Destroying Discernment: Mike Bickle and What Makes a False Prophet

Introduction

Michael Youssef once said: "The wolf absolutely hates the watchdog who protects the sheep." One of the greatest signs of a wolf is when someone wants to get rid of any level of discernment, or at the very least belittle or minimalize that which had previously served as discernment. Anytime someone wants to attack the standard which outlines "A is not B because of Y," their views should immediately be called into question. There are plenty of historical examples of this with false prophets. For example, Mohammad claimed to be giving revelation in line with the Torah and Gospel, and yet told his followers not to bother reading Christian scripture as they had a perfect revelation in the Quran.

Of course, most false prophets and teachers don't outright say "Let's lower our levels of discernment" - nor should we expect them to do so. The false teachers are those who appear in sheep's clothing, but on the inside are ravenous wolves (Matt 7:15). That is why discernment is so important - it gives us an ability to figure out when we're dealing with a wolf disguised as a sheep. This is why, for example, we should get worried when Doug Pagitt says we shouldn't use the Bible as our final source of authority, or when Rob Bell teaches that it's far more important to tell a good story than it is to represent God's word accurately. Again, neither of these men will outright say "Oh hey guys, lower your discernment so I can introduce some false doctrine, all right?", yet when you get to the heart of the matter, that is what they are doing. Doug Pagitt, in fact, will claim he's not doing what we think he's doing, then proceed to confirm our fears by teaching precisely that (for example, saying that he doesn't believe Jesus is just an example, then going on for the next few pages teaching that Jesus is just an example). I've compared this to the villain of Don Bluth's An American Tail, who is a cat disguised as a mouse, and when he's revealed to be what he is at the end tells the mice: "C'mon, who are you gonna believe? Me, or your own eyes?" Again, no wolf is going to admit to being a wolf in sheep's clothing (some wolves may be delusional enough to even think they're sheep), but if we throw out even a few methods of discernment, it gets harder and harder to identify who is a wolf and who is not.

That is why, as I began to research the background and beliefs of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) as well as its founder, Mike Bickle, I felt a sense of worry growing within me. This was because I noticed that, on several levels, Mike Bickle was likewise attempting to harm our sense of discernment. When you followed through to the logical conclusion of why he was doing so, it was obvious that Bickle's intent was to give far greater legitimacy to his ministry and prevent possible criticisms from enemies.

The following are three major areas I noticed, over the course of my reading and listening to various sermons, that Bickle and his IHOP-KC staff were attempting to lower our level of discernment. I will then review their opinions up to scripture (and at times common sense) to review if they stand up to God's standard for ministry.

#1: It doesn't matter if prophecies are not accurate

Perhaps the most infamous of Mike Bickle's teachings on prophecy is the one which says that New Testament prophets are permitted to be wrong. This is not entirely unique to Bickle's work at IHOP-KC, as he and his fellow Kansas City prophets had been recorded teaching similar things long before.

One group of so-called prophets in Kansas City demonstrates how far the abuse of prophecy in the charismatic movement has gone. A recent book touting the group became an immediate international best-seller. Hundreds - perhaps thousands - of churches worldwide are now patterning prophetic ministries after the "Kansas City Prophets."

These men, all associated with a single church - formerly called Kansas City Fellowship, now called Metro Vineyard Fellowship - say they don't like being labeled "prophets." They prefer to call themselves "prophetically gifted." In other words, they don't believe they hold an office of authority like the Old Testament prophets. Nor do they claim infallibility. On the contrary, all the Kansas City Prophets admit they have prophesied falsely...

[Bob] Jones's 1989 Shepherd's Rod prophecy included a novel explanation about why so many modern prophecies go unfulfilled. Jones claimed:

[God] said, "If I release the hundred-percent rhema right now, the accountability would be awesome and you'd have so much Ananias and Sapphiras going on that the people couldn't grow - they'd be too scared." But He said, "If it was on target, it would kill instead of scaring the people to repentance." . . .This is what He told me, so I figure if I hit two-thirds of it, I'm doing pretty good.

Bickle added, "Now the two-thirds, you know when Bob first said it I said 'Two thirds?' He said, 'Well, that's better than it's ever been in this nation up to now, you know. That's the highest level it's ever been.'"

In other words, these so-called prophets claim they have a word from the Lord, but the odds are one in three - at least - that it will be false? No wonder their prophecies throw so many Christians into hopeless confusion. [pg. 78-79; Charismatic Chaos, 1992]

Therefore, according to Mike Bickle and his peers, prophesy is essentially like a game of baseball: it doesn't matter if you get a few strike outs so long as you eventually hit a home run.

Many, when first encountering this teaching, will rightfully turn to what scripture says regarding false prophecies:

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?' - when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." [Deu 18:20-22]

And again:

My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord GOD. [Eze 13:9]

Scripture is clear in this matter: if a prophet claims to speak from God and for God, and yet what he speaks does not come true, then the prophet is lying and is not sent from God. They are a false prophet. In like manner, those who prophesy falsely will be judged quite harshly by God. It seems, at this point, those at IHOP-KC no longer have room to speak.

However, Mike Bickle has an explanation for this. Namely, New Testament prophecy is different from Old Testament prophecy. In his book Growing in the Prophetic, Bickle writes:

The character of New Testament prophets and prophecy is, however, somewhat different from that of the Old Testament. Some people have difficulty with the idea of modern-day prophets and prophecy because they are looking at them through Old Testament paradigm. [pg. 50; Prophetic]

He explains further:

Unlike the Old Testament ground rules for prophets, where 100 percent accuracy was required upon the penalty of death, the New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets. [pg. 41; Prophetic]

The reason New Testament prophets are capable of being wrong is because: 1) God's message is not crystal clear (often being mere "subtle impressions"); 2) New Testament prophets will add their own words in to fill in the gaps left by God's vagueness.

God conveys to our mind thoughts that we communicate in contemporary language. They are a mixture of God’s words and man’s words. Some “prophetic words” may be 10 percent God’s words and 90 percent man’s words, while others have a greater revelatory content [pg. 37; Prophetic]

And again:

It is difficult for some to accept the idea of prophesying by faith according to the subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit with the chance of missing it and giving a wrong prophetic word. The reason, of course, is that they have failed to understand the transition in prophetic ministry. While they clearly see other aspects of the Old Testament changing under the new covenant, their understanding of prophetic ministry is still based on an Old Testament model. [pg. 54; Prophetic]

A bizarre example of this comes from Bickle's work with the Kansas City prophets.

Bob Jones has an amazing gift of prophecy, but he says that he tends to miss it on interpretation and application. One time Bob gave a person a word along with the phrase, "By the end of the year." Well, the end of the year came and the prophecy had not come to pass. I went back to Bob and questioned him about it. It turns out that "by the end of the year" was not a part of the revelation.

"Well," said Bob, "why would the Lord give it if it weren't going to happen by the end of the year?" [pg. 26; Prophetic]

Mike Bickle calls this "missing it on interpretation and application," but I'd like to call it for what it is. If you order your son to tell your daughter to clean her room, and he tells her "Mom and dad said clean your room and mine," what has he done? It's a little phrase called...lying. Bob Jones outright lied to the person. What's more, Bickle doesn't show any sign in the book of being shocked by this, nor does he question Bob Jones's leadership ability. Instead he basically shakes his finger and says, "Oh Bob! You be careful now!" The fact that Bob Jones prophesied not only falsely but added lies to what were supposed to be God's word doesn't even seem to faze him. In most churches I've been in, if I had done anything similar - even if with good intentions - I would have received some harsh rebukes and church discipline from my elders.

Here's the immediate question we should be asking from all this: just why does Bickle want to validate false prophecy? Or, to be more fair to his position, why does he still want validity for prophetic ministries even if false prophecies come from them? The answer is because, in the past, he and the Kansas City prophets with whom he worked had been proven to be false prophets. It was a string of false prophecies, in fact, that became one of the reasons John Wimber, of the Vineyard Movement, began to distance himself from the prophetic movement begun by Bickle.

Wimber bit hard on the prophetic bait, his own son being delivered from drug addiction through a word from Bob Jones. When Wimber's meetings in London in 1990 failed to bring the type of revival expected from a prophecy by Cain, Wimber felt embarrassed and began to distance himself from Bickle and the restorationnist thesis. Bickle himself had been embroiled in fighting accusations of false prophecy and aggrandizement. At the time his church had come under the Vineyard banner, becoming Metro Vineyard in Kansas City. He was later acquitted of most charges, and admirably accepted responsibility for the others. When it was all said and done, Wimber led the Vineyard back to its missional, church-planting roots, and Metro Vineyard eventually relinquished the Vineyard name and became Metro Christian Fellowship. [pg. 137; Church, Identity, and Change, 2005; all emphasis mine]

When you've given false prophecies and people are beginning to question your legitimacy, what do you do? The easy solution: teach that New Testament prophets are different than those of the Old, and in the new covenant it is perfectly fine for prophets to be wrong because they sometimes add their own words into the prophecies.

This might indeed appear a simple explanation, given most of the prophetic discernment passages are in the Old Testament; but the absolute silence in the New Testament regarding possibly inaccurate prophecies ultimately works against Bickle. I might ask, for example, where in all the New Testament there is even one single example of man's words being intermingled with God's words? Don't bother picking up your Bibles, because you will find none. Nowhere do we find an apostle adding to God's words and thus creating error. Nowhere do we find a New Testament prophet adding to God's words and introducing error. Nowhere do we find a New Testament prophet struggling with "subtle impressions." Nowhere do we find New Testament writers mentioning Christians doing any of the previous. Nowhere do we find anyone - save perhaps false teachers - adding to God's words and introducing error. Bickle wants us to minister like the apostles, and yet teaches things seemingly foreign to the very work of the apostles.

Permit me to give an example of New Testament "prophecy". On the way to Rome, Paul warned the centurion that a storm might endanger the ship and all those aboard (Acts 27:9-11). It comes true (Acts 27:13-20). Paul then tells all those aboard that, according to the words of an angel, the ship will be lost, but their lives will be saved and they will land upon an island (Acts 27:21-26). It comes true (Acts 27:39-44).

Now let's try imagining this story with Bickle's standards applied. Imagine if no storm had happened, and Luke later asked Paul, "Paul, what's the deal? I thought you said we were going to run into trouble," to which Paul replied, "Well, I guess I misinterpreted those subtle impressions, sorry." Imagine if, instead of landing on Malta, the survivors were picked up by a passing vessel, and Paul said, "Oh! Well, the part about the island wasn't in the original prophesy, I added that in there." Can you imagine any of this taking place? What would that do to those being ministered by Paul? How would it paint Paul as a man?

Bickle will attempt, in his books and sermons, to explain that prophecy is a matter of vague interpretation by going to verses not dealing specifically with the accuracy of prophecy. Let's now turn to what scripture, specifically the New Testament, really says about prophecy and man's interaction with the prophetic.

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20-21]

Peter says in verse 20 that no "prophecy of scripture" was a matter of one's own interpretation, and then expands on why this statement is true in verse 21: it is because no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man. There is no idea here of someone adding to God's words or reinterpreting them in such a way that what God intended to be said doesn't get said. Most commentators discuss how the original Greek of "carried along" (φερόμενοι) demonstrates that God is in complete control - not in the sense of robots, mind you, but that those who give prophecy are not simply making things up as they go along. What God wants to be said will be said, and in the way He intends it to be said. God is not simply the starter of prophecy, but the sole driving force as well. Nowhere does scripture teach that there's a 10/90 mix between God's word/ours, and neither does Peter leave any room for that in these two verses.

Perhaps most ironic in all this is that, given Mike Bickle's near maniacal obsession with end times events, he seems to have forgotten what God said to the apostle John at the end of the book of Revelation.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. [Rev 22:18-19]

While many people read "this book" as being the Bible, it is more accurately referring to the Book of Revelation, as it speaks of "the words of the prophecy." God warns the reader that if he adds or removes words to this prophecy, they will be accursed. Yet, given Bickle's own standard in regards to New Testament prophecy, that should not be an issue. After all, how many times have those following Bickle and his staff prophesied falsely? How many of them (such as Bob Jones) have added to the words of God's prophecy, or taken words out? Why shouldn't they likewise heed these warnings? Some might argue that these verses are referring solely to the Book of Revelation. However, that still leaves us to ponder why God is therefore applying Old Testament standards to New Testament prophecy if, according to Bickle, the Old Testament standards are no longer applicable. It also forgets what we learned from 2 Peter 1:20-21 - namely, prophecy regarding scripture or otherwise is not a matter of man adding to God's words or taking away. "Scripture" prophecy and "non-scripture" prophecy has no difference in regards to whether or not they can come true.

Now might I point out that, according to this standard Bickle has put into place, any false prophecy could have simply been the result of "mixing" God's words up with our own. If someone speaks a word of prophecy, how do we really know whether they've spoken to God or they're just completely lying?

Need an example? Harold Camping! How does one know whether or not Harold Camping really did receive revelation from God what the end time date would be? Perhaps Camping simply added too much into God's word. Maybe God really did give revelation to Camping, and Camping really is a prophet, and people are being too hard on him for the three failed prophecies. After all, didn't Camping admit there was error on his part after May 21, but that God was still going to bring about an end to the world? He admitted that he had created error, but insisted that God was still giving this as revelation. Why should we disbelieve him? Why should we assume God is not giving him special revelation? After all, he's just following the same standard Mike Bickle uses. A standard which, as we've now seen, only serves to give legitimacy to false prophets.

Might I also point out that, again logically speaking, this turns God into a victim of fatalism. What do I mean by this? God wants to deliver a message to someone, or to a group of people, or to a church, etc., but the chance that they would receive the message accurately is harmed by the creature He is using. There is absolutely no precedent for this. Moses and Jeremiah attempted to complain their way out of delivering prophecy, and God rebuked them into doing it. Jonah attempted to flee giving prophecy to Nineveh, but God made certain he did it...even if it meant spending a three day voyage inside a fish. Again, as the language of 2 Peter 1:20-21 makes it clear, when God wants something to be said, God will make certain it is said. Prophets are reliant upon God; not God upon prophets.

As we've demonstrated in this section, scripture is crystal clear about those who desire to call themselves "prophets" or "prophetically gifted." If you prophesy falsely, you're not hearing from God, and you're a false prophet. Mike Bickle and company have prophesied falsely. QED, they are false prophets. To teach that prophets in the church can be wrong is only to cover up the fact you're a false prophet and hide this reality for the sake of your personal ministry.

#2: It doesn't matter if the moral life of the prophet is not perfect

A second source of discernment Mike Bickle takes away involves the moral standing of those with the prophetic gift. One example:

The fact is that God's power and revelation flowing through people is not necessarily a sign that God is pleased with them in other areas of their lives. Sometimes the prophetic gifts will continue to operate even when there is an inner crumbling taking place in their private lives [pg. 106; Prophetic]

And another:

God's gifts are freely given as a sign of His mercy and desire to bless His people, not as His approval. Don't invalidate all spiritual gifts that work in spiritually immature people. [pg. 107; ibid]

Of course, no Christian is perfect. A Christian is, by definition, simply a justified sinner. I myself am a sinner, and if one were to record every thought or temptation my heart had endured simply while writing this post, they would probably be shocked. We are not calling for Christians to have 100% outward perfection like the Pharisees of Christ's time demanded, nor are we calling for all ministers of God's word to have spotless pasts. We are also not saying that one is justified by their moral standing alone. However, what we are calling for is that men who claim to have regenerated hearts display evidence of regeneration.

Perhaps what is also troubling about this is knowing from Bickle's background just what kind of immorality he has dealt with. One of the most infamous examples is Bob Jones, Bickle's fellow Kansas City prophet who, it was discovered, had been compelling women to perform sexual favors in exchange for prophecy. Bickle and his peers, however, assured followers this did not invalidate Jones's prophethood:

[John Wimber] publicly disciplined a prophet named Bob Jones for using his prophetic powers to "manipulate people for his personal desires, sexual misconduct, rebelling against pastoral authority, slandering leaders and the promotion of bitterness within the body of Christ."

Wimber made it clear, however, that Jones's guilt did not impugn his giftedness. Although Wimber had once informed constituents that he judged Cain on the basis of his personal character, not his prophetic competence, he now instructed them to judge Jones on his prophetic competence, not his personal character. He warns them that judging Jones's sexual sins should not translate into judging Jones's seer status. Counterfeit Revival leader Mike Bickle agreed. While acknowledging that "the pain and trauma" of Jones's victims "was unbearable," he agreed that the anointing on him "was greater than ever." [pg. 165-166; Counterfeit Revival, 2001]

To be perfectly frank, this is disgusting. A supposed Christian leader who causes "pain and trauma" in a person's life that proves "unbearable" cannot, by definition, even be a Christian, let alone a Christian leader. I can only wonder how many of Bob Jones's victims who endured "unbearable pain and trauma" would agree that he has "seer status" and a great "anointing" from God.

Regarding a Christian's attitude towards sin, the apostle Paul wrote:

In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices [Col 3:7-9]

He likewise wrote:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [Gal 5:19-24]

The apostle John wrote: "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 4:6). If there is no fruit of the Spirit, there is no Spirit. If there is darkness, there is no light. If there is no light, there is no Christ, and therefore the person has no "anointing" of which to speak.

Many people, including Bickle, ignore all these passages and jump to more allegorical examples. They bring up Samson, who was not the most moral man in the Old Testament and yet was used by God to judge the Philistines, or Saul, who was made king and yet lived many years in complete error. In doing so, they forget two things:

1) Imperfect men in the Old Testament were still judged for their sins. Samson's death, while noble and self-sacrificing, was in many ways just as much a judgment against him for his sins as much as it was against the Philistines he killed. God likewise brought judgment upon David even after his repentance for the death of Uriah. God didn't permit men to get away with sin on a shallow reason such as "He's under an anointing." Scripture even clarifies that at the time of Samson's capture "the LORD had left him" (Judg 16:20). Samson was not under a "greater anointing" - any "anointing" given to him was at that moment taken away. Bickle admits that God may eventually bring judgment upon a person, but that doesn't hide the fact that the person has great sins that need to be addressed, and hence a leadership position that needs to be questioned - something which Bickle seems to want us to avoid. His presentation seems to be one of "stay the course" regardless of the individual teacher's morality.

2) That God can "draw a straight line with a crooked stick" does not mean the stick itself is praiseworthy. God used the treachery of Joseph's brothers to save thousands upon thousands from starvation - does that mean Joseph's brothers were under some kind of "anointing"? God used Assyria to judge Israel and Babylon to judge Judah - does this mean Assyria and Babylon had special "anointings"? Judas was used by God to hand Christ over to the authorities - does that mean Judas had a special "anointing"? Even if we want to argue "God is using this person!", my immediate question would be: "All right, but in what way?" Read what the apostle Paul wrote on the matter:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [2 Thessalonians 2:9-12]

While the coming of the "lawless one" is said to be the "activity of Satan," Paul likewise makes it clear that God is using the lawless one, even if through secondary means. That is, God is permitting the lawless one to perform "power" and "false signs and wonders" with "all wicked deception" as a judgment upon those "who are perishing" because of their refusal to "love the truth and be saved." It clearly says that God is sending a "strong delusion" so that these people will believe what is false and be condemned. False teachers are just as much a judgment against their followers as they are against themselves.

I might also bring up what the apostle Paul wrote regarding the morality of Christian leaders:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. [1 Timothy 3:1-7]

And again:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. [Titus 5-9]

Paul writes that Christian leaders must be "above reproach," mentioning specific sins (which many of the Kansas City prophets were charged with). Some might interject here: "Ah, but Paul is talking about elders/overseers, he's not talking about general ministry leaders or prophets." Any one who leads a ministry, however, takes up the mantle of an elder/overseer, and therefore must be held to the same accountability that the standard church leaders are. God the Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostle Paul, made it clear that there are standards for Christian leaders, and it doesn't matter how great their "anointing" is - the Holy Spirit's inspired text trumps spiritual pragmatism.

In summary, let me repeat that this isn't a call for 100% perfection, but a person who claims to be a Christian teacher - let alone a Christian prophet - should at the very least also be a Christian.

By the way, before anyone pulls the "You shouldn't judge others!" fallacy, please read this post.

#3: It doesn't matter if the prophet is not theologically sound

In his book, Bickle says that one of the false equations of prophetic ministry is "anointing equals 100 percent doctrinal accuracy." He goes on to explain:

Throughout church history there have been many anointed ministries who held strange doctrines. A most notable example of this in recent history is William Branham...His ministry was characterized by amazing manifestations of healing and the word of knowledge...The healings were both numerous and astonishing.

However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures. He allowed himself to be spoken of as the "angel" to the seventh church referred to in Revelation 10. This caused great confusion among his followers. They reasoned that if God gave him so much true prophetic information about people's lives, then why didn't God in the same way give him sound doctrine? But the gift of prophecy doesn't ensure that one will have the gift of teaching or vice versa.

The problem is that some people with strong prophetic ministries often aren't satisfied with just being used by God in prophecy and miracles. They want to also be teachers...If they don't have a teaching gift that has been cultivated through proper training in the scriptures, they are sure to teach unbalanced doctrine to their large number of followers. [pg. 110-111; Prophetic; emphasis mine]

Firstly, I would argue if someone starts claiming to be the angel to the seventh church in Revelation 10, then they are "doubting the authority of the Scriptures" because they are adding to it and reading into it things which scripture clearly says are not there. They are in essence making themselves the final authority. The fact that Mike Bickle does not identify this as "doubting the authority of the Scriptures" is very telling. A person does not have to say "The Bible is not true" to deny the authority of scripture.

Secondly, to shrug this off with what essentially amounts to "Well y'know, sometimes those who can't do, teach" is likewise very telling. IHOP-KC's minimalization of erroneous doctrine in favor of pragmatic evangelism has been talked about before on this blog, specifically at this post. There, IHOP-KC executive officer Daniel Lim compared Oral Roberts with Elijah and shrugged off his ministerial crimes as "nobody's perfect." Crimes, mind you, which included claiming to see a 900-foot tall Jesus, claiming God would kill him unless congregants paid his bills, warning about curses unless people reacted to his prophecies, claiming the giving of "faith seeds" would cure people of cancer, and teaching that Jesus was a financially wealthy man. "Nobody's perfect" indeed. Perhaps Martin Luther should have saved the 95 theses and shrugged off Johann Tetzel's errors with "Well, nobody's perfect." After all, Tetzel had a large following and had many people claiming to have been saved by his indulgences - maybe Tetzel had a special anointing.

Now granted, there can be much said about unity verses cult-like uniformity. The reason I can admire a teacher such as R.C. Sproul despite our differing views on baptism is because the core fundamentals of the historic Christian doctrines are still similar between us. The same goes for Jonathan Edwards and myself in regards to postmillennialism. However, what Bickle has done here is minimalize the need for doctrinal discernment. If a man claiming to be an angel can still have a valid ministry, upon what basis do we say enough is enough when it comes to false doctrine?

The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that "fierce wolves" would come in among them, teaching "twisted things" to lure away the members (Acts 20:29-30). He likewise warned Christians "to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom 16:17). He wrote to Timothy that "if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ," then he "understands nothing" (1 Tim 6:3-4). He charged Titus to "teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). The apostle Peter warned Christians "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (2 Pet 2:1). The apostle John went even further:

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. [2 John 1:9-11; NASB]

Scripture gives a clear warning against false doctrine. What's more, it teaches that anyone professing false doctrine is not of God, and commands us not to have fellowship with them. Bickle argues that we should forgo judging a person for great doctrinal faults if they have a great anointing; scripture tells us if they have great doctrinal faults, chances are their "anointing" isn't from God at all.

In the end it doesn't matter how many people they supposedly save or how supposedly prolific their ministry is. If they are not teaching what scripture teaches, they are to be avoided. End of story.

Conclusion

In his book, Bickle writes:

In the atmosphere of being generous to one another, we must not neglect to discern and judge false prophets (Matt 7:15-16). Yes, there are evil deceivers - false prophets - who creep into Christian congregations and maliciously entice and deceive unsuspecting and undiscerning believers through false prophecy. These should be purged from the church if they will not repent. [pg. 55; Prophetic]

The problem is, Bickle has thrown out all the biblical tools that permit a Christian to "discern and judge false prophets." If a prophet prophesies falsely (even repeatedly, and admits to it), he shouldn't be purged. If a prophet claims to be regenerate and yet proves to be greatly immoral and commits acts unbecoming of a Christian leader (even causing "unbearable pain and trauma"), he shouldn't be purged. If a prophet teaches false doctrine (even teaching he's an angel!), he shouldn't be purged.

I do believe that there are "false prophets" who "creep into Christian congregations and maliciously entice and deceive unsuspecting and undiscerning believers through false prophecy"...and it just so happens many of them work at IHOP-KC. These men should be "purged from the church if they will not repent." Their distortion of God's word and their deceiving of young and old alike needs to be called out. We should have nothing to do with them, for they are self-condemned.

To anyone involved with this movement, I heartily beseech that you consider the scriptural truths in all these matters, and beg you to escape from this cult as soon as possible. Regardless of whatever emotional experiences you may have felt, or testimonies you may have heard, the testimony of God's word comes first and foremost. I ask humbly that you treat this matter with great seriousness, for eternity is a long time. God bless.

The Personal Negation Fallacy

On more than one occasion I have had someone respond to an argument or position with simply, "I don't like that." That seems to be popular in this day and age, especially in regards to religion. A person might say, "I can't believe in a God like that," or, "I don't like that God would do such a thing." From this, the person concludes that the thing must be false.

The problem is that merely negating something does not automatically make it not true. Let me put it this way: a person may not like a 55 mph speed limit and want to drive 70 mph, but that isn't going to stop a policeman from pulling them over for speeding. Simply not liking the speed limit did not magically make the speed limit dilemma disappear, or make it conform to what the person desired. Reality did not suddenly transform to the person's personal opinion.

In like manner, this same standard can be applied to negations within faith. Saying "I don't like the idea of a God who sends people to hell" does not suddenly mean that God must not send people to hell. Saying "I prefer a God who does this" does not suddenly make it so that God does as you desire. Reality does not conform to your personal whims and desires, and sooner or later - whether it's when the policeman clocks your speed, or you appear before God on the day of judgment - you will have to answer to reality.

Total Depravity...or Local Depravity?

An argument I've heard twice given is centered around the belief that the scriptures do not teach total depravity, also known as total inability. The argument goes something like this: when Paul talks about the sinfulness of man in Romans and Ephesians, he is actually talking about the sinfulness of those societies. That is, he is talking about the sinfulness of Rome and the sinfulness of Ephesus. Paul is therefore not arguing that all of mankind is sinful or inclined towards wickedness, but that those specific societies were inclined towards wickedness.

Is this the case? Let's take a moment to examine Paul's discussion of sin in both Romans and Ephesians, starting with the epistle to the Romans.

One of the most extensive discussions of human depravity is found in Romans 1:18-32. However, right afterwards, we find the apostle Paul writing this:

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [Romans 2:1]

Previously, Paul had been dealing with the pagan mindset of the general world. Now he turns it on the Jews. The Jews condemned Gentile society for all of those things mentioned in Romans 1, and yet, as Paul says, they were guilty of the same thing. The Jews believed that they were considered righteous by their possession of the Law, and yet, as Paul points out here and throughout most of his epistles, no one is justified by the Law or works of the Law. In fact, Paul contends that judgment from God will be carried out regardless of whether or not they follow the Law or have good works of which to boast.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [Romans 2:12]

God's judgment, therefore, is complete. There is no excuse for those under the Law just as there is no excuse for those outside the Law.

Many inclusivists argue of a "third way", where a person is proclaimed innocent by God out of ignorance of the gospel, but this presupposes it is simply a lack of faith that sends one to hell rather than one's sins. It also forgets that nowhere in scripture does it speak of a third way where someone is not sent to hell simply because they never heard the gospel. There are those who are Christ or against Him (Matt 12:30) - there is no neutral ground, and lukewarm theology is an abomination to God (Rev 3:16).

In any case, Paul continues his criticism of Jewish believers who uphold their righteousness by their Jewish identity, pointing out that, as they are unable to follow the Law, they in fact bring disservice to God through their disobedience.

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." [Romans 2:23-24]

This brings us to the climactic moment of the book of Romans:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." [Romans 3:9-12]

Paul now brings the previous two and a half chapters to a hilt: everyone is sinful. Jew, Gentile - everyone. "All, both Jews and Greeks" is what Paul writes. This is not a matter of "local depravity." Paul is clearly arguing here that all of mankind is fallen. The beginning of chapter three is summarizing everything that was discussed throughout chapters one and two - and the summary is that we are all sinners in need of a savior.

Now let's turn to Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, specifically the beginning of chapter two.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this epistle by directly addressing the Ephesian readers, stating: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (v. 1). It is true that he is specifically speaking to the Ephesian Gentile Christians here (we'll see that as this discussion progresses), but look at what the apostle says in the next verse: "following the course of this world" (v. 2). He calls unbelievers the "sons of disobedience", then says in verse 3: "among whom we all once lived." Who is the "we all"? It's the Jewish believers - Paul included. If one reads the first chapter of Ephesians, we see that Paul is expanding on the extension of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (especially Eph 1:11-13; compare to Eph 2:11-13). In many ways, Ephesians 2:1-3 is simply a longer version of Romans 3:9. However, the clincher in our discussion comes at the end of verse 3: "[we] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Paul says the "rest of mankind" are "children of wrath" (also translated "objects of wrath"), showing that everything he has discussed in these three verses is a statement of the spiritual condition of all of mankind.

In fact, Paul's point here is so obvious that I must be perfectly blunt: anyone who argues Paul is here teaching about a "local depravity" rather than what we might call "universal depravity" is either arguing from a second-hand source or purposefully ignoring parts of scripture. If you are guilty of the former, I encourage you to study God's word more; if you are guilty of the latter, I ask you humbly to repent of mishandling God's word.

God's Patience Towards Degenerate Churches

The following is from Jonathan Edwards's Treatise on Qualifications for Full Communion.

It is evident that God sometimes, according to the methods of his marvelous mercy, and long suffering towards mankind, has a merciful respect to a degenerate church, that is become exceeding corrupt in regard that it is constituted of members who have not those qualifications which ought to be insisted on. God continues still to have respect to them so far as not utterly to forsake them, or wholly to deny his confirmation of, and blessing on their administrations. And not being utterly renounced of God, their administrations are to be looked upon as in some respect valid, and the society as in some sort a people or church of God. Which was the case with the church of Rome, at least til the Reformation and Council of Trent; for til then we must owe their baptisms and ordinations to be valid.

A Puritan Prayer for Sleep

Today I bought the book The Valley of Vision, which is a collection of Puritan prayers on various subjects. The following is for sleeping:

Blessed Creator,

Thou hast promised my beloved sleep;

Give me restoring rest needful for tomorrow's toil;

If dreams be mine, let them not be tinged with evil.

Let thy Spirit make my time of repose a blessed temple of his holy presence.

May my frequent lying down make me familiar with death, the bed I approach remind me of the grave, the eyes I now close picture to me their final closing.

Keep my always ready, waiting for admittance to thy presence.

Weaken my attachment to earthly things.

May I hold life loosely in my hand, knowing that I receive it on condition of its surrender;

As pain and suffering betoken transitory health, may I not shrink from a death that introduces me to the freshness of eternal youth.

I retire this night in full assurance of one day awaking with thee.

All glory is for this precious hope, for the gospel of grace, for thine unspeakable gift of Jesus, for the fellowship of the Trinity.

Withhold not thy mercies in the night season; thy hand never wearies, thy power needs no respose, thine eye never sleeps.

Help me when I helpless lie, when my conscience accuses me of sin, when my mind is harassed by foreboding thoughts, when my eyes are held awake by personal anxieties.

Show thyself to me as the God of all grace, love and power; thou hast a balm for every wound, a solace for all anguish, a remedy for every pain, a peace for all disquietude.

Permit me to commit myself to thee awake or asleep.

Joseph and the Christmas Story

When I was young, and was only really familiar with Roman Catholicism as a form of Christianity, I often wondered just why the Virgin Mary was so heavily emphasized in the Christmas story. While her giving birth to the Incarnate Word is of course something that should be discussed (it was a vital part of the Nestorian controversy in the fifth century), I felt a slight tinge of sadness for Joseph, who seemed to almost be entirely overlooked. In most depictions of the family in art and movies, they tend to portray Mary as young, physically attractive, and full of life, whereas Joseph is almost just your average middle eastern man with nothing to make him stand out from any other character. Sometimes he's even portrayed as appallingly ugly.

As I began to study the Gospel of Matthew, it became edifying to really study what scripture says of Joseph's character and his contribution within what we know today as "the Christmas story."

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. [Matthew 1:18-19; NASB]

This is the first place we encounter Joseph in the New Testament, wherein he discovers the pregnancy of Mary. It has been brought to my attention by a good friend that some pastors attempt to paint a bad picture of Joseph here. They attempt to portray him as a jerk, as if he's just a big meanie for wanting to divorce Mary, like he's a deadbeat dad. They portray Mary as being stuck with this abusive husband seeking to divorce her at the drop of a hat. Permit me to put some things in context:

Firstly, being betrothed at this time was the same as being married. It is not like today where you are still considered single and available until that ring goes on your finger, or an engagement can be called off with no problem whatsoever. Two people betrothed were essentially married before the ceremony, and were expected to be loyal to one another as if they were married. Adultery and divorce laws were relevant as soon as two people were engaged.

Secondly, Joseph didn't know that Mary's pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit. Joseph will not become aware of this until verses 20-23, where an angel tells him in a dream that Mary is pregnant by the Holy Spirit and her child will be the Messiah, which compels Joseph to accept Mary as his wife afterward (v. 24). Until then, he hadn't the foggiest idea God was behind this pregnancy.

Thirdly, it had been some time since their last meeting. If we compare Matthew's account with Luke's, we see that, upon Mary's visit by Gabriel (Luke 1:26-38), she goes to Elizabeth in Judah (Luke 1:39-40) where she stays for three months (Luke 1:56). In three months time, she probably looked pregnant to Joseph when they next met. Place yourself now in Joseph's shoes: your betrothed has gone away for three months and has now returned pregnant, and all you know is the child isn't yours - how would you react?

Fourthly, we have to understand Matthew's use of "righteous man" and "not wanting to disgrace her." These two terms are interconnected - Matthew calls Joseph one because of the other. By the Law of God, Mary could be stoned for supposed adultery (Deu 22:23-24) - the problem was, society had degenerated at that point. It had come to the point where someone who transgressed the law - especially an adulterer - was made an example of before everyone else. This is what is meant by the word "disgrace," which in the original Greek refers to putting on display or on show. We see this first and foremost with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:2-11. She was about to be stoned publicly despite the fact the man she was committing adultery with had not been taken along with her, and hence her stoning was being used as a display of punishment. It was this kind of situation that Joseph was seeking to avoid, hence his desire to divorce Mary secretly. This would have only required him giving a bill of divorce before two witnesses, and then she could go away without any harm done to her.

These four factors present a very different picture of Joseph. Contrary to the image of a cruel man looking to drop Mary out on the street barefoot and pregnant, we see the image of a man who sincerely cares for Mary and wants to protect her from the harm their society could have possibly inflicted upon her. Any fault on Joseph's part in his desire for divorce was merely out of ignorance - once he was informed that her pregnancy was by the will of God and not the act of another man, he took her in and took care of her.

We see this care for Mary in the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, where we also encounter King Herod's maniacal obsession with killing the supposed Messiah. After the departure of the magi (Matt 2:12), Joseph is warned in a dream to get up and depart to Egypt, for Herod is seeking the child's death (Matt 2:13). We see Joseph wake up and immediately take Mary and the infant Christ to Egypt (Matt 2:14). Joseph does not dally nor question God's will - he gets up and goes literally in the middle of the night. Interestingly enough, the original Greek reads in verse 14 that Joseph took "the Child and His mother" (τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ), not "his child" or "their child" or even just "Jesus". Remember, the child was not even Joseph's - it had not come from a consummation between himself and Mary, but by the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet Joseph, at the behest of God, takes Mary and the infant Christ in his arms and escapes with them to Egypt, saving them from the death that would afflict the infants of Bethlehem some time later (Matt 2:16). He treats the infant Christ with the same fatherly love and concern as he would have a son of his own, and Mary with the same tenderness as is owed her as his wife.

From all this, we find Joseph to be a man of respect. He was a man who served God faithfully as the adoptive father of the Incarnate Word and the husband of she from whom He took flesh. He wanted to do all things rightly, but without robbing the right to life from anyone else. We are to speak of Christ's earthly family during His life, let us not forget to give Joseph the just appreciation due to him.