Special Podcast: Michael Brown and Mike Bickle

Steven Long of Long for Truth and Kofi Adu-Boahen of Fiery Logic join me for a special podcast regarding Dr. Michael Brown's open support of Mike Bickle, the International House of Prayer, and other Hyper-Charismatic false teachers.

It's quite fitting this gets posted on Reformation Day, as one of the big topics we discussed was the authority and clear teaching of scripture over and against all other authorities.



My open letter to Michael Brown can be read here.

My follow up to the open letter can be read here.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part III

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of a review of Romans 9 by Matthew Gallatin, Eastern Orthodox author and podcaster.

Follow Up: My Open Letter to Michael Brown

On October 28, 2013, I posted my open letter to Michael Brown regarding his fellowship with International House of Prayer (IHOP-KC) founder and leader Mike Bickle. At 10:54 AM that same day, I tweeted a link to my blog post, and tagged Michael Brown's twitter account. Literally two minutes later (certainly not long enough to read the entire post), Dr. Brown responded to my tweet, stating he is not responding to open letters, and offered me to call in his show. A discussion then followed:

If Michael Brown truly has done research on the beliefs of Mike Bickle and IHOP-KC, that means he is directly responsible for promoting and supporting men who uphold seriously erroneous beliefs. By application, it means that he considers Mike Bickle a brother in Christ and fellow Christian in spite of these beliefs, claims and practices. This includes:

• The claim by Mike Bickle that God spoke to him directly in Cairo, Egypt, giving him commands to guide the church in the decades leading to the (very soon) return of Jesus Christ. (source)
• The teaching by Mike Bickle that God is raising "forerunners" who are imitators of John the Baptist, and who God is raising up in these end times. (source)
• The abuse of scripture by Mike Bickle and other leaders at IHOP-KC regarding the teaching of "forerunners" - teachings entirely dependent upon Bickle's teachings. (source)
• The claim made by Mike Bickle that God gave him the IHOP acronym, which had been trademarked by the International House of Pancakes since the 1970's. (source)
• The claim made by Mike Bickle that Haggai 1:2 means God was ordering the building of the International House of Prayer. (source)
• The fact that Mike Bickle has altered the story of the drought in Kansas City, as predicted by Bob Jones, and which proved to be completely false. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that it's OK for New Testament prophets to prophesy falsely. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that if a teacher has a poor moral standing or is not doctrinally sound, it isn't enough to reject him as a false teacher. (source)
• The abuse of scripture by Mike Bickle to teach that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that it is our prayers that bring about the release of God's power and the healing of others, not simply God's will and purpose. In fact, God requires our prayer in order for anything to happen. (source)
• The praise by leaders of IHOP-KC given to false teachers such as Oral Roberts and others. (source)
• The fact that at IHOP-KC there is a "written word of God" (scripture) and a "spoken word of God" (personal prophecy and revelation). (source)
• The fact that really, truly, honestly, IHOP-KC is a cult. (source)

I could go on and on, but this is a good sample for now. All of these things are what Michael Brown assures us he is aware of, and which he ultimately dismisses as inconsequential in his recent criticism of those who oppose his fellowship with men like Bickle.

To those reading these posts: please understand I'm not saying Michael Brown is damned, or a false teacher, nor am I questioning his salvation. However, all the same, he is showing inconsistency in both his discerning and his own criticism. How can he beg other people to show grace and do research in regards to his Charismatic brethren, and then turn around and denounce critics as divisive and having a paradigm that is off when he refuses to engage in what the other side says? How can he make any kind of judgment against his opponents' stances or positions when he won't even entertain what they say? How can he honestly say that he has discernment when he refuses to listen to anything critical of those spiritual leaders he claims fellowship with? How can he claim to be a Continuationist because of sola scriptura and continue to defend sola scriptura when he has fellowship with men who clearly contradict it and, in application, work against it? He can continue to dance around the issues or simply avoid them, but those of us who respect him and are concerned about who he takes fellowship with want to know the answers to these dilemmas.

I'll end here by link to two videos recently posted by James White on his YouTube account:

This link goes to the 50:33-mark of an episode of his Dividing Line show, where he criticizes both Michael Brown and (I think rightly) Phil Johnson, for their opposing extremes.

This link goes to a follow up episode, specifically to the 30:37-mark (although the entire episode is worth listening to), where James White responds to Michael Brown's contention that the extremes of the Charismatic movement are "not his world." Dr. White pretty much repeats a lot of what I've said before.

Update - November 2, 2013: Some have inquired why I didn't accept Dr. Michael Brown's offer to call in his show. While I'm not afraid of dealing with contrary opinion (as the comboxes on many of my posts will show), even when it's face-to-face or on a more personal level (as my encounter with Allen Hood will show), my main concern was whether or not Michael Brown and I would be on the same page. I didn't want to get on his show only to have Michael Brown do what he did with Phil Johnson, which is respond to every contention against a false teacher with "Well I'm ignorant of that" or "I don't know about that, so I can't comment." I wanted to be certain he had at least interacted with what those who have tried to be discerning about Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Rick Joyner and others have said and written. What I found in the Twitter conversation was merely a confirmation of my fears: Dr. Brown would prefer to stay ignorant of these things. At this point, I'm really uncertain where a direct conversation between the two of us would go.

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown on Mike Bickle

To Dr. Michael Brown;

Recently I listened to the October 21, 2013 episode of your show Line of Fire, in which you interviewed Phil Johnson and then later Sam Storms and Adrian Warnock. During the second part of the episode, you and the guests praised Mike Bickle, saying, in essence, that he was a godly man and just as much a Christian as I, you, John MacArthur, or anyone else was.

As someone who lived briefly in the Kansas City area, and has spent a great deal of time studying the International House of Prayer and the teachings of Mike Bickle, I was greatly shocked to hear this. It came across as ignoring clear false teaching and cultic deception by using pro hominem arguments. My initial consideration was that you may have just been ignorant of what he really taught and needed to be informed. With that in mind, I decided to first send you an email through your website - an email which I'll post in full here:

Greetings, sir;

I recently listened to the October 21, 2013 episode of your show "Line of Fire." At about the one hour mark, it was said that Bickle was a dear friend of the guest and that Bickle shows discernment and was godly. You yourself said that he was "one of the most Jesus-centered people I know," and I am assuming that when you scoffed at doubting Bickle's salvation, you were affirming that he was a true believer.

I have, in the past few years, done some serious study on the International House of Prayer and the teachings of Mike Bickle. What I have found is that not only is Bickle dishonest (whether intentionally or unintentionally) with his organization's past, but his teachings are dangerous and are deceiving many. I have recorded the errors and false doctrine coming from Bickle and his organization on my blog and podcast, the relevant posts of which I'll link to below:

http://designofprovidence.blogspot.com/search/label/International%20House%20of%20Prayer

I would encourage you to read it, not because I myself am the be all, end all source, but because I do quote Bickle in context, I play sound clips (in the podcast) in context, and examine what he teaches in detail.

Throughout the episode, you continually said that you refrain from criticism unless you're aware of what the person teaches, or some foundation of what the errors are. I try to be the same way as well, and therefore I can respect that. However, I send this to you in an effort to edify a brother in Christ, and alert you to the dangers in Bickle and IHOP-KC that you may have been unaware of before. I understand that Bickle may, in person, come across as a nice and godly man, but I am also aware the apostle Paul warned us that Satan's servants "disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (2 Co 11:15). I would exhort that you cease association with IHOP-KC and Bickle, which is a cult and run by a man who is a proven false prophet and who teaches false doctrine.

God bless;

Tony-Allen

After deciding I would await your answer, I then came across an open letter someone else had made, concerning your friendship with Rick Joyner. The page can be found here. Reading it, I came to the realization that I may not receive a response from you - at least not through that channel. Hence why I have decided to write a public letter here, on my own blog.

As I said before, I've done considerable research on Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer with all its related movements. I don't claim to be infallible and I don't claim to be the end-all-be-all source on the matter, but I think I've done far more research into them than many in well known discernment ministries (including having a face-to-face encounter with Allen Hood, Bickle's second-in-command). While I've never denied Bickle might be a pleasant man to talk to in person, and I've never claimed he was an idiot or a dummy or any other ad hominem, I also recognize, as I said in my initial email, that Satan's servants can disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, so that they can give the impression of being sheep when, in fact, they are wolves. Many Roman Catholics lament that Johann Tetzel, the great peddler of indulgences, was actually a respectable man poorly handled by Protestant historians - even if this were the case, and Tetzel was actually a religious man with few personal faults, this does not do away with the doctrinal error he was committing, and it does not deny Martin Luther's right in stepping up against him and his errors.

As such, I cannot truly believe Mike Bickle is a brother in Christ or someone whose errors can simply be shrugged off. In my original email, I linked you to all my posts going into detail on the matter. We're talking about a man who claims God spoke to him in Cairo, Egypt, and told him to start a movement to bring Jesus back. We're talking about a man who claims God gave him an acronym for his public ministry...an acronym which had been trademarked by a major restaurant chain since the 1970's. We're talking about a man who teaches that God the Son waited on subtle impressions from God the Father just like we do, and in essence lived like a man in the prophetic ministry does today, with no drawing from His divinity. We're talking about a man who believes God requires us to pray for something in order for Him to do it, and that the power of God's releasing is matched only by the power and size of our praying (by the way, Dr. Brown - that's why you always see Mike Bickle praying). We're talking about a man who reinterprets the Bible and the meaning of its verses to fit his private revelations, and clearly does not uphold the doctrine of sola scriptura. We're talking about a man who reinterprets sections of scripture - especially end-times scripture - to redefine what is being talked about as his personal end-times movement rather than the universal church or body of saints. We're talking about a man who has not only been proven a false prophet time and time again, but has actually been documented changing details in his past history concerning these prophecies, so that they either do not appear false or they don't sound false at all. Again, I've recorded and discussed all this in my blog posts and podcasts, which I linked to in the aforementioned email, so that if anyone thinks I am taking Mike Bickle out of context or am misrepresenting him and his ideas, they are welcome to review and listen to the evidence for themselves.

Now you might respond, as you did to brother Justin, that you are too busy to go through blog posts, listen to podcasts, watch videos, etc. In some ways, I fully understand: I'm married, I have a full time job, I'm active in my local church, I do personal studies, I prepare for a podcast every week, and I try to keep this blog updated as much as possible. I know that when you get a particularly busy week, you have to prioritize. However, I cannot understand then why you would, on your October 21 episode, tell Phil Johnson - who is second-in-command to John MacArthur at Grace to You - to listen to hours of audio of good Charismatic teaching, when you yourself will not find time set aside to watch a seven-minute video on Rick Joyner's false teaching. To many, this comes across not only as hypocrisy, but a sign that you sincerely want to stay ignorant of what your supposed friends and brothers in Christ teach. It comes across as you saying, "I'm ignorant of what those men say, therefore I can't criticize them," and then when people try to educate you, you close your eyes, cover your ears, and say, "I'm not listening! I don't want to hear what I can criticize them with!"

This leads into a great dilemma regarding your defense of them, stemming from how whenever Phil Johnson would ask you to name names, you would argue that you weren't sure whether or not they taught certain things, and hence you wanted to be gracious and withhold criticism until you knew better. However, Phil Johnson then brought up a great contention: yet you support them. You support men like Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Rick Joyner, and countless other false teachers, exposing those who listen to or admire you and your ministry to these ravenous wolves. If you hear someone say, "Hey, so-and-so teaches false doctrine," your response should not be to hide behind the concept of Christian grace and your own personal ignorance on the matter...your response should be to see if that accusation is true, so that you can better protect those who serve under you or turn to you for edification. As such, the way you respond to those who try to educate you on an individual's false teaching demonstrates someone who really isn't too concerned with the serious false teaching of those he associates with. This might sound cruel, and this might sound unkind - but given the circumstances, this is what is being seen.

Quite honestly, how can one who continually beats the drum that he is a supporter of sola scriptura (especially in regards to Continuationism) support such men? You support Lou Engle, and yet I have rarely (if ever!) heard Lou Engle use a verse in context...in fact, he almost always reinterprets passages of scripture based on personal dreams and revelations he's had. Mike Bickle has likewise interpreted verses and passages of scripture based on dreams, revelations and prophecies given either by him or others. For example, he used Haggai 1:2 to claim that God wanted to build IHOP-KC...could you therefore, Dr. Brown, as an upholder of sola scriptura, look at Haggai 1:2 and demonstrate to me - from the context of the verses - that it refers to the God-ordained building of IHOP-KC? Could you please demonstrate to me, Dr. Brown (without quoting from Mike Bickle's own words, or the teachings of his followers, or any other material out of IHOP-KC), where in scripture it is taught that a "forerunner movement" will appear before the end times? I realize the men you know may claim to you that they hold scripture to the highest degree, and their organizations may claim that scripture is above prophecy and personal revelation...but when you look at the application of scripture, you will plainly see that this is a bold-faced lie. Mike Bickle and his ilk do not hold scripture to the highest degree: scripture is only used secondarily to what their personal revelations, dreams, and prophecies teach.

Your love for these men seems to be founded on nothing else but a love for evangelism (this would likewise explain your love for the heretic Charles Finney). No doubt you will want us to overlook all theological differences because these men reach people for Christ. The problem is that when you replace this movement with any other historical heresy, this position falls apart. For example, the Arians saw a resurgence among the barbarian tribes, to whom they fled after the Second Ecumenical Council and their banishment from the Roman Empire: should we jump for joy that the barbarian tribes "found Christ," even if through unorthodox circles? Should we shrug off the divisive, overzealous nature of Athanasius and other Church Fathers who opposed the Arians? Remember, the contention against the Arians was never really their view of the Gospel, merely their view of the Trinity...should we therefore, by the standard you use for those in Hyper-Charismatic camps, simply shrug off the errors taught by the Arians? Should we bombast Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, Ambrose of Milan, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen and countless others who spent their lives (sometimes up to their dying breath) fighting and attacking the Arians and their related heresies?

I would heartily contest that anyone is really being "won" by these movements. I've spoken to those who became involved at IHOP-KC, and I've listened to testimonies of those who become involved in the movement. They may say the name Jesus, but their heart is directed towards other things: towards end-time prophecies, towards the teachings of Bickle, and towards the warped theology of IHOP-KC that is almost a religion separate from Christianity the way Mormonism is. While I don't doubt some have been genuinely saved by this movement, and I have no doubt (as your friend James White often says) that "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick," that doesn't justify the wickedness in this movement. We should not be swayed by large crowds or big numbers of people who claimed to have been saved or felt edified - such argument from accomplishment is not only unsound, but unbiblical.

All this inconsistency leads to my last point: namely, why people really don't believe you when you say you show discernment or you do criticize errors in the movement. On the October 21 show, when Phil Johnson criticized you of looking at the movement with rose-colored glasses, you assured him that you did criticize the errors of the movement; when pressed to name names, you waffled, and then half an hour later began to praise some of the people who commit these great errors!

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of how many Muslims respond to the issue of terrorism. Many Muslims will readily declare to non-Muslims, "Oh yes, I believe terrorism is bad!" However, when they are pressed to name names, or answer a question as simple as, "Is Hamas a terrorist group?", they waffle. They won't give a straight answer. They give cop outs such as "I don't know enough to comment on if they are or not." Or, depending on the individual Muslim, if they are asked something as simple as, "Were the September 11 attacks bad?", they'll give a weak answer like, "Well, I mean, terrorism is bad...but America deserved it so Al Qaeda was in the right!" They'll gladly respond to broad questions; they won't respond to specific questions that require them to be consistent with their position.

This is what those on the opposite side see coming from you. You assure us, "I'm discerning! I think the errors among Charismatic groups are bad!" But then you get pressed to be consistent. You're asked if certain people are bad. You're asked if certain groups are bad. You respond by giving what are, really, just non-answers. Then you turn around and you praise the groups that are committing those great errors you claim you're discerning! How can we assume you're showing discernment when you praise Mike Bickle, who is the leader of a cult? How can we assume you're knowledgeable of the errors when you refuse to interact with the facts? How can we believe that you uphold sola scriptura as an important doctrine when you call men who clearly don't uphold the doctrine to be brothers in Christ?

You may have noticed that in this open letter, I use the term "Hyper-Charismatic." I'm not a Charismatic myself, but I know there are Charismatics who, unlike you, are not afraid to on the one hand say the extremes in the movement are bad and then on the other hand call out the names of those committing the errors. I've listened to Charismatic pastors criticize Benny Hinn and call out other TBN personalities, and I've known of Charismatic churches where the elders removed Kansas City Prophets from their pulpits because they recognized their dangerous doctrines. I realize these men may seem to some to be few and far between, but they exist, I consider them brothers in Christ despite our differences, and out of respect I differentiate between them and the more extreme groups. I would never, for example, put an Assembly of God army chaplain I know in the same grouping as Mike Bickle, because the two men might as well belong to two different religions. Those who are able to be consistent should be respected. What cannot be respected is someone who tries to ride both sides of the fence, and cannot be honest with himself.

If this open letter comes across as cruel or mean, I did not intend it to sound as such. I did intend it to be blunt, and say things that need to be said. If I seem somewhat passionate on the subject, it is because, as I wrote earlier, I've seen what Bickle and IHOP-KC have done to others. I've listened to what Bickle teaches from his pulpit. I've read the man's works, heard his sermons, and studied his end-times beliefs. While not everything he says is wrong, enough that he says is dangerous and erroneous to warrant me to think he should be avoided. His organization is essentially a cult centered around his personality and his teachings. I would never praise Bickle publicly, let alone praise his ministry or his work - not any more than I would the ministry of Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, or any other false teacher. To hear you praise Bickle on your show and defend him against critics with pro hominem fallacies - throwing out all the false teaching - shocked me, and prompted me to write both the email through your website and this open letter.

Dr. Brown, the men you associate with are dangerous. When you associate with them, you tell others that you, at most, approve of what they say, do and preach; or, at the very least, that you do not find it to be dangerous or worthy of caution. If you truly are ignorant of what they teach, then I encourage you to cease hiding behind a false concept of graciousness, and you stop telling your critics that you're just ignorant of what they say, and you put some time into researching it. You say that you're too busy? Set time aside to do it. I put time aside in my schedule to listen to an hour-and-a-half podcast to make sure that it was true that you had praised Bickle and IHOP-KC, to make certain I heard it straight from you...I think you can spare seven minutes to watch a video about Rick Joyner's false teachings, or spend thirty minutes to a full hour to read some material on what Bickle truly believes. Even if you are seriously busy 24/7, you should present to your critics and your opponents that you care about the subject enough to at least familiarize yourself with the faults and questionable doctrines of those you promote and support.

If you truly believe that you are discerning, and you truly believe that scripture is the highest authority man should live by, then I exhort you to seriously research what Bickle and others believe, come to a realization that they are false prophets and false teachers who devour of the flock, and cease your promotion and support of them. Otherwise, you will leading more and more of your followers and listeners into spiritual darkness.

God bless,

Tony-Allen

The False Drought Prophecy of Bob Jones

Whenever Mike Bickle discusses the so-called "prophetic history" of the International House of Prayer (IHOP-KC), he often brings up the supposed prophecy of drought as predicted by Bob Jones. As it turns out, that prophecy may not only be completely false, but the account regarding it may have been altered over time.

You can view more information at this link (H/T to Crosswise).

This would not only demonstrate Mike Bickle and Bob Jones are false prophets (though, of course IHOP-KC followers have a few ways around that), but demonstrate that they are editing the facts of their movement's history and presenting to their followers an "approved" version of it. They certainly aren't the first group to do this - the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, altered the account of what they expected for the year 1975, in order to hide the false prophecy that Armageddon would occur. This is, in fact, one of the tell-tale signs of a cult.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part II

Here's this week's podcast episode, where we continue our examination of Matthew Gallatin's series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

The Unwritten "Word of God"

The following quote comes from the blog of Julie Meyer, a singer and speaker at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. It can be found in her recent post 28 Years In the Prayer Room:

I remember being there the day Bob Jones came up and said, ‘24/7 House Of Prayer’. The singing will never stop round the clock. God is releasing the song birds’ At that time I could not imagine doing anything else. A small group of us would talk about this over coffee frequently. ‘What would this look like? How could this be? 24/7 worship? Will I get to do this full-time? Will this be my job?” [sic]

I think it is an awesome thing to watch the spoken prophetic Word of God become a reality. That is exactly what I have watched these past 11 years. I literally saw the Prophetic Word become a reality of which I am actively involved in. I have watched my children grow up in the House Of Prayer. I have watched their hearts awakened to His Love at young ages. I have watched them become excellent in the Word of God and also excellent in their skill as prophetic musicians.

Now I am watching for the 2nd half of the prophetic word to become a reality. For I remember the day Bob Jones stood up and said ‘Out of this 24/7 House of Prayer will come the day when ‘No disease known to man will stand’. We are so close to this. I can feel it. I can see it in the distance but it is getting closer and closer. I tell myself, ‘I am so blessed that I get to do what I do. I get to praise my Bridegroom. I get to sing to my Father and experience the touch of the Holy Spirit. This is my calling. This is my heart and this is my Glory to awaken the dawn with my song. To sing, to praise, to prophesy that which is on the Lord’s heart.

Those who listen to my podcast might remember that when I reviewed Mike Bickle's message about the founding of IHOP-KC, I played a clip where Mike Bickle was speaking to Bob Jones about a revelation he discovered, and Bob Jones replies, "That's just as good, it's the Word of the Lord." Here we have Julie Meyer talking about the "spoken prophetic Word of God," as given by Bob Jones, and this is mentioned alongside the regular "Word of God" (which we'll assume is scripture).

Those who have studied the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the like, will know that there are often two authorities spoken of: the written word of God, and the unwritten word of God (most commonly called Holy Tradition or the teachings of the Church). Our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends, of course, would never argue that Holy Tradition supersedes or takes priority over scripture, only that it be seen with the same light and authority as written scripture. They argue that, since both come from the same source (namely, God), and were given to the church, then they are to be treated as equals. Of course, this boils down to whose authority you believe and who decides to discern what is and isn't infallible tradition (as there are major differences between Rome and the East), but that is another blog post for another time. For now, let's recognize that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many other so-called "apostolic" churches establish two sources of authority for their followers: the written Word of God, and the spoken or unwritten Word of God.

With this in mind, we realize two things regarding IHOP-KC, their opinion regarding the authority of scripture, and the role of their leaders:

1) In regards to the authority of scripture, IHOP-KC is no different than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. They believe not only in the authority of the written word, but in the authority of the unwritten word, spoken by their prophets and leaders. This is something I've brought up before, asking whether or not IHOP-KC and its leaders are truly adherents to the doctrine of sola scriptura. While they claim on their website and in public statements that they hold everything up to the light of scripture, there are plenty of examples where scripture was read through the lens of the personal revelation and so-called prophetic experiences of their leaders (for example, Mike Bickle's treatment of Haggai 1:2 in the previously linked post).

2) We see yet again a confirmation that the interpretation of scripture and the guidance of the church, for those in these Houses of Prayer and Hyper-Charismatic movements, is not the plain meaning or historical interpretation of scripture, but rather the interpretations and personal revelations of their leaders. While they may deny this, if they were intellectually honest, they would realize this is the case. If Mike Bickle and Bob Jones had never existed, the interpretation of scripture as taught at IHOP-KC - especially in regards to the end times - would have never been reached. No one until the past few decades believed that there would be a group of "forerunners" preceding the end times. Again, the interpretation of scripture and the guidance of the church is dependent upon the leaders of the movement and their supposed connection to God.

This is, as I've discussed before, one of the traits of a cult, but more importantly it is simply another affirmation that scripture is not the final authority in these movements. The Houses of Prayer are not founded upon the word of God, but the word of their leaders, which interprets the word of God for their members and gives additional input for their theology. In the end, this separates them from the orthodox, universal church, and makes them very dangerous for unwary Christians.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part I

Here is the latest podcast, where we begin an examination of Matthew Gallatin's well known series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination.

The Development of Language

It's amazing how language can change in a short span of time, or how the understanding of a verse can develop. Here's John 3:16 as it transitioned over 220 years...

WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1382-1395)
For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


TYNDALE BIBLE (1526, 1531-34)
For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.


COVERDALE BIBLE (1535)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his onely sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in he, shulde not perishe, but haue euerlastinge life.


MATTHEW BIBLE (1537)
For God so loueth the worlde that he hath geue his only sonne that none that beleue in him shulde perisshe: but shulde haue euerlastyng lyfe.


GREAT BIBLE (1539)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue hys onlye begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not peryshe, but haue euerlastynge lyfe.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560)

For God so loueth the world, that he hath geue his only begotten Sone: y none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe.

BISHOP’S BIBLE (1568)
For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

KING JAMES BIBLE (1611)
For God so loued the world, that he gaue his onely begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

What makes a cult?

The following quotes are taken from Walter Martin's monumental work Kingdom of the Cults, and are what I quoted in the podcast Is IHOP-KC a Cult? They are all taken from the 1985 printing, which I own (the 2003 printing, which I borrowed, was used in the podcast - the only differences are the page numbers). As I said in the podcast, I use these because many times websites present identifications of a cult that are far too specific, or are tailored towards the specific cult the author is speaking about. Also, I do not believe Walter Martin to be the be all, end all source on cults, but because his work on cult groups is so well respected and thorough, I believed it to be a good source for grounding our understanding.

The first quote we will look at:

[Quoting Dr. Charles Braden:] “A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.” [pg. 11]

From this, we discern regarding a cult:

1) It differs from the "normative expressions of religion" in our "total culture." As I noted in my podcast, this is not argumentum ad populum; that is, "If you have a nation that's 99% Sunni and 1% Shia, the Shia Muslims are a cult because they aren't as large as the Sunni." Rather, Braden is arguing that, if you have a set standard on the core issues for a religion's beliefs and how a religion is to be practiced, and another group detracts from all that, it can be considered a cult. For example: the Ahmadi Muslims believe that their founder fulfilled the end-times Islamic beliefs, and the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims, and that Jesus moved to India and was buried there, none of which the Sunni or Shia hold to be canon. For this reason, orthodox Muslims look upon the Ahmadi in the same manner that orthodox Christians look upon the Mormons. The latter breaks away from the "normative expression" of Christianity because, in upholding doctrines regarding man's deification, inheriting planets with spirit wives, etc.

After quoting Braden, Walter Martin immediately adds, in his own words:

I may add to this that a cult might be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. [pg. 11]

So we learn:

2) Instead of solely being gathered around the expressions of the religion based on the teachings of their founder or holy scripture (or both), a cult is grounded upon the interpretations of those documents by their leaders or governing authority. A cult may use the Bible as their primary document, or may claim that they follow what scripture says, but their interpretation of that scripture is grounded upon not serious biblical study or the plain meaning of the text, but rather what their leaders or religious authority tell them. If you were to remove Joseph Smith from history, Mormonism would not exist. If you were to remove Charles T. Russel from history, the Jehovah's Witnesses would not exist. If an individual in a cult were honest, he would have to admit that his interpretation of passages of scripture his organization depends on would only be read in such a way if his leader or interpreting authority told him it was to be read in such a way.

Continuing on, going into the psychological structures of cultism:

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by close-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational, cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist’s mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization. [pg. 26]

Hence:

3) A cult's belief system, or its effect on its members, is to engage in logical inconsistencies, with the facts and method of thinking interpreted by the organization's authority. This means that the cult members' sense of reality in his mind, and the sense of reality given him by the organization, are two different things, sometimes at odds with one another; in order for this inconsistency to survive, the cult member has to engage in some form of intellectual or logical inconsistency. Muslims, for instance, will uphold two different standards for their own religion and Christianity, or non-Muslim religions in general. One example: some Muslims will deny the Bible based on variances between the manuscripts, even if they're "just grammatical"; however, they will shrug off the variances in manuscripts of the Quran because they're "just grammatical."

Continuing on:

Second, cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level, since the cultist almost always identifies his dislike of the Christian message with the messenger who holds such opposing beliefs. The identification of opposing beliefs with the individual in the framework of antagonism leads the cultist almost always to reject the individual as well as the belief, a problem closely linked with closed-mindedness and one that is extremely difficult to deal with in general dialogue with cultists. [ibid]

Hence:

4) A cult member's identity with the cult becomes attached to who he/she is. Attacking the organization is seen as attacking the individual. In the case of many cults, it might be seen as attacking God Himself. Even if someone wishes to attack the error and not the erring, the erring will take the attacks against the error as an attack against themselves. This is why, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses respond to criticism or critical thinking with hostility, as if the individual is questioning their own sanity. Likewise, many in Hyper-Charismatic cults will become so engulfed in the teachings of their church and teacher that any attempt to question the legitimacy of the ministry will be seen as kind of an attack from the devil against God (even if the person may not openly say this is the case).

Continuing on:

Thirdly, almost without exception, all cultic belief systems manifest a type of institutional dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own. This no doubt stems from the fact that in the case of non-Christian cult systems that wish to be identified with Christianity, the ground for their claims is almost always supernatural. [pg. 27]

While some might argue here, "Surely all religions have a form of dogma?", Martin goes on to explain:

...cult systems tend to invest with the authority of the supernatural whatever pronouncements are deemed necessary to condition and control the minds of their followers. Thus it is that when Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, and his successor, Brigham Young, wished to implement doctrines or changes of practice in the Mormon Church, they prefaced their remarks with proclamations that God had revealed to them the necessity of such doctrines or practices among the saints. [ibid]

Hence we learn:

5) A cult's dogma and doctrine may not only be founded upon the supposed scripture of its base religion, but in the personal revelation and "divine commands" granted to its leaders or founders. As Mr. Martin pointed out, this includes any serious changes made to the orthodoxy of the religion, or with any claims that might be made regarding the interpretation of a passage of scripture, or direction which will be taken by the organization. There are, in essence two authorities: the authority of their base religion (whether it be their holy writings or the sayings of its founder); and the authority of their leadership structure, claiming to speak with divine authority or guidance. Mormons, for example, are not only dependent upon scripture for their guidance, but upon the pronouncements of Joseph Smith and his successors, which are all claimed to come from God.

Continuing on:

The fourth and final point in any analysis of the belief system of cults is the factor of isolation. [pg. 28]

By "isolation," Mr. Martin does not mean merely living on an island somewhere and ignoring the world around you, ie., social isolationism - rather, he refers to rational isolationism. He explains later on that this is the "isolation or compartmentalization of conflicting evidence or concepts."

Hence we learn:

6) A cult's belief system, or the tendency among its believers, may lean towards an understanding of the truth and contradictory evidence, while at the same time there are irrational excuses made for it. This means that while a cult member may be aware of contradictory evidence, they will not read it or rationalize from it as a non-cult member will. As an example, Mr. Martin brings up the fact that many knowledgeable Mormon historians and scholars are aware that there exist thousands of differences between the first edition of the Book of Mormon and the current edition, and that these changes were made not only by Joseph Smith but his successors as well; however, they believe both the revisions and the errors are divinely inspired! Some in the more extreme circles of KJV-Onlyism have made a similar argument, recognizing that there are differences between the earliest manuscripts of the Bible and the manuscripts used by the KJV translators, but at the same time stating, amazingly enough, that those changes were divinely inspired.

Podcast: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy

In this episode, I do some "house cleaning" and explain why I left the Eastern Orthodox church after being a convert into it. Apologies for the way I sound - I was getting over a cold when I recorded this.

Spurgeon and Personal Revelation

H/T to A Twisted Crown of Thorns. The following is by Charles Spurgeon.

Is the truth that which I imagine to be revealed to me by some private communication? Am I to fancy that I enjoy some special Revelation and am I to order my life by voices, dreams and impressions? Brothers and Sisters, fall not into this common delusion! God’s Word to us is in Holy Scripture. All the Truth that sanctifies men is in God’s Word! Do not listen to those who cry, “Lo here!” and, “Lo there!” I am plucked by the sleeve almost every day by crazy persons and pretenders who think that they have Revelations from God. One man tells me that God has sent a message to me by him—and I reply, “No, Sir, the Lord knows where I dwell and He is so near to me that He would not need to send to me by you.” Another man announces, in God’s name, a dogma which, on the face of it, is a lie against the Holy Spirit. He says the Spirit of God told him so-and-so, but we know that the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. If your imaginary Revelation is not according to this Word of God, it has no weight with us! And if it is according to this Word, it is no new thing!

Brothers and Sisters, this Bible is enough if the Lord does but use it and quicken it by His Spirit in our hearts. Truth is neither your opinion, nor mine—your message, nor mine! Jesus says, “Your Word is truth.” That which sanctifies men is not only truth, but it is the particular Truth of God which is revealed in God’s Word—“Your Word is truth.” What a blessing it is that all the Truth that is necessary to sanctify us is revealed in the Word of God, so that we have not to expend our energies upon discovering the Truth of God, but may, to our far greater profit, use Revealed Truth for its Divine ends and purposes! There will be no more Revelations—no more are needed! The Canon is fixed and complete—and he that adds to it shall have added to him the plagues that are written in this Book! What need of more when here is enough for every practical purpose? “Sanctify them through Your truth: Your Word is truth.

Why I don't believe in the rapture

This is something of a response to a blog post I came across here, regarding belief in the pre-tribulation rapture. It's entitled Eschatology 102: why I believe in the rapture, by Jesse Johnson, and is said by him to have been written to "explain why I believe in a rapture at all." As I read, I felt inspired, for some reason, to write this response in order to examine the scripture passages which were presented to prove the pre-tribulation rapture. While I don't believe those who adhere to belief in a pre-tribulation rapture are heretics or not brothers in Christ, the use of the scripture compelled me to, perhaps, offer a counter-viewpoint.

Our author states at the beginning that "the Bible does describe this event in at least three places," each of which we'll examine one at a time, starting with the first one (the quotes from the blog will be in purple):

In John 14:3, Jesus tells the discouraged disciples that he is going to leave them and return to his father. But he tells them that when arrives in glory he is not going to be idle. Instead, he is going to be busy preparing a place for believers to dwell. He says, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me, that you also may be where I am.” In this passage, Jesus describes an act of removing Christians from the earth, and taking them to heaven—or wherever it is that he is preparing a place for us.

The immediate problem here is that we forget Christ is not simply speaking to Christians of a certain generation, but to Christians in general - we know this because this entire address (from chapter thirteen up to the high priestly prayer) is being given specifically to the disciples. While I don't deny that most in this chapter would be relevant to modern day Christians as well, there are many places in this section where it is quite clearly being addressed to and/or would be directly relevant to the disciples (cf. Jn 15:26-27; 16:2; 16:4b-7; 16:16; 16:22; 16:32). What this means is that, if Christ were speaking of a pre-tribulation rapture, it would have been completely irrelevant to the disciples, as none of them can experience the pre-tribulation rapture in the manner described.

Our author states here that this verse describes "an act of removing Christians from the earth." He will go on to say, in the same article, that this speaks of "a physical removal of believers from the earth," and "a time when believers will be physically removed from the planet, meet the Lord Jesus in the air, and be with him forever." However, there is nothing here directly implying that this is Christ's intent or meaning, nor is there anything implying that this will take place in the pre-tribulation period. This has to be read into the verse.

Most commentators throughout history have referred this to the general return of Christ and the coming day of judgment. In this sense, these passages would be relevant not only for the disciples, but all Christians who came after them. Christ is speaking of preparing "dwelling places" for us, and that a place will be prepared for all Christians (not just those in the pre-tribulation rapture), and when Christ returns it will be to unite all believers with Him, so that they would truly dwell with him. However, this does not require belief in the pre-tribulation rapture in order to be true. As was stated before, nothing about a tribulation is even mentioned here, only a fulfillment of Christ's promise that the places reserved for believers would be granted to them after he returns.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul uses very similar language. He explains that when the Lord comes in the air with the souls of those who have already died, he will raise their bodies from the earth. And: “Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” Both Paul and Jesus describe a physical removal of believers from the earth. And notably both say that their new home will be with the Lord, in glory, forever.

Certainly a physical removal of believers is described here. That it is involved in a pre-tribulation rapture, however, is not. One could very well interpret this section of scripture as the bringing up of the living and the dead (who are mentioned in vv. 13-15) at the end times, when Christ returns to judge the world.

First Corinthians 15:51-54 is the most detailed account of this rapture. Here, Paul describes it as happening in an instant, “in the twinkling of an eye” (v. 52). He says that the trumpet will sound (cf. 1 Thess 4:16), our physical bodies will be “raised” and “changed” (v. 52), and our mortal flesh will put on “immortality” (v. 54).

Our author is not incorrect in the description of what the verses say - the issue, however, is the claim that this describes a pre-tribulation rapture. The apostle Paul, in speaking generally of the resurrection, touches on the subject of flesh and blood in regards to the resurrection, saying in verse 50: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." He goes on to say in verse 52: "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul's emphasis here is not on any rapture (nor does he even hint at a pre-tribulation rapture), but rather on the nature of our bodies and how they will be treated at the resurrection.

Our author continues his three main verses, going on to discuss the rapture a bit more in detail:

Other passages hint at the reality of the rapture. The day of the Lord is described as both a time of judgement on the earth and a time of rescue for believers. Revelation 3:10 pledges that believers who endure the trials of this age will be kept from the time of tribulation to come. 

This is perhaps the first verse we have seen which might suggest the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture within scripture. The issue, again, is in the context.

Revelation 3:1-13 is a section of the letters from Christ to the various churches in Asia Minor, and is the one specifically addressed to Philadelphia (now Alasehir in modern day Turkey). Let's review the context of the verse quickly:

"I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie - I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you. Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God and My new name." [Revelation 3:8-12]

Let us now speak about a few realities concerning this passage:

1) This passage is directed specifically to the church in Philadelphia - the "you" throughout the verses. Now, while I would agree with those in the spiritual camp (who believe the letters to the churches in Revelation provide timeless lessons for churches throughout history), we have to also remember to whom these passages are written and the historical context. Otherwise, we become like those who abuse Revelation 3:20, applying it to unbelievers asking them to convert, when in actuality it is addressed to believers telling them to repent. Certainly, many who interpret Revelation from a futurist mindset recognize that these letters are addressed to specific churches in a specific context, hence why some argue that these letters are written to future churches in those cities, rather than churches that existed in that time period.

2) On this note, Christ is dealing with specific issues pertaining to this church. These Christians had been harassed by the local Jewish population (as Christians were well into the second century AD) whom Christ referred to as "the synagogue of Satan" (v. 9). These Jews had, through whatever means, attempted to compel the Christians in Philadelphia to disobey God's word and deny Christ's name (v. 8). The faithful in Philadelphia were experiencing temptation to deny God's word and to fall out of faith, and yet, as we shall see, they had resisted this and remained faithful.

3) Christ states that, because the believers in Philadelphia have "kept the word of [His] perseverance" (meaning the perseverance of believers; Re 13:10), he will also keep them from "the hour of testing" which is "about to come upon the whole world" to "test those who dwell on the earth" (v. 10). Note very importantly: this promise is directly tied to the perseverance of the believers in Philadelphia; because they have kept the perseverance of faith, God will keep them from the "hour of testing" about to come upon the world. In fact, a grammatical play on words is being used here with τηρέω, or "to keep": because the believers in Philadelphia kept (ἐτήρησας) the faith, Christ will have them kept (τηρήσω) from the "hour of testing." Again, there is an obvious tie between the believers in Philadelphia and the hour of testing, not a future generation completely unrelated to the specific church addressed here.

No doubt many will harp on the use of the words "whole world" and "earth" in verse 10. However, we must understand that when scripture often speaks of "whole world" or "earth," we must not immediately apply it to our modern day context of "the literal entire world." Those who would contend this must go to Luke 2:1 and ask themselves what the evangelist meant when he wrote "all the world" was to be taxed. Are we to assume that Caesar Augustus sent Roman tax collectors to ancient China? That he sent Roman tax collectors across the seas and taxed the Native Americans? That Roman ships visited each of the Pacific islands, taxing the Samoans and Hawaiians? Obviously not. The context here, most likely, refers most likely to the "whole world" of the Roman Empire, or that region of the world. This makes much more sense in the context of the audience, as we know this letter is addressed to the church in Philadelphia, and is they who are going to be spared from the "hour of testing" about to fall on the "whole world."

It must also be noted that there are two examples of begging the question in this use of Revelation 3:10:

1) While "keeping" is mentioned in the verse, it is not explicitly stated what the "keeping" entails, let alone is there anything to make us assume that it involves a rapture that will bring all believers from the earth to heaven. Many believe that this "keeping" to simply mean God's granting strength to believers and preventing the "hour of testing" from being as bad upon them as it will be for unbelievers or false Christians. This would certainly fit with the context of the passage, in which Christ tells them that he has "put before [the Philadelphia believers] an open door which no one can shut" (v. 8), referring to a secured eternal salvation (cf. Re 21:25).

2) While an "hour of testing" is mentioned, it is never directly tied to the tribulation (which John mentions as a present reality for himself and his contemporary Christians; Re 1:9). In the immediate context, given that perseverance of faith is being discussed and the next verse has Christ commanding them to "hold fast" so that "no one will take your crown" (that is, the crown of life; Re 4:10), it is a testing of faith and repentance. Some will no doubt argue that those who believe in the pre-tribulation rapture do believe that the tribulation will be a test of faith and repentance for those on the earth, however we must remember that it has been established this is addressed to the church in Philadelphia, not a future, pre-tribulation generation.

Our author continues:

First Thessalonians 5:9 says that despite the coming judgment in the Day of the Lord, that believers will be spared that wrath.

Let us review the context of the verse quickly:

For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night. But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. [1 Thessalonians 5:2-10]

While it is true that the verse says believers will be spared from wrath, it is not the wrath of the tribulation. The apostle Paul does speak on the day of the Lord, and describes it as coming "like a thief in the night," and hence commands that believers to be "sober," rather than living sinfully and as if they were unconverted, that is, those who live in darkness. Paul then explains why we should live soberly: because God has not destined us for wrath, but "for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him" (vv. 9-10). In other words, this is speaking of the wrath of God's judgment. This verse is not speaking of believers being carried up in a pre-tribulation rapture to be spared from a coming tribulation upon the earth.

Podcast: Steve Kelly and God Visions

Here is the latest podcast, in which I review a Steve Kelly sermon talking about how we can obtain and keep our "God vision."


Here is the link to my podcast on Steve Kelly's cultic teachings regarding church leadership.