Thursday, May 30, 2013

How I Affected Wave Church's Blog Combox

How did I affect Wave Church's combox? I essentially helped it cease to exist.

How did this come about? Well, I was reading the post regarding the second day of Wave Church's Daniel Fast, when I saw what I perceived to be an erroneous application of Matthew 21 to try to teach somewhat therapeutic theology. Thankfully, I saved a screenshot of my comment, and I'll post the pic below:


Unfortunately, what I didn't save was a brief conversation I had with one person who responded and said that we "put 2 and 2 together" [sic] and learn that we move the mountains of our life. I responded by pointing out that Christ is talking about a literal mountain here, and that he's simply referring to a mountain to show the disciples that a fig tree is nothing when it comes to deep faith in God. When I went to the blog later on, I saw that not only had the whole conversation been deleted...but that all comments had been disabled for all posts.

As I discussed in my second podcast, Steve Kelly compared offense in Christ to offense in lead pastors, and the idea of even just honestly questioning your lead pastor was seen as the highest sin, one for which God will spit in your face. People have been disciplined or kicked out of Wave Network churches for simply questioning their pastor on a decision or statement. Clearly, what I did here was offend Der Fuehrer...I mean...God's anointed.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Podcast: Guided by Grace

Here is the latest podcast episode. In this one, my wife joins me to discuss her testimony, talking of her going from Roman Catholicism to true repentance and faith in Christ.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Alvin York's Conversion

The following is a clip from the classic Gary Cooper film Sergeant York. What it doesn't show is the film's somewhat miraculous (and probably exaggerated) depiction of Alvin York going to kill a man who cheated him, only to have lightning strike above him and destroy the rifle he intended to use. What it does show is his conversion, when he stumbles into the nearby evening services of the local church, and is welcomed at once by all inside, and who assist him with the singing of Give Me That Old Time Religion. If you haven't seen the entire film, I really encourage you do so. To quote an old cliche, "They just don't make 'em like this any more."

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Why the Racism Analogy Doesn't Work

It's common for many to compare the topic of same-sex marriage with the issue of interracial marriage - that is, advocates of same-sex marriage will compare their opponents with those who vehemently opposed interracial marriages in the 1950's and 60's. While popular in many circles and parroted uncritically in social media, this argumentation has some faults.

Firstly, it's just an empty personal attack. "Oh, you don't agree with me?! Well, you're just like a racist!" In some ways, it's no different than Godwin's Law: you're in essence going to an extreme example to broad brush your enemies and write them off to others as "the bad guys," all without addressing their arguments. It might also be worth noting that racism tends to stem from the belief that a person of another race is a lesser or subservient human being; while there are those who treat homosexuals in a similar manner, the large portion of those who oppose same-sex marriage do so not because they see homosexuals as lesser beings or non-citizens.

Secondly, homosexuality is something you can hide - race isn't. Barring any skin condition outside your control, you can't hide being a black person. To paraphrase one black comedian: "You gays have a closet you can go in and out of - I don't!"

Thirdly, the issue of America's racial tension is different than that of her homosexuals, and it's unfair to try to tie the two together - if not a bit extreme. It's a bit like how some people, upon hearing of some persecution in some country, immediately jump to the Holocaust as an example, essentially comparing any persecution or a killing of any group of people to the Holocaust, even if the situations or motivations are entirely different. To paraphrase a black scholar I once heard on CSPAN: "While I sympathize with homosexuals, I don't like it when they compare their cause to the civil rights movement - Ellen Degeneres never had to pick cotton at the crack of a whip."

Fourthly, the question of whether or not a black man could marry a white woman was a matter of whether two races should marry...it did not redefine marriage as an institution. A black man and a white woman together still function as husband and wife the way they should in marriage, and the man and woman still function in their roles pertaining to the individual genders. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, completely redefines marriage and the roles normally played by the genders in a heterosexual relationship. It forgoes the effect the genders have on one another, the ability for the two genders to reproduce together, and the roles the two genders play in the raising of children. Ultimately it turns the definition of marriage into emotional satisfaction between two people - a shallow foundation at best (and one that, inevitably and logically, opens the door for things like incestuous relationships).

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Papal Fallibility

I recently became aware of an article quoting the recently appointed Pope Francis and his comments on our ability to do good, as well as our atonement, which were made last Wednesday. I felt compelled to offer a brief response to it. Here's the opening section from the article:
Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”
The reference here (the daily reading) is to Mark 9:38-40. Here are the words of the verses:
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us."
Note something the pope left out, in both instances: these things were done in the name of Christ. The man who was "doing good" (actually, casting out demons) was doing so in the name of Christ. Christ speaks of those who work in his name, and who will not speak evil of him. Pope Francis is making it sound as if the disciples came across a random guy on the street giving money to a homeless man, and got upset because he wasn't a Christian. On the contrary, they found a man who was casting out things in Christ's name, and were curious if they should stop him because he wasn't one of Christ's direct disciples. That is, he was a follower of Christ but hadn't received direct orders from Christ to do those things, and the disciples were worried about what appeared to be unorthodox way of continuing the message of Christ.

Pope Francis, however, takes this erroneous interpretation of Mark 9:38-40 and broadens out the capability of individuals to do good:
"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy."
We've already established that Mark 9:38-40 is not about doing general "good things," but be that as it may, let's first define our terms at this point: when we speak of "good," do we mean simply "nice" things? If, that is, we are saying even the most passionate atheist can open up a door for an old woman, then I think no one will contest that. Of course everyone is capable of being "nice" or acting like a "good guy."

If, however, by "good" we mean doing that which is pleasing to God, then we run into a serious problem - and serious because it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about human nature. The apostle Paul told us that "none is righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10), and that men are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Christ himself told the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). The prophet Isaiah wrote that "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Isa 64:6). The testimony of scripture is that none are considered "good" before God outside of Christ - neither in person or in deed.

Yet Pope Francis contests that a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian for that matter) "must" do good, because he "has this commandment within him." In some regards, this is true, as the apostle Paul wrote:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [Romans 2:14-16]
Men have the Law written on their hearts, so that even an atheist, deep down inside, feels some inkling that it's wrong to murder. This is why virtually every culture in the world has laws concerning murder, adultery, rape, etc. The issue, however, is if merely doing works of the Law makes one justified before God. As we've seen before, this isn't possible. As the apostle Paul writes later on in the same epistle: "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20).

The next section is even more astounding:
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."
The Lord has redeemed us all? Everyone? All men have been absolved of their sins? Here we run into two problems:

Firstly, this isn't consistent with the teaching of scripture. If Christ redeemed us all, why then does Christ say "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11), and that these sheep are those whom the Father have given to them (John 10:29)? (I talk more of the sheep in John 10 in this post.) Why is it said Christ came to save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21)? Why does the apostle Paul state it was the church which Christ "obtained with his own blood" (Acts 20:28)? Why is it said Christ died for the church (Eph 5:25) and for the elect (Rom 8:32-33)? It is clear from this that there is, in fact, a particular redemption, over and against a general redemption. Christ did not redeem everyone who ever lived. Even Christ himself did not say that he came as a "ransom for all", but as a "ransom for many" (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45), and the author of Hebrews says that Christ has been offered once "to bear the sins of many" (Heb 9:28).

Secondly, this runs into problems with the idea of atonement versus judgment, for if all men are redeemed, then why are any in hell? Why would any men be in hell? Some here will say, "It is because they have rejected Christ and do not have faith." Unbelief, however, is listed as an equal sin with other acts against the Law of God (1 Co 6:8-10; Rev 21:8; 22:15) - let us not forget also that one of the Ten Commandments was the command to worship the true God (Ex 20:3). Are we to say that those who come to faith in Christ out of the mire of atheism or false religions are not forgiven for violating the very first commandment? If, indeed, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ, why then are not other unbelievers forgiven and redeemed by the blood of Christ? If it possible for men to go into hell, then they are not truly redeemed.

In this same vein, we run into a problem with Pope Francis' statement "and this Blood makes us children of God of the first class!" The scriptural definition of being a "child of God," however, belongs to those who are in the faith, regenerated internally by God, just as the apostle John wrote:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13]
Our becoming children of God is not reliant upon merely being born into lineage ("not of blood"), nor by anything we intentionally do by our own power ('nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man"), but rather through the regeneration wrought by God ("born...of God"). When this occurs, we become children of God through adoption.

The apostle Paul likewise spoke, regarding our status as children of God:
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]
The pope asks atheists to "do good: we will meet one another there," for the sake of peace. Again, if he's just talking about "being nice," I would be all for that, and we should all get along. The pope, however, goes on to state that "doing good" is not a matter of faith, but "it is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always." While it is true that we are made in the likeness of God, let us not forget that this image is fallen. The inclination of man is not to do that is pleasing to God, let alone honor the true God. It is impossible for the pope to meet an atheist halfway because the atheist is repulsed by the God which the pope claims to worship. Any "meeting halfway" will be superficial peace, not sincere peace, for a hatred still exists, in whatever form, between the non-Christian and the Christian's Master. It is like those who say "Peace, peace," when there is no peace (cf. Jer 8:11).

As I've said before, no Christian denies that a non-Christian can do "nice" things, or be a "nice" guy, but in regards to our status before God, all men are guilty and their "good" means nothing, unless it is done, as the evangelist Mark said, in Christ. John Climacus, an ancient desert ascetic and author of the famous Ladder of Divine Ascent, said that doing good works without Christ was like pouring water into a bucket with a hole at the bottom. The "nicest" person in the world, if they do not have Christ, is still an object to be fed into hell, for they are still guilty of their sins. The righteousness of God is not in doing works of the Law, for the "righteousness of God" is found "faith in Jesus Christ," and can only be found there, for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:22-23). As I said, it would be impossible for a Christian and an atheist to meet halfway in the "doing of good," because there is a difference on what is motivating either case. It is also problematic because the very standard of what is "good" is being denied by one of the parties.

Let me end here by saying that if you are outside of Christ, then you must realize that all the "good" you do will not atone for your sins, and that you will be guilty before God for all you have done. This is a serious matter to consider, because we are speaking of eternity - and eternity is a long, long time. Scripture tells us that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22). Thankfully, God himself took on the role of ultimate sacrifice, when God the Son gave his life to offer "one sacrifice for sins for all time" (Heb 10:12), so that those who repent of their sins and confess faith in him may be saved. God is granting you time to do this, even now, as you're reading this blog post. If not, at least ponder these things seriously, and know that Christ is a perfect Savior from whom you shall never be snatched, for he promises regarding his sheep that "no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28), and it is said that he is one who is "able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25). Ponder these things carefully. God bless.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Steve Kelly and Wave Church - Cultic Teachings on Leadership

The following is a link to my podcast reviewing the sermon "Is Your Destiny Connected to Your Leader?", by Steve Kelly of Wave Church in Virginia Beach, VA.


This link leads to the email exchange between myself and Wave Church Associate Pastor Clayton Ritter on December 30, 2012.

The following is a copy of the email sent to me by Frank Rue (shared with his permission).

from: Frank Rue 
to: Tony-Allen
date: Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:58 PM
subject: Re: Greetings; Wave Church

Tony-Allen -



We were given an audio cassette (it was a while ago, haha) of "Your Destiny is Connected To Your Leader", and it was much more direct than the more recent one you've mentioned. The more recent one is a lot more tame. I wish I could dig up the old one, but it is not available anymore.

My wife was the Executive Administrator for our church in New Jersey, and our church was the church in the Wave Network that was responsible for making most of their materials, including the Network Church Handbook. I still have copies of the handbook, electronically, and it contains the requirement of listening to the original "Your Destiny is Connected to Your Leader" language. This requirement is for leaders of the church (pastors on down through small group leaders). The handbook is certainly something I can dig up, if you think it would be worth the time.

When our pastors in New Jersey were caught in adultery, Steve Kelly himself came up and gave a "talk" wherein he said anyone who went against him or the elders was using witchcraft and manipulation to divide the church, and to have nothing to do with them. Also, when I had a disagreement with the pastor earlier in my time there, my wife and I were shunned until we "repented" and apologized to the pastor and then publicly for having "gone astray". No, we didn't sin—we literally just disagreed with and spoke up about it to the pastors directly. For that we were branded "rebellious" and "arrogant", and people were told we were "working through things" and we "needed to be left alone".

Further, our pastor's wife (also considered a pastor) spoke on being a "Prodigal". She equated the story of the Prodigal Son in the bible to the idea that a person sometimes makes bad choices, turns away from the church (read: gets kicked out), and cannot be contacted at all until they are pitifully begging for forgiveness, at the end of their rope and totally broken. My wife personally was contacted by a former church member once (who we did not know was kicked out) and, upon asking her small group leader about what to do, was told NOT to respond to the former church member and to ignore her so she wouldn't be "sucked into her hurtful world", or something of that sort. 

I know of a particular ex-military leader who once participated at many Wave Network events as a speaker. He once questioned something Steve Kelly said whilst at a Network Pastor's Breakfast, was reprimanded, and then was ostracized by all of the pastors in the network over the next 6 months. Effectively, no one had him speak any longer at any of their events or churches, and he was forced to find another outlet for his ministry. When he called to ask Steve Kelly what happened, he was gruffly refused by the administrative staff and told that Steve Kelly didn't have time for his phone calls.


This is all common practice among the Wave Network churches (and Hillsong churches, for that matter), Wave itself, and our former church. It is almost exclusively the reason for the label "cult", frankly, though there are a number of other reasons which more than qualify the "churches" for such a moniker.


Hope this helps!

Frank


This link sends you to Frank Rue's Disconnect Church blog. It mostly covers The Connect Church, which is part of the Wave Network, but many of the issues are the same.

This link sends you to Frank Rue's Diakonos blog. Plenty of posts here are well worth the read. Of particular interest, in regards to this topic, is his Cult of Personalities post.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Therapeutic Theology V: A New Brainfart

Hi folks we're here to discuss therapeutic blah blah blah blah blah moving on...

Over on the left here the therapeutic image reads: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (emphasis in original), and is attributed to Colossians 1:17. What is the actual wording of the verse?
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [Colossians 1:17]
Wait...holy cow! Did one of these things actually use an actual quotation? Let alone from a legitimate translation!? This seems like an improvement. Now let's use our next test: the context test (say that three times fast).
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [Colossians 1:15-20]
Let's ask a question: why was "hold together" bolded in the original quote? Chances are because it was meant to convey that Christ "holds together" all the aspects of your life. Bad relationship? Financial troubles? Harassed by creditors? Didn't save as much money switching to Geico as you expected? Don't worry! Because Christ holds ALL THINGS TOGETHER!

Is this the case as found within the context? Actually, no. Paul is talking about the divine power of Christ, calling him "the image of the invisible God" and "the firstborn of all creation" (v. 15). By Christ, all things that ever existed were created, and were created through him and for him (v. 16). We then see the statement that Christ is before all things (that is, all things of existence and which were created), and in him "all things hold together" (v. 17). Does this mean Christ is gonna make your life work out? Actually no - it means all things, as in, all things of creation, hold together because of Christ's power. The planets circle, the storms rage, and the natural world continues according to the power of God the Son.

Again, we need to be careful with how we handle scripture. We wouldn't like someone misusing our words to prove a point we weren't even talking about - we shouldn't treat God's word that way.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

First Podcast - Steve Kelly and "Naming your harvest"

Below is a link to my first podcast at a little web show I'm trying. It will essentially be an extension of this blog.

In this episode, I examine a sermon by Steve Kelly of Wave Church, in Virginia Beach, VA. Does it hold up to the light of scripture? Listen and find out.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Ergun Caner, Frank Dux and Jesus Christ: A Comparative Study

A few days ago, Ergun Caner announced on Twitter that he was innocent and denied all charges against him. For those who are not familiar with the accusations made against Ergun Caner, this page where James White collected together his videos on the subject might help (by the way, the graphic at the top was made by yours truly). He added in response to one critic:


Whenever the Caner affair pops up its ugly head again, I can't help but remember similar charges made against someone else. Who is it? Of all people, it's actually one Frank Dux, whose real life experiences were the basis for the famous 1988 Jean Claude Van Damme flick Bloodsport. While the film of course made plenty of exaggerations and additions (some of which Frank Dux criticized), the basic premise is similar to how Dux claimed it unfolded in real life. This, of course, has led many to call foul and claim Dux is himself exaggerating or adding to his life story. Now, whether or not you think Frank Dux is the real deal, the point I'd like to make here is that he has responded to critics by providing evidence, or pointing to where the evidence can be found. One example can be found here, and another here. Overall, he's been pretty precise in response to his critics and naysayers.

Now compare this with Ergun Caner, who has done nothing in response to his critics except to repeat the mantra of "I'm innocent! They're being mean to me! It's a Muslim/Calvinist conspiracy!" Imagine, instead, if he release information to confirm or respond to his critics. Imagine if he presented evidence that he really was raised in the Middle East. Imagine if he explained the wild contradictions that exist in his various testimony presentations. Imagine if, once and for all, he told us who he debated in Nebraska! This sort of thing should not be hard, and one would think that at least some superficial evidence could be provided on this subject. For example, I grew up in my preteens in Europe when my father, who's in the military, was stationed there. If someone wanted to challenge this, they could easily research with the military on where my dad was stationed during my preteen years, to see if indeed it was in Europe. If I "misspoke" and said I was in San Francisco in 1991 when records showed my family wasn't there, I could easily correct it and say we were actually there in 1989, which could indeed be confirmed. The point is, these sort of things are easy enough to prove, and whereas Frank Dux, who (as far as I know) is not a believer, is capable of responding to such accusations, Ergun Caner, who claims to be a Christian and therefore worship He who is the embodiment of truth (Jn 14:6), does not even attempt to provide any answers or evidences. In fact, as precedence shows, Caner and his allies have a habit of simply trying to hide any errors and contradictions.

Now let's take a moment to turn to one other person: Jesus Christ. Ergun Caner said in the tweet above (as he has elsewhere) that Jesus never defended "against false accusations," and so he won't either. Of course, why did Christ remain silent against his accusers? Let's take a look at the accounts in the gospels:
Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. [Matthew 26:59-60a]

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. [Mark 14:55-59]
Why was Christ silent? Because he didn't have to defend his innocence. It is said that these were "false testimonies," yes, but not only were they false but the "testimony did not agree." Christ's enemies were inconsistent, and if Christ had not been asked personally to assert his divinity and his Messianic status, he probably would have been a free man.

Now let's compare this to Ergun Caner's situation. Is he under attack by false testimony? Upon what basis is it false except his word against theirs - and his enemies have demonstrated their accusations, not simply launched into blanket charges. Is he under attack from accusations that are inconsistent? On the contrary, the accusations have been very consistent...in fact, the only inconsistent one has been Ergun Caner himself. People have not had to make up charges like they did with Christ, who was blameless before all, but there are serious charges and allegations against Caner which he has yet to provide any real response. Frankly, to use the innocence of Christ against legitimate questions and accusations is sickening and blasphemous.

Ergun Caner, if you read this post, please understand that this isn't being done out of hate. You bring a mark upon the gospel of Christ when you add to it your false stories and embellished testimonies. You're making it harder not only for yourself, but your family as well. Please, sir, repent of your sins, repent of your wrongdoings, and be an example for others out there who might be in your position. God has granted you this time to repent, but there will come a time when it will no longer be available to you. When that time comes, you will be held accountable for all you have done. Please, seriously consider these things.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

John the Baptist and the End-Times: A Response

As many who read this blog know, it's difficult to get a response from official sources at the International House of Prayer. Sometimes, however, I get responses on Twitter. Recently I got in a conversation with one Brandon, a.k.a. 1hundredfold, on Twitter. It started when I responded to an IHOP-KC tweet which read:
The Spirit wants to manifest His power through people who will not use it to draw attention to themselves. Jn. 3:29-30.
I asked, very simply:
What does that passage in John have to do with the Holy Spirit?
Brandon responded to me by mentioning 1 Corinthians 14:1, and how it should be done in the spirit of John 3:29-30. I asked how they were related, and things started to go back and forth, as subjects related to the forerunner movement began to be brought in.

Of course, with the word limitations of Twitter, it can get difficult having a detailed conversation. So, Brandon provided a response here, and I have written up my own below. I would encourage people read his in full before reading my responses, as I'll be responding piecemeal. It's somewhat brief and at times doesn't go into as much detail as I may have liked, but I hope it would be edifying for those looking at this subject.

The first part deals with the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11, 15-17):
This post assumes 3 Key points that if you do not agree, it will be hard for us to discuss John the Baptist.
1. Mark of the beast was not fulfilled historically. I cannot find, without having to suspend my faculties of logic and reason, these verses in history.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name. Revelation 16:2 The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.
I would contend this has nothing to do with the topic of John the Baptist, and therefore it is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, and therefore I don't see too much of a point in responding to it.

Moving on:
2. 2nd Thes 3:5‘s Apostasy and man of sin have not yet happened.

concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed
It's actually 2 Thessalonians 2:5, but that isn't too big of a deal. In any case, whether it has happened or not, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Moving on:
3. I do not want to stand before Jesus in heaven and say of Matthew 24:21 “I thought You were using prophetic hyperbole, I thought you were exaggerating.” Matt 24:21 “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
While this is leading down one deep rabbit hole, Matthew 24 is actually about the destruction of the Temple and the ultimate end of the old covenant with all its signs and shadows. This has been the interpretation of many learned men throughout Christian history. The notion that it foretold something in the far (or even near, for us) future did not come about until really the past 200 years or so, with the rise of Dispensationalism. If you had gone back in time and presented this mindset to any Church Father, they would have looked at you cross-eyed (in fact, much of the theology and scriptural teachings at IHOP-KC are foreign to Christian history).

And again, this isn't related to the subject of John the Baptist.

Moving on:
The End Times
The seals trumpets and bowls are quite similar to the plagues of Egypt. Yet the children of Israel were protected. I believe the end-time tribulation will cause many to fall, yet their will be greater miracles and protection than through church history. Considering the damage and fatality, and Jesus’ warning for love to grow cold, it is wise to search this; God always sends messengers to warn and prepare before Judgment to give opportunity to repent.
Where was it foretold in the New Testament that men would warn and prepare for judgment? While it is true that God often sent messengers in the Old Testament to warn and prepare for judgment, where is the specific teaching regarding this? To try to apply a standard found in the Old Testament and immediately apply it in the new can be dangerous, similar to Mormons who go to the Old Testament and show the pattern of apostasy and revival to try to teach that, after the time of the apostles, the churches apostasied and now there's a revival among the Mormon church.

The good news is that, for Christians and non-Christians today, they already have the warnings...and the warnings and calls for preparation are in Holy Writ. It is the preaching of God's word, and not a special forerunner movement, that awakens the soul to repent and prepare for Christ. If Holy Writ is ignored, then those who choose to ignore it have no excuse before God, just as Abraham told the rich man regarding torment and punishment: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them...If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16:29, 31).

Here we are entering the realm of the IHOP-KC doctrine of the "forerunners." To summarize for those unfamiliar with this movement: those who embrace the lifestyle of a "forerunner" serve a John the Baptist-like role, warning people and calling them to repent before the second coming of Christ - which IHOP-KC founder Mike Bickle believes will be in our present generation. Bickle, unfortunately, often argues for the forerunner movement with scripture rather than from scripture. What I mean by this is that he uses the strategy of citing verses for the sake of their wording or to make an analogy, rather than demonstrating the doctrine being directly taught from the passages themselves.

Bickle has to do this, because nowhere in the Bible is it foretold that "forerunners" will be raised up in the end times, or that there is a special group of Christians known as "forerunners" who function in the same vein that John the Baptist did. Instead, Mike Bickle has to allegorize scripture and look to mere examples. To quote from his 7 Commitments of a Forerunner book:
End-time forerunners can find inspiration and instruction from New Testament forerunners like John the Baptist, the first apostles, and the seventy disciples, who all announced the first coming of Jesus to their generation (Mt. 10:5-8; Lk. 9:1-2; 10:1).

John the Baptist functioned as a forerunner by announcing the coming of Jesus, as well as the glory and pressures that would result from it in that generation (Lk. 3:3-9, 16-18).

The apostles functioned as forerunners in two ways. First, they announced the first coming of Jesus to the cities of Israel (Lk. 9:1-6). Second, they proclaimed the second coming of Jesus and the worldwide glory and pressures that would result in that generation (Acts 3:19-21; 2 Pet. 3; 1. 4-5; 2 Thes. 1-2; Rev. 6-19). [pg. 5-6; Forerunner]
Here we see that Bickle inserts his theology into scripture by saying that the apostles functioned as forerunners. However, is such theology actually in scripture, or taught in scripture? Let's see what the word of God has to say about John the Baptist and his function.
"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me..." [Malachi 3:1a]

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." [Malachi 4:5-6]

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." [Matthew 11:7-14]
The words by Christ in the section from Matthew relate directly to the two prophecies regarding John the Baptist in the book of Malachi. Christ identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1a (which he himself quotes), and states "among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist" (v. 11). Why is this? Because John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the one chosen to foretell the coming of the Messiah to his people. Yet why does Christ add "the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (v. 11)? This is because there is a shift in eras - the era of the Messiah, who has come. This is seen even clearer a few verses later with "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John" (v. 13) - that is, all the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament came to a hilt with John, and are now being fulfilled. Christ then concludes: "if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come" (v. 14), making a direct reference to Malachi 4:5-6. In other words, John the Baptist was the "Elijah" prophesied in Malachi, and he had fulfilled that role.

Let us look at another set of related verses in scripture:
A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." [Isa 40:3]

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. [Matthew 3:1-4]
Here we have the prophecy in Isaiah of John the Baptist's coming and his ministry, which Matthew explicitly spells out (and Mark and Luke likewise do in the parallel passages) as having been fulfilled in John the Baptist (v. 3). He adds that John wore a "garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist," which was similar to how Elijah dressed (2 Kings 1:8), signifying silently that John the Baptist was likewise fulfilling the prophecy in Malachi 4:5.

What does all this tell us? No one else is a "forerunner" or an "Elijah" but John the Baptist. As Christ clearly says, all of that was fulfilled in John. Bickle says that we "function" like John the Baptist, but why should we strive to "function" like him if he served a specific role, and that role was prophesied regarding him and fulfilled in his ministry?

Bickle's tactic here is nothing new to Christian history. The early proponents of monasticism - and those who support it today - turned to biblical examples and said many should "function" like them. They turn to Elijah's lifestyle of living simply in the wilderness (never mind it was done in exile), or to John the Baptist's similar lifestyle in the wilderness (never mind it was done in fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy), and encourage others to engage in this lifestyle for a kind of higher spirituality. In a similar fashion, Bickle will turn to the lifestyle of John the Baptist or the apostles, and try to find what goes along with his concept of what a forerunner is. The problem is, again, nowhere in scripture is the title of "forerunner" given to Christians, nowhere is it said anyone else other than John the Baptist fulfilled the roles prophesied in Malachi, and nowhere are those passages used by Bickle ever shown to be connected.

Part of the reason Bickle can't present a solid foundation for the teaching of "forerunners" in scripture is because this is based not on clear exegesis or systematic theology, but personal revelation. In other words, Bickle claims that God personally revealed this end-time movement to him. This places the authority of Bickle's ministry and movement not on scripture and its authority, but on his personal revelation and prophecy. I talk about this more in this post and this one.

Moving on:
Matt 25:6 Features a way to prepare for the return of Jesus that was identical to John the Baptists. Behold the Lamb!!

John the Baptist calls Israel to Behold Jesus 5 times. Matthew 25:6′s cry is to behold the Bridegroom Jesus.
At the risk of sounding like I'm straining gnats, John the Baptist actually only said "Behold" twice (Jn 1:29, 36). Only one other similar account is recorded in the Synoptics, with John telling the people to repent for the kingdom being at hand.

As for Matthew 25:6's use of "behold," it is in reference to the coming of the bridegroom, but that was not John did not say "behold" in his verse regarding the bridegroom. This is attempting to connect verses that really have nothing to do with one another, based on a single word.

Moving on:
Mal 3:1 speaks of preparing the way for both the 1st and 2nd Comings of Jesus, Malachi 3:2 on speaks of only the 2nd Coming:

“But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire And like launderers’ soap. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” Says the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:2).
There is absolutely no sign that there are two different comings spoken of in Malachi 3:1-2. I will present the full text here:
"Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap." [Malachi 3:1-2]
Verse 1 (said to be about his first coming) speaks "behold, he is coming," speaking of the messenger of the covenant - that is, Christ, who was the messenger of the covenant of grace. It then goes on into verse 2: "but who can endure the day of his coming?" Given the immediate context, and following the flow of thought from verse 1 into verse 2, the "day of his coming" can only refer to the day of the coming of Christ. Again, there is no change between one coming and another from verse 1 to verse 2.

Moving on:
John was in the wilderness led by the Lord, just as the Lord is calling many to the wilderness of fasting and ‘unplugging,’ to get free of the tentacles of our culture. If we can get in the wilderness and be shaped and prepared ourselves, we can then prepare others, to be burning and shining lamps like Isaiah 62:1 prophesies of us being in the end-times and like Gabriel said of John.
Here we are entering the dangerous realm of allegorizing and erroneous application, just as the monks of early Christianity would take the actions of Moses, Elijah, and others and apply it to people in their time. The fact is, why was John in the wilderness? Why did John live the way John lived? It was because his lifestyle was similar to Elijah, and hence he fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elijah before the Messiah. The clothes he wore, for example, matched those worn by Elijah (2 Ki 1:8).

Moving on:
Just as Joel 2 properly belongs to the final generation in context, yet Peter identifies a downpayment and dual-fulfillment at Pentecost, so in the same way Isaiah in Isaiah 40 prophesied of forerunners who would prepare the way for the Lord in the End-Times or at the time of Jesus’ Second Coming when all flesh (all nations) shall see Jesus’ glory together. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God…5 The glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh (all nations) shall see it together (at Jesus’ Second Coming). (Isa. 40:3-5)
Joel 2 does not properly belong to the "final generation," but rather to the generation to whom Peter was speaking, and, like Matthew 24, was a warning to the Jews of that generation of the coming destruction of the Temple and the judgment upon the Jewish nation. Mike Bickle has twisted the wording of Acts 2 to apply it to his theological presuppositions. I speak of this in greater detail in this post. I shall defer continued discussion on that there.

In regards to Isaiah 40:3-5, the word there for "flesh" can't mean nations, as that is hardly how the word is ever used in the original Hebrew. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the translators even use the word σὰρξ, the Greek word for literal "flesh." It is sometimes used in reference to mankind or living creatures, but in the context of the New Testament, such language is often said to speak of the inclusion of the Gentiles, rather than simply the Jews, who were considered to be "God's people" on the earth.

Likewise, it was never applied for the end times, but the evangelist Luke applies it contemporarily to John's present time, hence his wording "as it is written in the book of Isaiah the prophet" and the quotation followed (Lk 3:4-6). This was in reference to John's contemporary actions, not something that was yet to be fulfilled. Some might contend that Luke does not say "only this," but this is presuming there is a dual prophecy, and hence is begging the question. It is similar to Roman Catholics who, challenging the sola authority of scripture, will ask "Where in scripture does it say it's the only authority, and there aren't others?" This is likewise the old fallacy of proving a negative, ie., "You can't prove he DIDN'T say there was a dual prophecy!"
When John said "I am Isaiah 40" he was claiming an end-time verse for himself and in a way, rightly so, yet he confuses the chapter for many students of Isaiah, leading them to fully assign it to him. Therefore we can view John’s model of forerunner, preparatory ministry for Jesus’ first coming as a model for own our in Jesus’ Second, crying as a voice from the wilderness the ministry of the midnight hour of Matt 25:6 comes from years of preparation.
When a New Testament author quotes a passage from the Old Testament and applies it to an incident in the new covenant, we must do it under the context the author himself applies it. As it stands, Luke and the other evangelists do not apply Isaiah 40 as an end-time verse, but as a verse for the contemporary time (see previous response).

We also have a case here of yet again erroneously applying scripture and allegorizing it. We are told that "we can view John's model of a forerunner," and yet the only forerunner foretold by scripture, as we've established, is John himself. Nowhere are other "forerunners" foretold, and the only way to find them is to invent the concept first (as Mike Bickle has) and then read it into scripture, just as the monastics and ascetics of early Christianity did.

Here we likewise see an erroneous application of Matthew 25:6 - namely, it doesn't say we are to "cry as a voice from the wilderness the ministry of the midnight hour," let alone that we must prepare to do so over many years. The Parable of the Ten Virgins, found in Matthew 25:1-13, serves, as a whole, to foretell the coming of Christ, and warns believers to be prepared. The false believers (the virgins who were not ready) are shut out, while the true believers (the virgins who were ready) are let in and made secure. The verse in question reads: "But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'" Note, firstly, that this is a one-time event, not something that occurs every midnight. Note, secondly, that this is not said by believers, but is a generic call meant to symbolize the coming of Christ and the suddenness of it. Note, thirdly, that the point of the metaphor is that the coming is sudden - there is nothing here involving "years of preparation."

Moving on:
We will proclaim the 2nd Coming of Jesus to our generation with the same intensity and even greater power, Isaiah 40 and Mal 3 give us the path to prepare the way. But we also lead them to the sermon on the mount, of which Jesus said is the lifestyle that will stand, a house founded on the rock, that will stand greatest storm of all History, the coming end-time flood (Matthew 7). In Matthew 24 Jesus said the end times will be like the Days of Noah. Forerunners lead others to prepare and build the ‘ark’ of their hearts by doing the wisdom of Matthew 25, getting oil or getting the Holy Spirit, cultivating wisdom and revelation (Eph 1;17) and the knowledge of God.
I don't have much to say here, as it, again, mostly deals with IHOP-KC presuppositions that are read into the passages, especially the extra-scriptural concept of "forerunners." I will note, however, that Ephesians 1:17 is wrongfully applied. The full context:
For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. [Ephesians 1:15-21]
Paul prays that the believers in Ephesus may have God give them the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him - but is this talking about special end-times revelation or prophecy? On the contrary, this entire section is one of Paul's most notorious run-on sentences, and must be read in full. This wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God will have the eyes of their hearts enlightened, that they may know what is the hope to which he has called you - in other words, salvation. This is seen in the verses that follow, for Paul speaks of "the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe," and the "working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead." This is about knowledge of the Gospel, not simply a blanket knowledge of a higher being. Note too this isn't something we "cultivate" - this is something God gives us. The active person here, according to Paul, is God.

Moving on:
Bridegroom 
29 He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice…this joy of mine is fulfilled. (Jn. 3:29) John described what Jesus felt emotionally in saying “He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom”. To understand John, they had to know who He lived before.7 The marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. (Rev. 19:7) He that has the Bride – Jesus has a bride in His heart because God promised Him a prepared Bride at the end of natural history. He is the Bridegroom – He has tender love and burns with desire for His people.
Here we finally receive some touch upon John 3:29-30. While I don't have too much to touch upon here, the real meat of the matter comes in the following section:
John described his ministry and lifestyle as a friend the Bridegroom who stands and hears Him.
1. The friend of the Bridegroom – the best man in a wedding does not seek to draw the bride’s attention and affections to himself but to prepare her to receive the embrace of the Bridegroom. Paul spoke of ministries who preached or showcased ‘themselves’ (2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:19-21). Friends of the Bridegroom prepare people to receive Jesus’ embrace as the Bridegroom God empowering them to walk out the first commandment.
2. Who stands – diligent attentiveness to stand in God’s presence in prayer and the Word 18 For who has stood in the counsel of the LORD, and has perceived and heard His word? Who has marked His word and heard it? (Jer. 23:18)2 The seven angels who stand before God…to them were given 7 trumpets. (Rev. 8:2)
3. Who hears him – to respond with obedience regardless of the price
Let's quickly see the context of this section of John 3:
Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification. And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.” John answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” [John 3:25-30]
We are told of "friends of the bridegroom"...but who is the friend of the bridegroom here? It's John the Baptist, discussing his function as the messenger preluding the Messianic era ("I have been sent before him") and the end of the Old Testament era ("He must increase, but I must decrease" - see also Mt 11:7-14, explained earlier).

We are likewise told that John here "described his ministry and lifestyle as a friend the Bridegroom." Yet John is not speaking of his ministry and lifestyle (nowhere is it even mentioned), but his role in relation to Christ. Even if we were to contend that part of John's role in relationship to Christ was his ministry and lifestyle, it is applied only to John, and not to us.

Now, our final bit:
John described the joyful emotional impact that hearing the Bridegroom’s voice had on him.
1. Because of the Bridegroom’s voice – growing in revelation of Jesus as a Bridegroom
2. Rejoices greatly…this joy of mine is fulfilled – empowered with joy by receiving the revelation of the Bridegroom even in the difficulty of a desert lifestyle
Referring back to the citation of the full context above, let's examine these claims:

We are told that John felt joyful because of "growing in revelation of Jesus as a bridegroom." No gradual revelation, however, is mentioned here. John appears to have full understanding of Christ's role in this regard.

We are told that John is "empowered with joy" by this revelation, even in "the difficulty of a desert lifestyle." Here, again, we find analogies being applied wrongfully, especially since the verses do not have John saying that he feels joyful despite his desert lifestyle (ignoring, for a moment, that many commentators contend whether or not John actually lived in an official "desert").

As a final note, I'd like to bring up a serious issue: Mike Bickle and his organization are founded upon sand. They are founded upon the abuse of scripture, none too surprising given Mike Bickle is a proven false prophet and does not have a good track record when it comes to so-called "prophetic ministry." His organization is putting a yoke upon the youth and elders alike with their lifestyles models and works. I would encourage the author of the former post, as well as anyone who reads this post, to review the facts for themselves. I have many posts on this blog that have reviewed the teachings at the organization and held them up to the light of scripture, and IHOP-KC has been found wanting. I exhort them to flee from this house of error, repent and put your faith in Christ if you haven't already, truly, and enter into true knowledge and truth in God.

UPDATE MAY 8, 2013

The gentleman responded to me on Twitter upon receiving the link to this page. Unfortunately, his Tweets have all been deleted. This had happened before, and when I asked him about it, he said:


What I find curious, however, is that before all his latest Tweets were deleted, the only one deleted was the one linking to his full response (the link provided by me at the start of this post still works). Sometime later, the rest of the Tweets were deleted. Luckily, his deleted Tweets seemed to still show up on my iPad's Twitter app, so I saved a screenshot of them and decided to use them here. His contention, upon reading this post, was:


As I told him on Twitter (none of my Tweets are deleted), this page was written in response to our initial conversation. I was working on it as him and I continued to go back and forth. For the sake of fairness, I decided to go ahead and provide a response to those Tweets. They are, in their fullness (read from the bottom up):


Let me respond to this bit by bit.

Firstly, while Jesus did say Elijah would restore all things, we need to understand to what this "restore all things" refers. Let's first see the full context of the passage cited:
And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” [Mark 9:11-13]
It is strange that we are told that we are supposed to expect a dual prophecy with Elijah, when Christ himself says in verse 13 "Elijah has come." The verb used here (ἔρχομαι) is Perfect Indicative Active - what does this mean? The indicative active tells us that it is going on, while the perfect tense tells us that the prophecy of Elijah has been fulfilled. In other words, nothing else is needed - the Elijah prophecy has literally been "perfectly" met. It does not require anything else, either in that day and age nor in the near future. This is seen even more clearly in Matthew's parallel account:
"But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. [Matthew 17:12-13]
Once again, Christ says that Elijah has already come, and that they (meaning the religious and secular leaders) did to him whatever they pleased. In a similar sense (and switching from passive tense to future tense), the Son of Man (Christ himself) will endure similar suffering. Then, to put the nail in the coffin, the evangelist Matthew records that the disciples "understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." In other words, this entire discussion was in regards to John the Baptist. No one could read into this that there will be future "forerunners" in the style of Elijah and John the Baptist unless they committed eisegesis and ignored what the verses clearly say.

Some will then ask what Christ means when he says Elijah "does come first to restore all things"? The key is that the word "restore" here is being presumed to mean the end times, when in fact it merely means here to make things right. The verb here for restore (ἀποκαθίστημι) is the same used in verses such as Matthew 12:13, where it was said the man's shriveled arm was restored (ἀποκαθίστημι) to its original state. It is likewise used in Mark 8:25, where it is said the blind man's sight was restored (ἀποκαθίστημι). The word signifies a healing or a setting back in its proper place.

What then does it mean with John the Baptist, whom we are told was the perfect fulfillment of the prophecies regarding Elijah. In fact, the "restoring" Christ speaks of is taken directly from the Septuagint rendition of Malachi 4:5 (actually Malachi 4:6 in our Bibles), which speaks of Elijah "restoring the hearts of the Fathers" (ἀποκαταστήσει καρδίαν πατρὸς) to their children and vice versa. The truest sense of this restoration is what we see in John the Baptist's ministry: namely, bringing people to a sense of repentance and preparing them for the Lord, returning and "restoring" them to a sense of repentance before the Messiah comes to the Jewish nation. It is just as it is seen in the words of the angel to John's father, Zechariah:
"And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared." [Luke 1:16-17]
The "restoring all things," therefore, which John the Baptist is said by Christ to have fulfilled completely, was restoring the hearts and minds of the Jewish people towards the coming of the Messiah, and bringing to them a message of repentance that would precede the coming of their Lord and the ultimate judgment upon the Jewish nation. This has been the interpretation of orthodox men throughout history, and never was it read in any different way until the coming of Mike Bickle and his private revelations from God.

Secondly, the passage from Acts 3:21 speaks of the restoration of all things (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), similar to the words found in Mark 9:12 (ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα). However, there is a grammatical difference here: Mark uses a verb that is in the Perfect Indicative Active tense; Peter uses the word in noun form, specifically the Genitive Feminine Singular, relating back to the "times" spoken of by Peter. Is there a difference between these two concepts? Let's review the context of Acts 3:21:
"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." [Acts 3:19-21]
Speaking to the Jews, Peter speaks of the times of refreshing that may come upon those who repent (in other words, the peace and security of salvation), and then speaks of Christ in heaven until "the time for restoring all things." What are these "all things," however? Peter then qualifies these things with "about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago." Two "times" here are spoken of: a time (καιρός, or an opportune season) of refreshing, happening now; a time (χρόνος, or a specific season) of restoring all things foretold by the prophets, most likely to occur in the future.

What does this teach us? The biggest lesson is that two different restorations are being spoken of between Mark 9:12 and Acts 3:21. Christ spoke of the restoration of all things that the messenger of the Messiah would perform, while Peter is speaking of the restoration of all things of which the prophets foretold regarding the Messiah. We cannot connect the two restorations without ignoring the larger picture found in the individual passages.

Finally, we are told that the spirit of Elijah "has to be on a people related to the 2nd coming/restoration." Where, however, are people mentioned in either verse? Christ does not speak of "people" in his discussions on John the Baptist, and Peter does not even speak of the "spirit of Elijah," merely the "time of restoration."

From this, we see, yet again, that the prophecies regarding "forerunners" and the like are isolated to John the Baptist, not to any special end-times movement that will arise. This movement has been constructed from the imaginations of men first and foremost, with God's word adjusted and mishandled to fit into these imaginations. The use of scripture by IHOP-KC is, bluntly put, weak and feeble because it is founded upon erroneous application and eisegesis used by the organization's founders. When you have to scripture jump and grab passages from here and there, ignoring the context of each, and read into verses concepts foreign to scripture itself, then we are not honoring God's word. We are honoring, as we said, the dreams and visions of men over and against God's word. Scripture has harsh word for those who do these things, and these words should be heeded...the last words here shall therefore go to the prophet Ezekiel.
"They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the Lord,’ when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word...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." [Ezekiel 13:6, 9]

Monday, May 6, 2013

The Role of Past Divines

In the preface to Jonathan Edwards's aptly named Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church, Edwards quotes his grandfather and predecessor to the pastoral office in Northampton, a quote which deals with the Church Fathers. The quote, as Edwards cited it, was as follows:
It may possibly be a fault to depart from the ways of our fathers: But it may also be a virtue, and an eminent act of obedience, to depart from them in some things. Men are wont to make a great noise, that we are bringing in innovations, and depart from the old way: But it is beyond me to find out wherein the iniquity does lie. We may see cause to alter some practices of our fathers, without despising of them, without priding ourselves in our wisdom, without apostasy, without abusing abusing the advantages God has given us, without a spirit of compliance with corrupt men, without inclination of superstition, without making disturbance in the church of God: And there is no reason, that it should be turned as a reproach upon us. Surely it is commendable for us to examine the practices of our fathers...If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination.
The point in Edwards quoting this is related to the background of Humble Inquiry: Edwards was entering a debate with many in his congregation regarding whether communion should be taken only by those who had made "a profession of sanctifying grace" (Edwards's own position), or if it was in fact "a converting ordinance" (as the people of Northampton held) and hence such a profession was not necessary from those partaking it. One of the arguments made by opponents was that Stoddard had argued in favor of their position (indeed, he had been the one to introduce it). Stoddard had been a well respected and much beloved pastor in Northampton, and so they considered, in practice, his opinion as canon. Edwards therefore quoted Stoddard against them, pointing out that Stoddard did not believe in such glorification of the words of men, and would in fact be perfectly fine with Edwards's own evaluation of Stoddard's words and beliefs. As Edwards himself wrote:
Thus in these very seasonable and apposite sayings, Mr. Stoddard, though dead, yet speaketh: And here (to apply them to my own case) he tells me, that I am not at all blameable, for not taking his principles on trust; that notwithstanding the high character justly belonging to him, I ought not to look on his principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it...nay, surely that I am even commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would be ill become me, to do otherwise...
The point Edwards was trying to make against his critics was simply this: Stoddard was a noble and spiritual man, but he was still a man first and foremost, and his theology should not have been treated on the same level as scripture. In critiquing or reviewing what he taught on a few subjects, Edwards was not declaring Stoddard erroneous in toto, let alone was he questioning the sincerity of Stoddard's salvation. All the same, Stoddard's high standing, whether among his studies or among his congregation, did not make what he said automatically canon.

The issue continues today on how we treat past divines. While individual persons who hold to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., may subscribe to an ideology that might be referred to jokingly as Sola Patres, Protestants are just as guilty in some regard. There are those who will quote the Reformers more than they will scripture, and some base their theological positions on "Well, the Reformers believed this, so I guess I should too." While studying the history of the orthodox Christian faith and how Christian doctrine has been understood through the ages is important, there's a danger in attempting to group men together under labels they themselves would never apply to themselves, or reading backwards into history beliefs or definitions which are not as the individual divines themselves may have understood them. It is likewise dangerous to group men together in such a way that we ignore differences (regardless of how small) there exist between them.

This leads us to the opposite extreme, seen in treating past divines in a harsh manner. One can see an example of this with how the team at The Berean Call treat the Church Fathers, writing them all off as heretics since they do not see eye to eye with them on every single theological matter. If a Church Father isn't a Premillennial Dispensationalist General Baptist, then they must be a heretic who's burning in hell as we speak. The Church Fathers aren't alone in receiving this kind of abuse: some think John Calvin is in hell simply for being a paedobaptist, while some think John Wesley is in hell for not being a Calvinist.

Should we read, honor and respect men like the Church Fathers, the Reformers, or any great theologian who lived after them? Of course. It is vital not only for the study of church history (and history often repeats itself), but to build upon that which has already been laid for us. Does that mean we have to accept everything that was said before us? Not at all. We should hold everything by the standard of scripture and what Holy Writ speaks to us - anything else is the work of man and should be treated accordingly. Many are hesitant to do this, because they desire to see scripture through a certain filter, and instead of reading the works of men with the discernment of God's holy word says, they will permit the opinions of later men to affect how they view the plain reading of a text. If the words of an uninspired man is true and in accordance with the will of God, then we should not fear it being held to the light of scripture, for the two will prove compatible. As Edwards's grandfather wrote: "If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination."

Permit me to join with this the sayings of some men in centuries past - in fact, I'll let them have the last word:
"Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea; On the Spirit]

"Those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them." [Basil of Caesarea; Ascetical Works]

"...let us come to ground that is common to both [of us], the testimony of the Holy Scriptures." [Augustine; To Maximin the Arian]

"Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe." [Augustine; De Unitate Ecclesiae]

"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." [Augustine; ibid]

Friday, May 3, 2013

Comparison of the Canon

This is something I dug up from the archives in my old blog. It's a comparison between the canon as recognized by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here's the link.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Joseph Prince abuses the Lord's Supper

The good brothers over at Long for Truth review a peculiar teaching regarding the Lord's Supper, as told by Joseph Prince.