesy) that we step out in faith and start to listen for the still small voice of the Lord, discerning it from our own.”
If Jones did fulfill the office of a prophet, and at one time Bickle claimed that he did, then his prophecies fall under the judgement of OT standards. David did fulfill a type of the tri-fold Messianic office–there were kingly, priestly, and prophetic aspects to David’s rule. David is not first “a prophet” he is first a king–his rulership is the primary attribute in revealing the Messiah. Nathan and Samuel were contemporaries of David who held the specific prophetic office which Jones purportedly fulfilled. If you want to compare I think it would be wise to use another example beside David.
Key of David might also find this article helpful to articulate the differences between the prophets of God of old and some of the post modern claims that are being made to that gift:
http://iseeitdifferently.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/the-prophetic/
I would like to hear what you think about what I said about 1 Thess 5:19:21.
As far as imputed righteousness, I’m still studying it, and yes I’m checking out N.T. Wright. But at the end of the day, the idea behind imputed rightouesness is that we would become what we are. If I already am blameless, holy, I see myself that way and stop walking in sin, stop breaking the law and start obeying it. We stop obeying the letter and go with the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is found in matthew 567, I’m still trying to understand you though, Jesus says some will be called great and some called least, but both are in the Kingdom, both are saved. But it’s not wisdom for me go after greatness in the Kingdom, by the spirit of the law? Perhaps I should instead go after greatness in the world’s kingdom?
I just don’t think the Old Testament standards apply to New Testament prophets, or we should have stoned Bob Jones for each false word?
I’ll continue to say it again and again - All prophecy is judged on this: Has God really spoken it, or is it just the imagination of the prophet?
If God has not spoken it, but the prophet ascibes it to God, then the prophet (OT or NT) is in a precarious situation. (Ezekial 13)
There is not a dispensation on presumption.
My experience with prophecy in the Charismatic church, and especially in the (popular) realm of personal prophesy is that it for the most part is pure presumtion, and often manipulation, which is witchcraft.
Sadly, most within the movement are blinded to this. Thoise of us who have studied it for years have seen the bad fruit borne out of it.
As to the oft-cited irrevocability of the gift of prophecy, it may be irrevocable, but I would guess that if you were sodomizing young men while drunk it might make it harder to hear from God and deliver a pure word. Or that asking young women to stand naked to recieve a prophetic word might be a distaction indeed.
Just a gut feeling; I have no experience in those areas but I do know that sin separates us from God.
>or we should have stoned Bob Jones for each false word?
You guys love that Stoning argument. Time to let it go. God’s punsihment is far worse than anything man can mete out.
Jeremiah 23:12
“Therefore their path will become slippery;
they will be banished to darkness
and there they will fall.
I will bring disaster on them
in the year they are punished,”
declares the LORD.
KOD,
I think that 1 Thess 5:19-21 has been misused by many as a free pass to prophesy in a presumtive manner. This misuse reveals a clear lack of the fear of God.
Phases like “put it on the shelf” and “eat the fish but spit out the bones” are often cited in charismatic teachings on dealing with questionable prophecy.
I’d say it would be far better for a little more restaint to be shown by the “prophets.” I’d also say that a good shepherd does not feed his sheep boney fish or permit them to eat them.
Indeed we should “test everything’” In fact, that is a key verse for those involved in discernment/apologetics ministries, and something that those in the prophetic/apostolic/c-matic often object to.
I once heard a prophecy “(the Lord Says) You cannot do a damn thing.” It did not cause me to treat prophecies with contempt, but I found the leadership of that church irresponsibe, yes even contemptible, for not refuting that “prophetic word.”
Bill, re: 1 thes, we agree.
Key of David,
I am enjoying our discussion. You have hung in there. Most pro-IHOP bloggers bring emotionally charged arguments laden with ad hominem attacks. They post once or twice and never stick around for intelligent debate whereby I might reason with them from the Scriptures.
What you have said here–
“But at the end of the day, the idea behind imputed rightouesness is that we would become what we are. If I already am blameless, holy, I see myself that way and stop walking in sin, stop breaking the law and start obeying it.”
–is very close to a historically orthodox Protestant view of the effects of imputed righteousness.
But “the spirit of the law” which you refer to later is not the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus”-Rom.8.2 which sets us free. Matthew 5,6, and 7 are Christ’s correct exposition of Mosaic Law. It is not a new law, but the covenant of works in its purest form. Paul finds the corollary to this truth when he says that,”… now we are released from the law [by the covenant of grace], having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom.7.6
The law which is written upon our hearts speaks to a change of inclination. Our basic orientation has been redirected. Now, to sin is like swimming upstream–it is difficult and unfruitful–but to complete good works is like swimming downstream, in that we are swept along by the current of faith.
As to being great in the kingdom of heaven, the parable in Matt. 20 concerning the laborers in the vineyard is meant to dispel just this type of speculation. And, I don’t believe that the talents in Matt. 25.14-30 refer to “public usefulness” as I’ve heard Bickle define them in his Mary of Bethany series.
Barnes notes in his commentary that he who was given one talent is typical in that, “this [attitude] expresses exactly the feelings of all sinners. God, in their view, is hard, cruel, unjust.” The talent stands for an encounter with the gospel. He who hides such a treasure will surely be cast away–his view of God is skewed, just as the servant’s was of his master. Those who responded to the gospel truth by faith are included in the family of faith and welcomed into the joy of the Lord for all eternity.
When you say, “I just don’t think the Old Testament standards apply to New Testament prophets,” I have to then wonder what is the point of calling them prophets? Wayne Grudem claims that the office of prophet is supplanted in the NT by the office of apostle. Bickle works off of Grudem’s scholarship in “Growing in the Prophetic” but attempts to (unfairly) extend it beyond the intent of its author. Grudem’s theory is the most plausible and reasonably exegeted continuationist perspective, his main work on the topic is entitled, “The Gift of Prophecy”.
I believe that if a NT prophet is another word for a “spiritual encourager” then we should simply call them that and avoid the label of “prophet” which carries so much baggage.
I will answer the Thessalonians questions on a separate post.
Key of David,
I’m anxious to continue our discussion, are you still interested?
Nat,
Please forgive me if I am interrupting a conversation.
You said:
>>I believe that if a NT prophet is another word for a “spiritual encourager” then we should simply call them that and avoid the label of “prophet” which carries so much baggage.
——————
I agree. Too often IHOP young prophets that I have known claim to be spiritual encouragers, but practice something that looks more like divination than spiritual encouragement.
They use the term “spiritual encouragment” when confronted by the biblical texts, but then lapse into predictive type activities that look more like fortune telling. This appears to be motivated by the need to claim “signs and wonders” in order to legitimize their office.
All too often preconceived notions of prophetic practices shape the interpretation of the texts.
One could argue for the continuation of the gift of prophecy without resorting to this type of definition which I would submit is inconsistent with the major thrust of the New Testament and the known practices of the post-apostolic fathers.
rob
i think that is 100% accurate
Rob,
“…the need to claim “signs and wonders” in order to legitimize their office.”
There is a post similar to this line of thought on iseeitdifferently@wordpress.com. It is entitled “The Prophetic”.
How may times have I witnessed “spiritual encouragers,” albeit with the best of intentions, give a “word of encouragement” or “prophecy” to someone, which instead of comforting, or exhorting, caused confusion, doubt, fear and unbelief?
The Toronto soaking prayer training tells you to avoid phrases like “the Lord says.” I believe this is because it gives them wiggle room- they don’t have to be accountable (in their minds) if they don’t present it as a prophectic word. And yet the whole team will ooh and ahh (or “hoe”
over the “word” and indeed believe that it is direct from God.
The specific types of direction may or may not be from God. Some prophectic authorities would say that the very best only hit it 66% of the time. How much less for the “boy prophet?”
Very often, I believe the directive words are from the minds of the prophets, who prophecy off each other.
I have witnessed first hand the disasters caused by such words. John Bevere spends a lot of time in his book “Thus saith the Lord” on the harm caused by directive personal prophecy. Or “spiritual encouragement” as some might call it.
Sorry, was searching some things out. Ready to talk about the 1 Thes. verse when you are.
1) i understand where you’re coming from on the sermon on the mount. But to get the point here let’s talk about the actual concept of greatness and why He uses that language. I’m interested then on your thoughts of Mat 5:19 in light of the idea that there are good and faithful servants and wicked and lazy ones, there are foolish and wise virgins.
From IHOP:
Jesus taught that there would be a range of degrees of glory and greatness in God’s Kingdom including those who are called the least and the greatest. Our rewards in eternity greatly differ from one another. The largest star known is the Pistol Star, which has a mass about 100-150 times that of the Sun, and is about 10 million times brighter.
41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. (1 Cor. 15:41-42)
Mt. 20:26-27 the ‘greatness’ obviously does not refer to the current age, as that is not the case, we don’t esteem the servants as great even in the church typically. It makes sense to me that if I go after servanthood that I will be great in the 5:19 Kingdom of heaven.
But desiring authority in heaven is different than desiring authority on the earth, like the mother of the sons of thunder. It’s not about status, it’s about working close with Jesus, in the fullness of what we’ve been called to. He’s not going to be everywhere at once, close with a billion believers. It makes sense to me that some will have more interaction with him as
rulers over ten cites, that others who did not desire that deep of relationship with Him in this age, and did not pursue very much obedience or sermon on the mount.
1 cor 3 talks about people who will be saved, but as if by fire, because they built earthly principles on the foundation of Christ. Now I view the laborers in the Matt 20 vineyard through the lens of ‘whom much is given much is required.’ Those who aren’t saved or in the vineyard very long were not given very much and if they walked in all they had they would then be rewarded as much as those who were given a great deal, and walked in it. Both would get the same wage.
2) I think the point of calling them prophets is that the Lord does. Eph 4, He’s given us the fivefold until we are a unified bride walking in spotlessness and then He will return.
Key of David,
If you are waiting on …
1) Unified Bride
2) Walking in Spotlessness
= 3) Some Other “Jesus” not the One I know…
And therein lies the danger my friend.
yes, it’s dangerous to take Him at His Word. I do appreciate context and the Greek, but I’ll always go with the face value over a convuluted argument that says He can’t be trusted or that Scripture doesn’t mean what it says or say what it means.
key of david
a name reserved for only one. no where in the word of God does it say He will not return untilwe are spotless. the word paints a much different picture of our masters return. to be great in heaven is to be a slave. the greater you are the less you care about being great. thats why we seek to be great in Heaven. a heaven where i only see Christ once a month is not much of a heaven at all. and it is not found in the word of God. only in the speculation of some. yes He will be every where at once He is the omnipresentlord of the universe.
G-Coats:1) Show me from Scripture: is He going to be everywhere at once? or Show me where He isn’t going to rule and reign from the New Jerusalem?
If we are not to care about being great, then why does say that some will be great and some least IN THE KINGDOM(Mat 5:19)? How does He want His hearers to respond? The burden of proof
is on you to show me where He says that I shouldn’t care about being great. Many are called, few are chosen. Be Faithful in small things, I will make you ruler over many cities.
2) Eph 4:13 …until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Sounds like it’s going to happen to me. The burden of proof is on yall to
convince me it won’t.
KoD,
You said:
>>Eph 4, He’s given us the fivefold until we are a unified bride walking in spotlessness and then He will return.
No where in the cited passage does it link spotlessness of the bride with his return. Rather the next verse says:
“so that we may no longer be children,tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”
The sentence does not end in vs. 13. It ends in vs. 14 above.
Linking Matt. 5:19 and Eph. 4:13 eschatologically is historically novel and risky at best — heterodox at worst.
I would suggest that you have your sail out in a virtual gale of doctrine. Please prayerfully consider your situation. Pull the sail down and grab the oars of the Word of God and paddle quickly to shore.
oy vey . if you had read more carefully and without an antagonistic agenda you would have seen that i was in agreement with you about the desire for greatness . sadly i think you have your combat lenses on. the omniscience of God is a core doctrine of the faith. if Christ is who He says He is well you fill in the blank. but never the less i will be glad to show you from scripture that Christ is God and that God is omniscient. no big deal and easily done. i dont have time in this post but i will give you the enormous amount of evidence before the night is through. please do stick around for it. isnt the new jerusalem His bride ? how can that be if the church is His bride ? just a side thought. i did not say anywhere that He wont reign from a new jerusalem i questioned your version of what that means. however for someone who comes with interpretations that are not of the hmmm how shall i say this …. well quite frankly orthodox ideal but more of a latter rainy kind of flavor you sure do tell me the burden of proof is mine alot. its like a jehovas witness telling a believer Christ is not God and then telling the believer that the burden of proof lies on Him to prove that Christ is. i will tell you what. you prove that Christ wont be present with every believer since thats what you are asserting. and i will prove otherwise. but for future refference when one comes with a paradigmn that is not the norm or considered in contradiction of the one all accept as true. then my fine friend the burden of proof actually lies on the guy with the new idea to prove his point. but let me lay this on ya. it sound like you wanna be a heavenly ruler. i wanna be great in the kingdom as well but i am looking at it more from a the greater you are the more you shine Gods glory for all to see, not your own. you were created to be a mirror and a mirror you are. be carful not to fall in love with the God like shadow you cast. or you will be in the words of jason upton just another dying star.
1. God is omnipresent, otherwise He wouldn’t be qualified to be God. I dont believe the claim was made that Christ won’t rule from the New Jerusalem. I think you missed the point of Jarrod’s message. Greatness is different to God than it is to us. To be great here on Earth is to live in humility (the last will be first, the first will be last)so, seeking greatness in God’s eyes is living in rejection to the earthly view of greatness.
2. I dont even know what you’re trying to say as far as an argumentation by quoting that verse. I need to know what you are addressing with that verse in order for me to respond.
Who is trying to convince you that something won’t happen? And can you quote their words saying that whatever it is won’t happen to you?
in Christ,
Devin
Key of David,
Does your blogsite go by the same handle? I found a Key of David site but was cautious to comment without certainty.
1. There is a good deal in response to 1.
First, your use of 1 Corinthians 15 is a false comparison. Paul is comparing the earthly with the heavenly bodies, the resurrected body with the finite body. He is comparing and contrasting heavenly resurrected bodies with heavenly resurrected bodies. The analogy of the sun and moon serves its point. Please do not follow IHOP in overextending it.
Then, you say that, “He’s not going to be everywhere at once, close with a billion believers.” This statement contradicts theology proper–the omnipresence of Christ as God. If IHOP is teaching this as doctrine then they will have to pull both Grudem’s Systematic Theology and A.W. Tozer’s “The Knowledge of the Holy” off their shelves. But, seriously, can you provide documentation that IHOP teaches this? I would like to see it.
In additon, you relate that: “Those who aren’t saved or in the vineyard very long were not given very much and if they walked in all they had they would then be rewarded as much as those who were given a great deal, and walked in it. Both would get the same wage.”
I am afraid that the Matthew 20 text simply does not support this view. And, it is contradictory reasoning. Either they received THE SAME wage or they didn’t.
With that stated, would it be presumptious to understand the IHOP’s view of merited reward in the following way: Instead of gaining salvation by works the believer secures the largest room in the mansion and the most brilliant crown in the pile by works. I hope I am not being overly simplistic (this is similar to what say… Charles Stanley might promote). But, I believe that kind of thinking leads one to self-righteousness and upper vs. lower level Christian classifications.
Frankly, I’m more worried about your views concerning imputation than the extent to which our Christian good works will secure us more glory. But, I feel that they may be linked in some way after following your thought process.
2. The 5-fold office–with prophecy in view particularly. Well, I suppose you’ve forced my hand on this one. I will post my reply to this and 1 Thessalonians on a separate comment pane, it is not short. I hope you will at least read up on Grudem’s take on continuationism if you choose to follow that path. Balance his views off of Bickle’s and decide for yourself. Don’t just go with the IHOP flow. You seem to be a reasonable person, please don’t let the triumphalism of the prophetic movement erase that worthy quality.
At any rate. I will follow this response with my comments on 1 Thess.
3.
Key of David,
First, I believe we could refer to modern prophecy as “preaching the message of God”. By this token we can validate prophecy without looking to any certain prophet. If this is what you mean by prophecy it could be more easily understood in today’s language as preaching. Wayne Grudem’s attempt to redefine the terms prophet and prophecy are exegetically respectable. His scholarship is winsome and valid, but I am not convinced of its cogency. For starters there are far too many in the prophetic movement who piggyback off Grudem, hijack his scholarship, and twist his original message. I’ve never heard tell of his taking issue with this kind of falsity. I wish he would.
With that stated, one difficulty for those who propose a continuation between OT and NT prophecy (albeit a less powerful , non-canonical manifestation) is the wide variety of textual occurences of the various augmented word προφητης (prophet). Barclay’s apparatus notes that προφητεια(ς) may be simply translated as “the gift of preaching the message of God” or even “intelligible preaching”(see 1 Cor.14.6, 22). Therefore, in this sense I believe we could safely interchange prophecy with preaching. Even in 1 Thessalonians 5:20 , which is often cited as a warning against prophetic suspicions in Charismatic circles, the word may be translated preaching; in the exhortation “Do not despise προφητειας”.
Realizing this synonymous link between preaching and prophecy has helped me come to grips with and put to rest a problematic aspect of the biblical account. The prophetic movement (or 3rd wave Charismaticism, radical Pentecostalism, or neo-Montanism) has been a troublesome animal for me experientially, personally, and doctrinally for a number of years now–not in small part by its heightened mystical aspect and anti-intellectual climate. However, I believe that I have followed my path of prophetic inquisition to a satisfactory end.
With this in mind I believe prophecy is alive and well. Prophecy is seen in past days of the church age in the writings and messages of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Bunyan, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Even in this modern era I believe we can hear the direct and pertinent message of God to the entire church through the likes of A.W. Tozer, C.S Lewis (delightfully orthodox in his allegorical interpretations of biblical truth), John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John McArthur, and Ravi Zacharias. Preaching shores up faith by delivering an overpowering sense of the majestic presence of God coupled with the timely quality of a given message. Rudolf Otto comments on Luther in “The Idea of the Holy” by explaining that, “In this experience [preaching] the humanly rational is transcended, and the soul is enveloped in awe and rapture”.
One added qualification to my view is that prophecy/signs and wonders are really unnecessary in regions where the apostolic authority of the Scriptures are prevalent and the Church has a well-established presence, I base this reasoning on 1 Cor.13.8-13. Apostleship has ceased with Paul entirely as he relates in 1 Cor.15.8. However, in areas where Christianity is persecuted or unknown and where the Scripture is either not translated or unavailable it is reasonable to believe reports of miraculous phenomena since in these cases a corollary to faith would be appropriate in lieu of Church and Bible. Spiritual marvels are not business as usual nor a power source for Christians to tap into for devotional, transcendent, or mystical purposes. They are formative in nature and foundational in purpose.
Still, transcendence does not take place through mystical means or synergistic models. Whatever your individual conclusions on this topic of prophecy may be I believe that modern prophetic visions or labeled prophetic utterances are not pertinent to the ongoing purpose of Christendom. Mysticism is strangely similar within the confines of any religion and, as D.G. Bloesch notes, suffers from an, “almost endemic synergism”. The mysticism of Plato and Plotinus rears its ugly head throughout the ages. Those forms holding biblical affinity share more in common with Pantheistic Monism than Christian orthodoxy. Perhaps it would be reactionary, but I am tempted to agree with Benjamin Warfield when he said that one could not be a mystic and a Christian.
Well, I will not go that far. Why not you ask (or who cares you ask)? This is simply because of the true help that A.W. Tozer brings (posthumously) to the corporate Body. His recognition of historic confessional orthodoxy within the context of pursuing God is unparalled. The devotional quality of his work both quiets the mind and elevates the spirit. Still, it is important to note that he did not label himself with the mystic nametag even if he did loosely own the title.
One thing I cannot own is the responsibility of signing off on the seemingly schizophrenic ramblings of any self-proclaimed modern prophet—be they Rick Joyner, Choo Thomas, Lou Engle, or even the more nuanced definitions as translated through Mike Bickle and the IHOP—sanitized if you will. This position should be self-evident within a post-modern era lacking many objective frameworks to begin with. Frivolous use of the title “prophet” and “prophecy” devalue the established canon and make the slope slippery toward extra-biblical primacy. Is the word of God sufficient? The blood of the martyrs should testify to that fact. If any new revelatory message was evaluated and agreed upon by a larger (catholic–small “c”) ecclesiastical body then we should indeed include this work as a book in the Apocalyptic literature of the NT canon. However, no such body exists. Therefore, the warnings to the Church found in the NT must in some sense be individualized in order to protect oneself and warn immediate brothers and sisters against the deviation from sound doctrine and the appearance of false prophets.
all hail the great and powerful Natrimony!! we are glad hes on our side.
DANG NAT, I SAID THROW DOWN BOY!!!
My blog is http://thekeyofdavid.wordpress.com
Imputed righteousness? When the Father sees me He sees me clothed in the righteousness of Jesus. So as long as I continue to trust in the cross as atoning for my sins, and maintaining a knowing relationship with Jesus (Mat 7:23). However He won’t relent until my salvation shines like the dawn (Isa 62:1), until I walk holy and blameless.
I can assure you that the way the ‘Kingdom Few’ message is received is a hunger for entering all that we were called for, to not suffer loss on Judgment Day or have regret that we should have done more of what we were asked to do for the Kingdom, and the view that our reward is Jesus. He says we would be given 10 cities as reward for faithfulness but it’s not about the cities at all. In a Kingdom Paradigm it’s all about seeing the will of the Father done. In this age, so that we can do it on an even greater level in the Kingdom age, so that the Father is pleased. And yes we want to be in close workings with the Throne.
You said that Matt 20 doesn’t support my view of the first, having labored longer, having the same wage as those who labored in the Kingdom a short while, “because they both walked in all they had.” but what about the final punchline verse Mat 20:16 “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” He could have backed you and equality of wage and said ‘The last and first shall be the same, or they both will have the same wage.’ But He says it in a way that backs up levels of placement, which seems to be the typical way He talks about the Kingdom. It seems to fit in with all the other Kingdom level parables such as the four seeds where the fourth hearers of get different levels of return, such as 40, 60, or even 100 fold return on their harvest they had sown (Same concept as 1 Cor 15:49). There’s just to many verses that back up the Kingdom few, to write it off because of a questionable interpretation of this parable.
Re: 1 Cor 15:41 right, I knew you would have that view, but Paul doesn’t say what he means, either interpretation could be valid, but when I view it in light of the idea that some will be over 10 cities and some over 5, it makes sense that there might be a reward proportionate to our faithfulness.
2) Okay to be clear ‘He’s not going to be everywhere at once, with a billion believers.’ Meaning Jesus, as a man in the flesh, He’s a man forever. Holy Spirit will be everywhere, but Jesus was not everywhere at once in bodily form at His first coming, it’s not heresy to say He won’t be at His second, I mean what’s the big deal here?
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isa 2:2-4).
Now this seems pretty clear on where Jesus will rule and reign on the new heavens and earth. Now you guys are saying that there will be billions of Jesus’s, in the flesh all over the earth? Or does it make more sense that some would be interacting with King Jesus more than others, the people of the nations flowing to His house?
3) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 UNTIL WE ALL ATTAIN to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4:11-13)
So if you at least agree that the fivefold ministry, specifically the prophet’s office, has a function which is needed and unique within the body, then let’s define it. What is the function? To exegete scriptures? How is that different than what a Pastor? I’m speaking practically here. You are wanting to reduce the role of a Prophet from one who hears God to a pastoral theologian who in a correct way exegetes interpretation of Scripture. The problem with that is Acts 2 knits The outpouring of the Spirit to prophesy, which I take to means direction from hearing the voice of the Lord. The verse also says this outpouring also causes our church body to have visions and dreams, which the NT and OT describe as having a ‘prophetic’ quality to them.
You say prophecy as preaching the very message of God, but i hear ‘exegeting Scriptures in a correct way,’ as applicable to the people of God. Which leaves us with Prophets who aren’t ‘hearing the voice of God and repeating it,’ but rather are good theologians.
Basically how does John 10:1-18 fit in to you last post? Jesus is really stressing the need to hear His voice, that it would be the one thing from keeping us off course. I know Paul prayed to know the will of the Lord, but how will we know it if He doesn’t speak to people anymore. Jesus is alive! and not mute, and He’s still leading His church(!), lets not forget John 16:8,13, there is a Holy Spirit within us leading us to truth, now if He’s not leading us through speaking to us, then just how is He leading us from within, yet without words? 2nd Cor 13:14 fellowship implies dialogue. So if all can hear God, sure a man called to the Eph 4 office can and from there give a prophetic word to open a new church, go do missions in this country even start a prayer room and call it ihop.
To confine Jesus’s leadership within the church to theology seems a little odd, and mostly motivated by a desire to keep prophetic wildfire from happening. There is counterfeit money out there, but I still use really money. I still hold fast to good prophetic directives if they are confirmed to me by the Lord. There is a place for the Lord to direct His people even in the small things, but also in the large, still today a la Isa 30:21 hearing His voice behind you, turn left or right, which is why Paul prayed Col 1:9, that He would begin to fill us with the knowledge of His will. That implies He can tell us what it is.
1 Cor 15:8 is less than solid to run with on the ceasing of apostleship. The ‘all’ in that verse ‘of all the apostles,’ doesn’t have to mean all - ever. It makes more sense in the context, ‘out of all the apostles of the early church.’ It doesn’t mean there will not be apostles later. Also, the word last can mean least, as in least of all.
I just love my relationship with the Father and that He speaks to me and His leadership in my life is perfect. He speaks because He is intimately involved in my life, and formed me with plans and a purpose, a destiny and a calling, and He is revealing it each step of the way. He uses dreams, visions, He speaks to me, and yes even other prophetic voices in the church, and He does that because He wants us to rely on each other in the Body. The same way He grows and nutures and matures a ministry, with encouragment, with counsel, with direction(!), and correction. Man wasn’t meant to completely usurp this role, but be a part of it.
wow soun ds like stuart grieves. the kingdom few hmmmmm……many are called and few are chosen but the text implys that if your not chosen then hell is you eternal vacation spot with no windows or doors. kid i am not a cessationist and in truth your views just make me sad. i hate that you havent been taught the full council of God nor how to interpret the scriptures with the aid and guidance of the spirit as well as a good herminutic. i believe the gifts are for today. i also believe that you have been sold a bag of false views and are quite good at parroting back what you think you know. how did you come to these conclusions and so adimantly as that. coincidently there is more to a cessationist argument than just that verse. i got schooled once for thinking that was all there was to it. to speak with you in your own language you need a paradigm shift. you take the 10 city thing literally yet its a parable jesus didnt give the apostles any money to invest. so how do we know that they will get cities at all ? i also believe in a literal millenium rule. but read revelation a bit closer. where does the new jerusalem come from. and check the measurements my man. what is the new jerusalem called. and did you know if we get literal the nj is bigger than the earth ! so i just think that even though you cant put God in a box which is probably somthing you have heard before and or said before, in these things your box is too small
KoD,
Thank you for your interaction here. I really appreciate your dialog and your heart in these matters. We could go on and on about the individual words and ideas in your posts, but that would probably be pointless, because you are reading scripture through a lens that is at best 50 years old.
The reality is that you are advocating a position on many scriptures that is unknown in the 2000 years of church history. In effect you believe that almost everyone in church history got it wrong until now. You have been taught to point to certain examples and claim similarity, but in fact these examples would likely not embrace you today if they were here. Yours is a view of Christianity that is without historical support or perspective.
Please appreciate that I am very skeptical of ANY position that claims a completely new revelation. And no matter how much you want to assert otherwise, the IHOP position on much of scripture is novel and new. It is unheard of in the scope of church history. This goes for the extreme position of the bridal paradigm to much of IHOP’s eschatology. I might also add that even the five-fold ministry held as so foundational is unorthodox in its perspective and a relatively modern application of Eph. 4. Throughout most of church history the apostles and prophets meant just that — THE apostles and THE prophets.
I would urge you to take a bigger view of God. He promised to guide us into all truth through the Holy Spirit, and that means that there should be Christians through all ages that “got it”.
That, coupled with the obvious dubious nature of the inception of IHOP, should give you some cause for reconsideration of what you have been taught.
blessings on you,
-r
I appreciate your input here, and yes I am aware that this is not traditional theology. But I’m committed what Paul called ‘the love of truth.’ I don’t want to accept something just because those before me did.
To be clear, He said the Holy Spirit would lead us, individiually, into truth. I can apply that to myself and seek to be lead into truth. It doesn’t mean ‘believe all that has come before you, for surely they were lead into truth,’ no I get to claim the promise for myself. I mean the pre-trib rapture idea is widespread all over the church and yet it’s only 100 years old. So we should blindly reject that doctrine as well, for its novelty? I reject it because the Holy Spirit lead me into truth. But if I follow your logic, why did the Holy Spirit not lead our Fathers over the ages into this truth of PT rapture? If it is false, why has He allow so much of the church to be given over to deception?
Key of David,
You have certainly been busy, and it looks everyone is getting a crack at you. How are you holding up?
This response may be my last for a short while since my school schedule is ratcheting up a bit. But, I really do hope that you stick around. If I don’t hear from you I now know where to look. And now onward.
I’ve tried to address the major points which you mention in this reply.
You can find a short defense of the doctrine of Christ’s omnipresence here at http://www.carm.org under the question “How is Jesus Omnipresent”. I would like to add that you are still lacking tangible support from IHOP’s teaching base that Jesus’ glorified body is not omnipresent. It would help me to see a direct quote from a source. If you agree that God is omnipresent, and you agree that Christ is God, then you must view Him also as omnipresent. To do less is to deny that Christ is fully God. The Church’s 4th ecumenical council, Chalcedon I (451) deals with this important definition.
Matthew 20—“The last shall be first and the first last”– is a punctuated reiteration of Jesus’ prior statement which answers Peter’s complaint. At the end of chapter 19 v.27-30 Jesus is saying: “Don’t fret guys, you’ll be taken care of, but if this is your primary worry then you may be missing the point”. The whole parable is directed to those who might go farther in their complaints and is summed up with the same conclusion. The activity which seeks to determine levels of placement is exactly what Jesus is teaching against in this parable!
I am not primarily interested in, “…the way the ‘Kingdom Few’ message is received,” (I am sure it is received in many ways) but in how it is delivered. I want the nuts and bolts of the “Kingdom Few”, so that there is no wiggle room. I am committed to understanding universal, absolute, and objective truths—ones which don’t rely on my receiving them or not. I don’t always like to receive truth, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
By that token, I’ve already explained my understanding of the parable of the talents, here it is restated. I will not address this again.
“I don’t believe that the talents in Matt. 25.14-30 refer to “public usefulness” as I’ve heard Bickle define them in his Mary of Bethany series.
Barnes notes in his commentary that he who was given one talent is typical in that, “this [attitude] expresses exactly the feelings of all sinners. God, in their view, is hard, cruel, unjust.” The talent stands for an encounter with the gospel. He who hides such a treasure will surely be cast away–his view of God is skewed, just as the servant’s was of his master. Those who responded to the gospel truth by faith are included in the family of faith and welcomed into the joy of the Lord for all eternity.
On to the “parable of the 4 seeds”, as you put it. This has accurately been understood as the “Parable of the Sower”. The focus of the story is not on the seeds ability. The point of the parable is the intent of the Sower. The seeds were not randomly sown. The Sower is intentional in His sowing. Does the seed determine it growth? No. The soil into which it is purposely planted, coupled with foreseen environmental factors, determines growth.
Likewise, the “Parable of the Ten Minas” in Luke 19.11-27 draws from the imagery of the talents in Matthew. Luke utilizes literary parallelism to reinforce the point, in effect building interest in the narrative similar to how a joke may have 2 phases before the punchline . Except that the Word of God never makes light of damnation. With that in mind I believe that there are really two categories here, not three. 1. Those who accept the gift of faith and 2. Those who hide it from themselves and others. Do not overextend the analogy like you did with the picture of the sun and moon from Corinthians.
I don’t mean to be harsh but I’m starting to wonder if you are making up your views as you go along. It is unclear as to which of these perspectives are your own individual interpretations and which are IHOP’s/Mike Bickle/Allen Hood’s. It would help the discussion out a great deal if you would pinpoint the origin of some of your views. I am interested in discovering your hermeneutical principles. Not only that, but if someone else is involved in our dialogue–a friend or mentor of yours perhaps—I would certainly welcome any comment from them.
But, finally, this statement, “When the Father sees me H