Podcast: Ernest Angley

In this episode, we provide a brief review of televangelist Ernest Angley, along with his questionable doctrines, and some statements I heard him and his staff make while I visited his church in person.



Much of this episode's content I owe to a study on Ernest Angley over at the discernment website Let Us Reason.

Here's the link to the blog post referencing Ernest Angley's teachings on the Latter Day Rain doctrine.

UPDATE - OCTOBER 13, 2014: I was sent a link to this article, discussing the allegations of sexual abuse at Ernest Angley's church, as well as his approval of abortions and vasectomies. I had encountered such allegations during my research for this podcast, but it had come from blog comments and fly by posts by people on news media, not "official" sources. This is the first source I've come across that placed it in a legitimate place for discussion.

UPDATE - MARCH 30, 2017: I was sent this article, detailing the legal problems Ernest Angley's church has run into due to not paying the employees of his buffet. According to the article, Angley and the Cathedral Buffet "encouraged members of his church, Grace Cathedral, to work at the buffet without pay...the volunteers felt pressured to provide free labor." Now, a federal judge has demanded he pay over $388,000 in back wages and damage. This is on top of an incident in 2015, where the Labor Department found that Cathedral Buffet "violated the Fair Labor Standards Act through its use of volunteers and did not document the volunteers' work"; this had happened before in 1999, though Angley later told Buffet staff that "workers would need to give their paychecks back due to financial hardships at the buffet." Regarding the 2017 ruling, Angley's lawyer has said that Angley feels his workers "had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet...would be the same as failing God." Well of course, because, according to Angley, God ordered him to make the buffet, and that's "God's buffet," and you should feel ashamed eating anywhere else on Sunday. (As we heard him say in the podcast.)

Michael Brown and the Jonah Syndrome

Recently, for Charisma Magazine, Dr. Michael Brown wrote an article entitled "Are You Suffering from the Jonah Syndrome?" The opening states (the parts by Brown are in purple):

We all know that Jonah was the prophet who tried to run from God’s call. But do you know the reason he tried to run? Jonah was afraid that if he preached repentance to the people of Nineveh, who were Israel’s arch enemies, God would forgive them.

In other words, Jonah had a problem with the goodness of God.

He would have been much happier if God simply wiped out the people of Nineveh rather than had mercy on them, and he actually complained about this at the end of the book.

But as shocking as it is to see the wickedness of Jonah’s heart, many of us are just like him. I call it the Jonah Syndrome, and in times past, it has affected me too.

Dr. Brown's ultimate point is that there are some people who do not want to see God merciful towards others, and would rather see them suffer. At some point, he turns it to the infamous Benny Hinn debacle he found himself embroiled in a few weeks ago, writing:

This past week, having received a tremendous amount of criticism from some circles for appearing on Benny Hinn’s TV show, it dawned on me that some of his critics did not rejoice when he reconciled with his wife, while others were upset to learn that he renounced some erroneous teaching more than 20 years ago. They would rather see him fall than remarry his wife or repent of wrong teaching.

Of course, I can't speak for all of Benny Hinn's critics. There might be some out there who want to see him suffer regardless of any personal life change. There are some people who, like the Pharisees, just write people off and will hate them even if the person sincerely repents of their sins and shows the fruits of a regenerated life. I won't necessarily deny that.

However, I think by and large Dr. Brown is either misrepresenting them or bringing up a fringe opinion as if what a handful of people think is relevant to the larger picture. Most people I know who dislike Benny Hinn (including myself) were not concerned that his wife and himself reconciled (I was personally happy they did) - rather, they were upset for how he acted during the whole ordeal (holding hands with Paula White in Rome, throwing his wife under the bus on his TV show, etc.). As for him renouncing "some erroneous teaching more than 20 years ago," it would help if Dr. Brown told us what specific teachings Hinn has supposedly repented of. If Brown is referring to the infamous "Nine Person Trinity" heresy (which Brown has repeatedly claimed Hinn renounced), then to my knowledge Hinn admitted to an audience at one event that it was a "stupid thing to say," but before Paul Crouch on TBN he claimed he never said it and people just misunderstood him (a blatant lie, and just one of many Hinn has told over the decades). Likewise, has Benny Hinn repented of the Prosperity Gospel? Has he repented of his false healings, passed off as legitimate? Has he repented of the countless lies documented over the years? Has he repented of using the money from his flock to dine at five-star hotels and expensive restaurants, all the while claiming that it's for the ministry of the Gospel?

Most of all, however, what struck me about the article was that Michael Brown seemed to be defending himself against critics by saying that he went and preached the Gospel on Benny Hinn's show. However, he has himself admitted in interviews that he'd have to sit down with Hinn personally and chat about Benny Hinn's actual problems and theological hang ups. In other words, Michael Brown went and gave a general Gospel message (which is good, don't get me wrong), but one that didn't directly attack or criticize anything Benny Hinn or his followers taught and believed.

Was this what Jonah did? Was it what we saw in the book of Jonah? Was Jonah's message a general call to repentance to all people? No - what we saw was a personal rebuke in God's message. God's message was directed towards Nineveh and their specific sins. Look firstly at what God said to Jonah, at the beginning of the book:

"Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me." [Jonah 1:2]

Look also at what Jonah said upon entering the city:

Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" [Jonah 3:4]

Did Michael Brown go in and say, "If you do not repent of your Prosperity Gospel errors, your ministry will be destroyed"? Did he say, "If you do not repent, Benny, of your heresy, lies, and great deception, there will come a day when God will judge you and exact divine punishment upon you"? Did he say, "If you do not repent of your corrupt financial practices, then Benny Hinn Ministries shall be overthrown"?

No, he didn't.

Imagine the following scenario instead. Imagine if Jonah one day got up and went to Nineveh, and preached a general message about God's Law and the need for sacrifice, but that was it. Nothing was directed towards Nineveh and their terrible evils, and there was no outward sign of repentance from Nineveh. Imagine if Jonah's fellow prophets stood up and said, "Whoa, Jonah, you do realize that's Nineveh, right? One of the most sinful cities in the world, and that part of the world that especially hates God's church?" Imagine if Jonah replied with, "Oh, well, I'm ignorant of what Nineveh does, but a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy told me that they're pretty good these days, so I decided to just show up. But I'm not going to defend or criticize Nineveh's practices." Then, when people started calling Jonah out on this ridiculous excuse, he started going around saying, "Hey man, these other prophets just don't understand God's mercy." Would any of Jonah's actions be sensible?

This is the situation we're dealing with; Dr. Brown would rather it be that people saw him as this innocent preacher of the Gospel, who just went to Benny Hinn's show to share the message of reconciliation. His critics, however, are these evil people who don't want anyone under Benny Hinn to repent, and in fact desire to see them all destroyed. As he continues writing in the article:

How is this the spirit of Christ? (I shudder to think about some of the comments that will be posted in response to this article, as critics quote verses of judgment that rejoice in the fall of their enemies or that call for divine judgment on the “the wicked.” For my part, I am neither the defender nor the accuser of Benny Hinn’s ministry.)

Here he admits his moral antipathy towards Benny Hinn's ministry, which is really just about as bad as being a defender of it. It's like a politician responding to a question with, "I can neither affirm or deny that statement." The absurdity of this statement has already been talked to death: as I wrote in my previous post on the subject, Michael Brown is walking around in the Emperor's New Clothes, performing a parade when no one else is convinced (and even people on the Hyper-Charismatic side are noticing his hypocrisy).

Most amazing is Michael Brown's use of the Parable of the Vineyard Workers to justify his decision:

Let’s remember the Lord’s words in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, where he rebukes those who had a problem with the owner’s goodness, asking, “Are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20:15)

Is this a relevant passage? What was the "owner's goodness"? Was it that God had mercy on those who didn't deserve it? Actually no, it was the fact that those vineyard workers who had only worked about an hour or so got paid the same amount that those who had been working all day had (Mt 20:9-12). This was the "generosity," and this was why the other workers were "envious." Using it to defend your association with a well known false prophet and heretic is inexcusable. In this situation (and really, the Jonah story in general), Dr. Brown is using scripture to defend his association with a false teacher and heretic.

He ends the article with these words:

And let’s remember the words of Jacob (James), that “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (Jam 2:13)

As we have received mercy, let us show mercy, never forgetting there are not different “camps” or “sides” in the Body of Christ – even if we use those terms descriptively – but just one family with one Father, and He desires to do good to all his children.

The problem with this application is that Benny Hinn is not a child of God. This has been demonstrated by nearly every Christian watchdog group on the planet - even in Charismatic circles. He's been recorded teaching heresy after heresy. He's been called out on for lie after lie. His false healings and corrupt financial lifestyle has been exposed by virtually every news network in the country. Dr. Brown can speak all he wants to about "camps" and "sides," but even he knows there's truth and error, and for him to try to use an emotional appeal to defend Benny Hinn shows the intellectual inconsistency and dishonesty that he is willing to engage in to keep up association.

The greatest hypocrisy here, just like the situation with Mike Bickle and Rick Joyner, is that Dr. Brown continues to attack or criticize his opponents, while at the same time refusing to interact with what they have to say. He'd rather misrepresent them or take one or two extreme opinions and act as if those alone negate everything coming from the opposite end. He'd rather make red herrings like, "You say pastor x is a heretic, but some people say pastor y is a heretic," as if criticisms of Pastor y somehow negates legitimate criticisms of x. He'd rather claim ignorance of Benny Hinn on the one hand, then on the other hand claim that he had enough information to make an educated decision on appearing on his show. Then when people try to inform him on the errors of Hinn and others, he'll simply ignore them or make excuses like "I'm too busy," even if it's a small article or a seven-minute video (never mind he asked Phil Johnson, second-in-command of John MacArthur's church, to listen to hours of pro-Charismatic audio and video). Yet, after ignoring what his opponents say, or dismissing any chance he'll ever interact with what they've written, said, or researched, he'll turn around and publicly claim their entire argument is spiritually or intellectually deficient.

That isn't discernment - it is intellectual dishonesty, and it shows a great hatred for the truth.

I'm reminded of a line from Chris Rock's stand up, where he says, "Hey man, I love rap music, but it's getting harder and harder to defend it." Every time Dr. Brown attempts to dig himself out of the discernment grave he's gotten himself into, he only digs himself deeper and deeper, and I find it harder and harder to consider him a brother in Christ who loves the truth and hates error.

Michael Brown at it again!

A while ago, I wrote an open letter to Dr. Michael Brown regarding his fellowship with International House of Prayer founder Mike Bickle, as well as some other men involved in the movement. After my interaction with him on Twitter, I wrote a follow up post, and then did a special podcast with two other brothers in Christ.

In the past couple of days, Twitter and Facebook went insane with the latest show of support (or at least moral antipathy) from Michael Brown regarding none other than infamous Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel heretic Benny Hinn. A good article at the MennoKnight blog explains it all pretty well. Among the most amazing of Brown's responses to his critics is this:

While I’m quite aware that some of you feel he is the ultimate false teacher and charlatan while others believe him to be a wonderful man of God, I have actually not monitored his ministry over the years. [emphasis mine]

Wait...excuse me?

Did Michael Brown really just pull the ignorance card the same way he did on his Line of Fire broadcast with Phil Johnson, when the latter asked about Rick Joyner and others? And did he try pulling this ignorance card in regards to Benny Hinn?

Pastor Lyndon Unger, the author of the MennoKnight blog, put it best:

Dr. Brown claims to have been a Christian for decades.

Dr. Brown claims to have been in Charismatic circles for decades.

Dr. Brown claims to have been in Charismatic leadership for decades.

Dr. Brown claims to not know enough about Benny Hinn to know whether or not he’s a upstanding man of God?

I mean, come on! REALLY? [emphasis in original]

Sadly, yes, really.

On top of this, let's not forget Brown has experience in apologetics, so surely Benny Hinn's name must have popped up at least every now and then. Let's put that all aside for a moment, however, and remember something important: this is Benny Hinn we're talking about. Benny Hinn. Even secularists, atheists and non-Christians in general know that name, and are aware of his errors.

Imagine a liberal news pundit who commentates on politics, who claims to have been involved with the Democratic party for decades, who has gone to plenty of well known Democratic conventions, and who then turns around and says, "Oh, well, I haven't really studied Obama's political beliefs much."

Would anyone buy that?

There's a famous line from the original Transformers cartoon where the villain, Megatron, hears his lackey, Starscream, attempt to weasel an excuse about how his attempted betrayal was actually someone else's trickery, to which Megatron growls, "You're either lying, or you're stupid!" That's how I felt when I saw Brown was attempting to play ignorant to the crimes of Benny Hinn's so-called ministry. Below here's a video for those who want to relive some old school goodness.


A Phil Johnson tweet, in any case, put it in a better and far more gracious manner:

I have a copy of one of Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and the thought occurred to me to throw it away or sell it. As I wrote before, it's not that I doubt Michael Brown's salvation or question his status as a brother in Christ, but I am really questioning whether or not he has any true (or at least consistent) sense of discernment. The thing is, I don't doubt Michael Brown's intelligence, nor his scholarship. I've heard the man in debates, and he can handle himself in an argument. He's not an idiot. He's not stupid. For him to be so incredibly blind - nay, willingly blind - is simply mind boggling to me. I have never before seen someone so capable of understanding the truth, and yet so willing to just ignore it.

At this point, it's become clear that Michael Brown seems to always have a pattern whenever he gets into this situation:

1. Show open support for someone who is a proven false teacher.
2. Assure others he has not studied their lives much, even though he knows them really well.
3. Refuse to do any research on what the other side says, let alone review the arguments his critics are making.
4. Accuse his critics of not being gracious and encourage them to do more research.

If his critics still aren't happy, Michael Brown might do one of the following:

• Make a pro hominem argument ("So-and-so does this one good thing", etc.).
• Make a tu quoque about someone on the other side ("Some people say So-and-so is a heretic, but others say So-and-so is a heretic too.").
• Fall back on the "Can't we all just find our similarities?" argument.

All of these are, of course, flawed arguments. That Benny Hinn doesn't kick his dog for fun or whatever pro hominem argument you want to pull out doesn't detract from criticism of his doctrine and ministry practices. That someone a critic might like is also called by some parties a heretic does not detract from legitimate objections made in regards to whoever the critic is talking about. That we are to ignore all error and just hold hands and sing kumbaya is simply an emotional argument that begs the question as to what is and isn't appropriate doctrine. As I said before, Michael Brown is not an idiot, and he's a capable debater - that's why the fact he's engaging in this fallacious thinking is all the more saddening.

In the end, you can only make the "I'm ignorant" claim so many times before people see through your antics. At some point, you're going to be like the emperor with his new clothes, marching along self-assuredly while everyone laughs at your nakedness. Some have even pointed out that people on the Hyper-Charismatic side (ie., John Crowder) are starting to notice Michael Brown's hypocrisy. Also, you can only ignore what the other side says for so long before they realize you're really not interested in the truth - and sadly, Michael Brown is in that territory. He's demonstrated on many occasions now that he's more interested in defending his Hyper-Charismatic friends than he is calling out great error.

While I maintain that I still consider Michael Brown to be a brother in the Lord, at this I think point it's terribly clear Michael Brown needs our prayers.

Podcast: Bob Jones and the Third Heaven

In this podcast, we examine an episode of Patricia King's show which discusses the Third Heaven and the importance of Christians to visit it. Bob Jones and Todd Bentley co-star. Do they live up to the biblical teaching on the Third Heaven? Do they honor scripture?



This post provides a link to an article examination the changes made to the drought prophecy made by Bob Jones.

This link takes you to the ABC News story on Todd Bentley's supposed healings.

Where are the husbands?

Christian husbands, let me present a parable for you: if your wife one day told you, "Honey, I'm about to take a casual stroll through that dangerous part of town that even the cops don't go to," would you let them? If they told you, "Honey, I'm about to go have a nice private chat with that guy we suspect is a serial killer," would you let them? Obviously, most husbands would answer "no" to these questions. You'd probably want to protect your wives from all possible danger to their persons. Why then do so many husbands, when these situations are placed in the spiritual realm, answer "yes"?

Husbands are commanded by scripture to love their wife as Christ loves the church, and part of this is to "nourish" and "cherish" her (Eph 5:29). As the spiritual head of the house, the husband is not only the spiritual role model for his children, but is the one who provides the spiritual nourishment and education to his wife and, consequently therefore, from him and the wife to the children. He is directly responsible for what his family professes as orthodoxy and what his family declares to be their object of worship. "But as for me and my house," Joshua famously declared, "we will serve the LORD" (Jos 24:15). The definition of "LORD" means as much today as it did back in Joshua's day. Is is the husband's role to make certain that by "LORD" his family means the LORD our God, and not another deity such as Ba'al.

Yet constantly on social media, I see married women posting quotes from men and women who claim to be teachers of God but who have been proven to be wolves in sheep's clothing. They quote from individuals who, if they had existed in the Old Testament, would most likely have been stoned for their false prophecies, false visions of God, and false doctrines. What I immediately think each time is, "Does her husband know she's posting that?" I think to myself, "Is her husband aware from which fountain his wife is getting her spiritual nourishment?" Is the husband aware that his wife is seeking theological grounding from a heretic and false teacher? Is he aware that his fellow sheep is wandering towards a ravenous wolf? Of course, it will be granted not all the quotes shared are not necessarily bad or even "wrong" to some degree, but why would we permit our loved ones to traverse through a mine field of error hoping they won't step on the wrong spot?

In some respects, the wives may intentionally not care, and perhaps the husband permits her to be over him in this respect, not realizing that part of the husband's role, as said earlier, is to guide his wife on spiritual matters she may not fully understand (cf. 1 Cor 14:35). Other times, it might well be that the husband is fully aware, and doesn't care...in fact, he may approve of the false teacher having influence in his home. In this case, he invites danger into his life, and willingly puts his entire family in a line that leads to great sin, error, or even apostasy.

Christian husband, your role is to be used of God for the sanctification of your wife. Just as you need to be aware of the budget, the needs of the individual family members, and other serious concerns, so too do you also need to be aware of what your family is being exposed in their spiritual studies. Are they learning the truth of God, or are they learning heretical nonsense? Are they being fed on spiritual fruit or demonic junk food? Ask yourself, again, if you would put your wife or even family in such danger as I illustrated at the beginning of this post. If not, then why would you dare to put your family in danger related to their eternal soul?

I write this not as an open condemnation or a judgment against others, but merely a call for discernment.

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

Some Thoughts on Tweeting

One of the things I dislike is when I click on a tweet by someone I follow, and I see a slew of responses made by people who are mainly taking pot shots at the individual. Most of them seem to serve very little purpose other than to make the poster feel good, or make them feel as if they've done something useful, and many of them are either just empty insults or contentions made ad nauseum. It can be a bit aggravating and tiresome to see, not because of what they say but because of the repetitive, empty nature of it.

Then again, I see people doing this to the Twitter accounts of heretics and false teachers as well. There are times when even that can be aggravating or tiresome to see.

Now, if previous posts are any inclination, I've made responses to the Twitter accounts of heretics or false teachers myself. What I try to do (as consistently as I can), however, is to pick and choose my battles. I try to make a response when I see something that can have a valid contention made to it. If Joel Osteen's Twitter account makes a post saying God wants you to have a good day today, I choose not to write a response because, really, it's just not worth it. On the other hand, if someone makes a poor application of scripture that is provably erroneous, I might make a post asking them to clarify their position, or pointing out the error. That's the other point I want to make: I try, as best I can, to make a post that would hopefully spur conversation, not just make a pot shot at the person in a tweet that amounts to "You suck." Most of the time I don't get responses from them, but sometimes I will get followers responding and attempting to give answers, which I have found to be useful in the long run.

It's also beneficial because, if you make valid contentions or ask a question that raises a valid point, and the other person ignores you, then you have good reason to wonder why they're doing so. On the other hand, if you keep responding a gazillion times with what amounts to "NO U WRONG BRO!", don't be surprised if you never get a response. Don't be surprised if you get blocked, either. Heck, I'd probably block you if you did that to me.

Yes I know, I can't control what other people do on the internet - but folks, let's try to pick our battles. Spamming four thousand messages on Joyce Meyer's account isn't going to make her repent of her ways (I highly doubt many of these accounts are even directly handled by said individual, any way). I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up for the truth, nor am I saying you shouldn't call out false teachers for their lies and blasphemy...but as I said before, let's pick and choose our battles. Let's not turn ourselves into stumbling blocks for others. And let's not be annoying - the internet has enough of those kinds of people already.

TD Jakes Mishandles Scripture

The following is from Chris Rosebrough at Fighting for the Faith.

How do we know someone is speaking from or for God?

Introduction

Many people today claim to speak for God, or claim they have something to say from God. Many times, however, this claim is made with no real standard or with no real solid basis for people to believe it. I've written out six conditions and arguments many use to support people who make such claims, which we will now review. This isn't, of course, a complete list, only a list of possibilities I could think of and desire to talk about.

Possibility 1: They have dreams and visions.

Many leaders or ministers in the so-called "prophetic movement," or just in Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles in general, seem to rely heavily upon their dreams or visions. It is believed by many that these dreams and visions are being given by God and are meant to guide and direct the church in this modern day and age. People immediately uphold all these dreams and visions as coming from God and being meant to be followed.

Perhaps what disturbs me the most is that when I read about these men and women who talk of their dreams and visions, there seems to almost be little to no effort made either on their part or the part of their followers to discern whether or not this dream or vision really did come from God. When I bring this up, I'm usually charged with being a Pharisee, a divider of the church, etc., but I believe I have biblical grounds for doing so. For example, the Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah against those who relied upon their dreams to instruct the people when, in fact, their dreams were all but useless.

"I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed!' How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart?" [Jeremiah 23:25-26]

Many people might interject here with, "Ah, but the people in that verse are lying - they're blatant false prophets." They forget, however, the frightening words found in the prophecies of 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. Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, 'Declares the LORD,' although I have not spoken?" [Ezekiel 13:6-7]

God says that the false prophets had literally seen false visions, and heard lying divinations, and believed them to be from God. This means the false prophets saw or discerned something which they perceived was from God, yet was not. They didn't make up a vision, they saw a legitimate vision...but it wasn't from God. We might look to Mohammad and Joseph Smith, two men who claimed to have seen and heard visions from God, as examples of this. These men had spiritual experiences and claimed to have spoken to divine entities, and yet most Christians would be quick to discredit their experiences as false.

People also forget another story, found in scripture's historical narrative:

And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” [1 Kings 22:19-23]

Micaiah is here speaking to King Ahab concerning the idea of war with Syria. All of Ahab's personal prophets claimed that they had visions and prophetic input that the war with Syria would go well. Micaiah, on the other hand, preaches that the war would go horribly, and then states that God had intentionally permitted the sending of a "lying spirit" in the mouth of all the prophets, so that they would prophesy falsely and bring ruin to Ahab. The prophets claimed to be speaking for and from God, but they were in fact speaking falsely - what's more, God had willed this to happen as a form of judgment.

So what is the standard in regards to dreams and visions? Let's go back to the words God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah:

"Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD." [Jeremiah 23:28]

These are beautiful words to ponder: "let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully." God even compares dreams and God's word with straw and wheat, signifying how different they are.

Many might interject here that God has used dreams for His purposes. For example, the dreams of Pharaoh and the king of Babylon were interpreted by godly men to explain God's intentions, while Joseph and the wise men were warned by God about King Herod through dreams. That God can use dreams for His purposes or to give some amount of guidance or warning is certainly possible. However, what is our basis of authority, as scripture itself says? Scripture never says dreams are our authority - in fact, they often tell us otherwise, such as those false teachers who relied heavily on their dreams over the teachings of scripture, as many in the Neo-Pentecostal movement do (Jude 1:8). That God used x or y to get His will done does not  automatically mean that we should likewise use or rely on x and y as our standard over and against scripture. Jonathan Edwards put it best when he said: "God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule" (Humble Inquiry).

Possibility 2: They perform miracles.

Many today uphold a belief that signs and wonders are necessary in order to evangelize (also known as "power evangelism"). Yet when the early followers of Christ asked for a sign that they "may see and believe" in Him, Christ merely identified Himself as the bread that came down from heaven to give life to the world (John 6:30-33). Certainly Christ performed signs and wonders during His ministry - as did the apostles - yet the hinge of belief was not on how many signs and wonders were performed, but on whether people truly had life in Christ granted them by the Holy Spirit.

In fact, Christ warns the disciples that signs and wonders can be made by false teachers and prophets.

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." [Matthew 24:24]

Paul makes a similar warning concerning the man of lawlessness.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. [2 Thessalonians 2:9-10]

Scripture makes it clear that it is entirely possible for false teachers to perform signs and wonders for the people to see. Therefore, the mere ability to perform a sign or wonder cannot be a standard to know someone is speaking to or from God.

Possibility 3: They prophesy events that come true.

If someone predicts an event, natural occurrence, or the results of an election, is that enough to demonstrate that they are speaking from or for God? Many are familiar with what scripture teaches regarding false prophets and prophesies that don't come true:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." [Deuteronomy 18:22]

Yet many people forget what scripture likewise teaches regarding false prophets who prophesy things that do come to pass.

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him." [Deuteronomy 13:1-4]

If a prophesy given by someone does not come true, that's a good sign they are a false teacher (though some contest that). However, even if it does come true, that is not enough to verify that they are working for God. Rather, it is their doctrine and how well they keep to God's word. That is the ultimate decider as to whether or not the individual is, in fact, speaking for or from God in regards to miracles and wonders. A supposed prophet can split a hundred moons in half, and a supposed miracle worker can heal a hundred men of leprosy. If they are not speaking according to the word of God, they are not from God, and none of that will matter.

Possibility 4: They have a huge amount of followers.

We are essentially arguing here for spiritual pragmatism, wherein quantity is the defining quality - a kind of divine ad populum. As I've discussed in another post, scripture never says large numbers equals heavenly blessings. There are many examples in scripture where the believers were greatly outnumbered by the unbelievers or false believers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). There are some small churches out in the countryside who have far more Christians in them than some of the biggest mega churches in the major cities.

Possibility 5: They have a large number of people who claim to have been blessed.

Many people, in a spirit of emotionalism, will defend a teacher or ministry on the claim that "countless people have been blessed." The idea is that, since so many people have had changed lives or emotional experiences in this ministry, it must surely be sourced to God.

Of course, I once met a man who claimed to have been greatly blessed. He used to be a gang banger but was now a productive member of society. He followed God and assisted his community. He had found a complete turnaround. He had completely changed his lifestyle. This blessing he felt had come from God he claimed to have found in...

...Islam.

That a person has had a "changed life" is not enough to prove that someone or someone's ministry is from God. This is the problem with contemporary Christianity, which believes the faith to be nothing more than a catalyst for changing lives. This makes its followers no different than those who claim to have been blessed by turning to Sikhism, Mormonism, Buddhism, New Age alternatives or any other religion that claims to give you a better life now.

God certainly desires "changed lives" in the sense that we are to put away the old self and put on the new self, which abhors sin and wickedness. However, using a subjective argument like "my life is better, therefore this person is being helped by God" is, as said before, simply spiritual pragmatism. It should also be pointed out that if a person was indeed saved or bettered in their life, it was not because of that individual or their ministry, but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Possibility 6: They believe in Jesus.

Oftentimes, when dilemmas are demonstrated in a person's theology or lifestyle, one of their followers will fall back on one simple fact. They will say: "Ah, but they believe in Jesus, don't they? Don't we all follow the same Messiah? That should be good enough!" Oftentimes this will be used to support superficial peace, saying: "I don't think we should continue arguing about this - after all, don't we all still believe in the same Jesus?"

It might sound ironic, as a follower of sola fide, for me to say that this is perhaps the weakest argument against such men. However, to say they believe in Christ and that is good enough is not sola fide but easy believism. Mere mental assent to Christ's existence is not a guarantee for salvation, nor does it demonstrate you are a true believer. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ warned:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, an do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matthew 7:22-23]

Christ speaks of men who did wonders and signs in His name (directly relevant to Possibilities 2 and 3, listed above), and yet when they come before Him on the day of judgment, Christ will say to them "I never knew you." He does not say "Oh yeah, you went to church for a while" or "Yeah, and you were a real disappointment in the end," but rather "I never knew you." They claimed to be followers of Christ, and even showed off miracles they believed demonstrated such a claim, and yet it turns out they were nothing more than goats masquerading as sheep.

False teachers, in fact, will come under the guise of men who are after the heart of Christ. The apostle Paul warned the church:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of Light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

It is not enough to simply decree a belief in Christ. Rather, we must present the fruits of such belief. Because I recognize that this opens up a whole other can of worms, I defer discussion on judging someone's faith, or whether or not we have the ability to discern it, to this post I made here.

Conclusion

Reviewing what we've gone over, what is the primary ground by which we know someone is speaking directly from or for God? The answer:

If they abide by His holy word.

That's disappointing to a lot of people, of course, but that is because they are not truly satisfied with the supremacy of God's word. They're not happy with just having God's word. They want the charismatic speaker who claims to have prophecies from God. They want the man rocking back and forth on stage talking about dreams he's had. They want the female preacher who gives good advice and has thousands of "saved" women attending her church. They want the pastor who has hundreds of stories of people who have been healed through miraculous or unique ways. They want the ministry led by people who claim the Holy Spirit is working through them for specific, specialized reasons. When people can't repeat the word of the Psalmist when he says "in the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches" (Psa 119:14), they will seek something to fill in that spiritual gap. Such people we should work with and try to save to the best we can, while remaining strong in our convictions and preventing ourselves from falling into the same trap as did they. "Save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Mike Bickle and His Time with God

Perhaps what is most often forgotten (or perhaps unknown) to many involved with the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (and all its associated movements) is that the founder, Mike Bickle, claims to have started the movement under direct orders from God, as given to him in Cairo, Egypt and other parts of his life.

Many have immediately responded to this by pointing out that other Christians or Christian leaders have made similar claims. For example, Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs, claimed to have seen Jesus while in a prison cell. However, Bickle's claims go far deeper than mere visits or appearances, and his accounts go so far as to attempt to give legitimacy to his movement. His accounts speak of what he calls an "initiative" from God, and the fulfillment of end times prophecies, as told to him by God.

One of Bickle's accounts regarding all this is from Session I of his presentation Encountering Jesus: Visions, Revelations, Angelic Activity from IHOP-KC's Prophetic History. The PDF transcript is here. The part dealing with Cairo reads:

My first dramatic, life-changing encounter related to this movement was in Cairo, Egypt in 1982. Now, we moved to Kansas City in November; so this is two months before we moved. I am in Cairo, Egypt, in a hotel room, and I had a life-altering dramatic experience where the fear of the Lord fell on me in a literal way. That was the only time that I have ever experienced the fear of the Lord at that level, or in that magnitude.

The Lord said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the whole earth in one generation.” Not this movement, or that movement, but God Himself will do this through all the thousands of movements and millions of ministries.

He said, “I am going to do this across the whole earth in one generation.” My spirit trembled, and the fear of the Lord fell on me. I will give some of the details on the notes that I am not going to go into. The Lord spoke clearly what I call four heart standards. These were four values the Lord cemented in me in Cairo, Egypt. Now some people have misquoted us. I mean there are many even in our midst, and they said these are our four values.

I said, “No. We have about twenty values. We do not have only four values, but these are the four that are the most neglected in church history. We have many more values besides these four. But, the Lord insisted on these four. The work must be built on these four values.” Everything is measured in terms of our faithfulness to believe God for the future. Are we holding the line on these four values in our individual lives and as a ministry? He said that the movement would be built on night and day prayer. He said that the movement would be built on holiness of heart.

This is essential: extravagant giving, offerings for the poor, and the activity of the Holy Spirit—we would have faith in what the Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. Believe it or not: that is the most challenging of all, to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing. I have some more notes on that here that you can read on your own.

During the rest of the session, Bickle makes similar claims. For example, he claims Bob Jones (who later became a major embarrassment for the Kansas City Prophets, of which Bickle was part) received visitations from angels giving details on the youth ministry, even supposedly foretelling the coming of the International House of Prayer. Bickle goes on to say near the end:

IHOP–KC is not my dream. IHOP is my assignment. The dream of my heart is what happens between my heart and Jesus...This is not my dream. This is my assignment. God will do His part, and I will do my part... [emphasis mine]

An even more descriptive account is found in Mike Bickle's book Growing in the Prophetic. In it, he writes:

But it was years later in September 1982, in a dirty little motel room in Cairo, Egypt, that the belief in an End Times outpouring of the Holy Spirit became a personal issue to me. The eight-by-eight-foot room was equipped with a small bed, squeaky ceiling fan, stone-age plumbing, and an assortment of crawling things that periodically scampered across the concrete floor. It was primitive by Western standards. I was alone, so I set aside the evening to spend with the Lord in prayer. I knelt on the cement floor by the rickety bed for about thirty minutes when I had one of the most incredible encounters that I’ve ever had.

I didn’t see a vision, and I wasn’t caught up into heaven. I simply heard God speak to me. It wasn’t what some people call the audible voice. I call it the internal audible voice. I heard it as clearly as I would have heard it with my physical ears, and, honestly, it was terrifying.

It came with such a feeling of cleanness, power, and authority. In some ways I felt I was being crushed by it. I wanted to leave, but I didn’t want to leave. I wanted it to be over, but I didn’t want it to be over.

I only heard a few sentences, and it only took a few moments, but every word had great meaning. The awe of God flooded my soul as I experienced a little bit of the terror of the Lord. I literally trembled and wept as God Himself communicated to me in a way I’ve never known before or since. The Lord simply said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the earth in one generation.” It was a simple, straightforward statement, but I felt God’s power with each word as I received the Spirit’s interpretation. God Himself will make drastic changes in Christianity across the whole world. This reformation revival will be by His sovereign initiative. [pg. 79; Prophetic, 1996]

He adds later on:

My experience in the Cairo hotel room lasted less than an hour, though it seemed like a couple of hours. I left the room and walked around the streets of downtown Cairo alone until about midnight, committing myself to the Lord and His End Time purpose. The awe of God lingered in my soul for hours. I woke up the next day still feeling its impact. This experience connected my heart in a deeply personal way to the End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation. [pg. 81; ibid]

From all this, we have some very serious realities:

1) Bickle claims that the founding and running of IHOP-KC and its related ministries was by the order, blessing and activity of God - he even goes on to say in Session II that "the Lord committed to do this" (source). He likewise states in the same session: "in 1996, [God] gave us an acronym" (ibid). Bickle thus claims that even the acronym IHOP was given to him by God. This despite the fact that IHOP was already the official acronym by the International House of Pancakes, and had been since 1973. Apparently, the Lord didn't have the foreknowledge to see the two lawsuits that the regular IHOP lodged against Bickle's IHOP.

2) Bickle claims it as his "assignment," as in, his duty from God. When explaining the goals and standards of IHOP-KC, Bickle often uses the phraseology "God said this" or "the Lord told us this." While many pastors might say they felt "called" to the ministry, few would use the blunt and direct terminology that Bickle does, let alone would many pastors make such claims as God directly telling them to enter ministry. What Bickle does, as he explains in the previously cited book, is part of the "End Time fulfillment of the Joel 2/Acts 2 prophecy on a global level in this generation." IHOP-KC's own vision statement tells us that they are here to "call forth, train, and mobilize worshiping intercessors who operate in the forerunner spirit as End Time prophetic messengers" (pg. 236; Prophetic, 2006).

3) Bickle claims that, according to God, the Holy Spirit is working through the various ministries, and IHOP-KC in particular, even saying that we should have faith "to take a stand for what the Holy Spirit is saying and what the Holy Spirit is doing." Certainly Bickle doesn't take the extreme stance Harold Camping did by saying those outside his group are not blessed by the Holy Spirit, but the words coming out of IHOP-KC, its leadership and its followers makes it clear that they believe the Holy Spirit is giving a special blessing to them and their prayer movement. Again, this is happening under the auspices of God, who instructed Mike Bickle and his staff personally.

In the past, I've had many followers or supporters of IHOP-KC, including some who have responded to this blog, tell me that if I disagree with Mike Bickle's teachings, methods or goals, then that's perfectly fine, as it doesn't make me a heretic or a bad Christian. They take the position that these are things we can have simple disagreements on.

However, I don't think we should pussyfoot around with this matter. Let's be intellectually honest, and let's call a spade a spade. If Mike Bickle truly did receive revelation from God, and God Himself is ordering him to do what he's doing in Kansas City and elsewhere, then anyone who opposes IHOP-KC is opposing not only Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC, but the very Living God. This isn't a mere disagreement between myself and Mike Bickle - if Bickle is speaking the truth, this is a war of words between myself and God. This is why some IHOP-KC defenders (as this post demonstrates) have gone so far as to argue that disagreement with Bickle, his ministries and teachings is, in essence, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

This is the danger of any "prophetic" movement, or of any leader who claims to be speaking for or from God. That is, there can be no middle ground - either it does come from God and we must obey it, or it doesn't come from God, and we must deny it and avoid the person giving said message. No where in all of scripture was any "gray area" given for those who spoke in God's name. Some of the harshest words God had was for those who spoke falsely in His name (Deu 18:20; Jer 5:30-31, 27:15; Eze 13:9, 22:28; Luke 6:26). This is because speaking falsely in God's name is a very little discussed but very real example of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain (Exo 20:7).

Therefore, if Mike Bickle isn't speaking from God, and it wasn't God that Bickle heard that night in Cairo...then he's a false prophet, and he and his so-called prophetic ministry must be avoided at all costs. Do I deny Bickle heard a voice? Not necessarily...but if he didn't hear a voice from God, then he heard it from someone else.

The Story of a Self-Proclaimed Communist

Once upon a time a gentleman came across someone who called himself a Communist. As they began to chat, the gentleman asked what had attracted the Communist to that ideology.

"Because I believe that the government should provide for the people," the Communist said.

"But do you agree with class warfare" asked our gentleman.

"Heavens no," replied the Communist.

Perplexed, but also curious, the gentleman asked, "Do you think capitalism is bad?"

"Of course not," replied the Communist, "I believe capitalism is a perfectly legitimate system of economy."

"Do you believe in private property and ownership?"

"Why should I? People should be permitted to freely own property."

"Perhaps you could help me for a moment, sir, because you say you are a Communist, and yet you have affirmed a love for all the things which Communism speaks out against."

The gentleman could tell our Communist friend was getting agitated, if just a bit, and he grew rather stern as he looked at our gentleman and asked, "Are you judging me, sir?"

"Judging? Not at all. You, however, present to be two contradictions: that which you think you are, and that which you truly are. Have you read the works of Marx and Engels?"

"Somewhat," replied the Communist, "but I find them to be irrelevant to this topic. They are two men who lived long ago, and who are now dead. Their works are antiquated by now."

"Yet their works have laid the foundation for the belief system you now uphold. You cannot simply ignore the historical development and traditions of the system of beliefs you now uphold, neither can you choose to redefine it by your own unilateral will."

"Now see here, sir," said the Communist, his voice showing he was growing quite irate, "I will not have you pass judgment on me. I know what I am, and I'm a Communist! You have no right to tell me otherwise!"

"Tell me, if I told you I descended from African tribes, would you believe me?"

The Communist looked our gentleman over and, finding him quite Caucasian, replied, "I wouldn't reckon so."

"Of course not. I could declare myself African all I wanted, but that wouldn't change the facts. Now, in a similar circumstance, you tell me you are Communist, and yet you neither uphold what Communism believes, nor do you oppose what it opposes - in fact, you present all the negative in the positive. You even belittle their founders."

"You cannot suppose what is in my heart!" the Communist cried.

"Your heart is irrelevant," the gentleman said, "the reality that is and the reality you desire are two separate things, irregardless of what your 'heart' thinks. Words have meaning, history is in stone, and it is not up to us to reinterpret what either means or says. You cannot choose to unilaterally revise what it means to be Communist any more than I can decide unilaterally means to be Caucasian. In this essence, you deny the authority of Marx, Engels, and other men in history, and choose instead to rely upon your own authority. You are not a Communist, my friend, you are simply yourself."

"And I suppose you believe yourself to be of authority on Communism?!" the Communist said in a loud voice, his rage building.

"I claim no such thing," the gentleman said, "I am simply going by what the original writers of your pet ideology have said. I have judged you by them - and they all say that you are a fake."

At these words, the Communist threw into a rage, calling the gentleman an intolerant bigot and stormed off.

Can a statement of faith be false?

A while ago, I got into a conversation with a gentleman over what constituted a true believer. His position, as he explained it, was that there was no such thing as a false statement of faith, as those who proclaim Christ as their Lord and say they believe in him will be saved. His opinion appeared to be that there was no such thing as a "false Christian." Is this the case in scripture?

Let's first review the words of the apostle John:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. [3 John 1:9-11]

The apostle John, writing to a spiritual son known as Gaius, makes mention of a man named Diotrephes. Little is known of this person, other than what is mentioned here. Diotrephes' faults are many: he seeks personal power; he denies the authority of the apostles (v. 9); he refuses to welcome traveling missionaries who need a place to stay; he hinders those who desire to help the missionaries, and even excommunicates them if they do so (v. 10).

John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.

Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. [Jude 1:17-21]

Jude has spent much of his epistle writing against the false teachers and heretics who were invading the churches. He now reminds them that the apostles had warned them about this before (v. 17), going on to give a near direct quote of 2 Peter 3:3. It is interesting to note that Peter, in his original epistle, had made mention of the prophets and Christ, and Jude now makes reference to the apostles. It is interesting to note that this shows two things: 1) the early church understood what God was doing with the writings of the apostles; 2) the writings of the apostles were seen with the same authority as the prophets and Christ, and quoted as such...but this is all getting off topic.

Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.

In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.

These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.

In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).

On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

"All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

This post is a little bit of a continuation of a previous post I made, but is the result of some more meditations I've had on the subject as of late.

When an American soldier is sworn in, he states what is called the "oath of enlistment," which begins like this:

"I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." [source]

The oath for officers is stated slightly differently than those for enlisted personnel, but both phrases are there: to "support and defend the Constitution," and to do so against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Foreign, of course, refers to those external threats who would seek to invade our country's territory (such as Japan during World War II), or those who would seek to do her harm (such as Al Qaeda). Domestic, however, refers to internal enemies - those who would seek to topple the Constitutional government (such as various militias or hostile political groups) or those who would seek to harm the nation from within (like the Oklahoma City bomber).

Imagine, however, if these words concerning domestic threats meant nothing. Imagine if the military, upon hearing about a home-grown terrorist cell out in the Midwest intending to do harm to government bodies, responded with, "Well, they still love our country right?" What if they heard about a political movement that was seeking to topple the democratic government and replace it with non-Constitutional one, and responded to it with, "They're still Americans, right? Can't we all just get along within our country?" What if they refused to respond to threats and instead lambasted the ones warning of the threats, saying, "Why are you trying to divide our country? They love America don't they! That should be enough!"

It's easy for the Christian church to point out our foreign enemies. It's easy to point to atheists, humanist secularists, and non-Christians and say "Yeah, that's the bad guy!" It's easy to point to atheistic, humanist secularist, or non-Christian worldviews and say "Yeah, that's the enemy, right there!" There's no question that attacks against Christian persons in Nigeria by Muslims or attacks against the Christian worldview by the secular media are foreign enemies.

Yet when it comes to our domestic enemies, it seems like what some churches call the "clergy of the laity" becomes the "clergy of the apathy." We either choose not to do anything, leaving it to our leaders to handle (while not even informing them of the error), or we choose to simply say "no harm no foul." We forgo doctrinal heresies and false teachings for superficial reasons such as "we all love Jesus" or "they aren't hurting anybody." We willingly submit the word of God to the whims of the devil and don't seem to care. We wouldn't let our daughters marry a wicked man we knew was going to hurt her and misuse her - why do we permit the word of God to be misused by wicked men?

As I've pointed out before on this blog, this isn't entirely new to history. The fear of calling out the church's domestic enemies has led to many great men of God finding themselves persecuted by supposed Christians rather than foreign enemies. It was this fear that caused Athanasius to be kicked out of his bishop position five times by the Arian-friendly church. It was this fear that caused the Monothelite-friendly church to maim (and eventually kill) Maximus the Confessor. It was this fear that caused the Roman church to excommunicate and persecute the Reformers. It was this fear that caused the Anglican church to turn on the Puritans and then the Methodists. The fact is, those who support modern day false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Mike Bickle, Todd Bentley, William P. Young, Joel Osteen, and a host of others are simply joining the ranks of a long tradition of people in the church who forsook sound doctrine for the pleasing of their itching ears (cf. 2 Tim 4:3).

The fact is, the church does have domestic enemies, and they are still prevalent. Even during the apostolic era, Paul warned the church against contemporary domestic enemies (Gal 1:6-9) as well as future ones (Acts 20:29-30). Christ warned that on the day of judgment, He would divide the church up between the sheep and the goats - that is, true Christians and false Christians (see my post here). This latter point implies that there exist within the church today goats masquerading as sheep, which means that, even on the day of judgment, there will be false Christians. The writer of Hebrews refers to them as crops which have borne "thorns and thistles," and who will in the end be burned (cf. Heb 6:8).

Scripture makes it clear that domestic enemies do exist, whether some Christians - supposed or true - would like to admit it. The question now is, whom do we desire to protect more: God's word, or our superficial idea of peace and unity?

Bad Arguments to Support False Teachers

Some of the following are arguments I have encountered or dealt with in the past few years while responding to or discussing false teachers and their teachings. I provide a brief, but hopefully edifying, response to each one.

"Jesus said not to judge others!"

This is perhaps the most common excuse made, but it is ironically one of the most fallacious and the most scripturally unsound. It is an appeal to Matthew 7:1 and is in essence demanding that we not point any fingers or launch any criticisms at anyone. The problem is that anyone who quotes Matthew 7:1 completely ignores everything that comes after it.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." [Matt 7:1-5]

The full context here is not that we should never pass any kind of judgment ever on anyone - rather, it's that we should not pass judgment upon a person when we have a greater sin of which we have yet to repent. Examples: I shouldn't pass judgment on a brother for stealing a pen from work (the speck) if earlier that day I robbed a bank (the log); I shouldn't pass judgment upon a brother struggling with lust (the speck) if I'm actively cheating on my wife (the log). Note how Christ ends the instructions: first "take the log out of your own eye," and then we will see clearly enough "to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Christ commanded the Pharisees to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24), and this mindset is what we see being expounded upon here. Christ is not saying "Don't ever pass any kind of judgment, ever," He's saying "Don't try to help your brother with his sins when you can't even see your own sins."

The fact is, scripture gives clear commands in regards to rebuking. Christ organized a system by which you could rebuke a brother in the church (Matt 18:15-20). The repentant thief on the cross rebuked the blaspheming one (Luke 23:40). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14). Paul likewise commanded believers to rebuke (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15, 3:10-11), and even said that was one of the duties of church leaders (Titus 1:9).

Now, are there wrong ways to rebuke or reprove? Of course, but we shouldn't jump to extreme examples to dismiss rebuking and reproving altogether. We also should not jump to Matthew 7:1 as an answer to every kind of rebuking out there. That not only shows ignorance in regards to what Matthew 7:1 says, but what scripture says as a whole.

"They've blessed a lot of people."

This is essentially an argumentum ad populum - that is, a person is a good teacher/minister/pastor/prophet if they have a large following, congregation, or a lot of people have supposedly been saved by them. It's also a pragmatic fallacy in that it essentially argues, "Who cares if the person commits error so long as someone gets saved?" This is most often used in defense of those with megachurches, large ministries, or generally those with a huge following.

The problem is that sheer numbers does not equal right. Scripture makes it clear that true believers are often in the minority when compared to the number of false believers or unbelievers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). Also, if anyone is saved, it is not because of the teacher, but because of the grace of God. No one deserves any credit for the salvation of a person but God and God alone. Soli Deo Gloria.

I might add that this line of reasoning introduces a kind of pragmatism - that is, how cares about the teachings or the methods so long as numbers are growing? This forsakes sound biblical doctrine, which by its nature offends (1 Cor 1:18), to make room for methods and teachings that attract larger numbers.

"Don't criticize it until you've experienced it!"

This is the classic "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" fallacy, and is commonly used in regards to Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal heresies which place a heavy emphasis on experiential worship. The point of this argument is to discredit the other side by arguing that they have no right to make any declaration until they have experienced the very thing they're criticizing.

Of course, this entire argument is a red herring that completely jumps from the argument, ignores everything said by the other person, and makes a mold declaration that has to be met. It places the weight of evidence upon the other person and demands they defend their position when there is no need. It's likewise an overarching argument that can be used to defend anything. Permit me to give one example:

Person A: "Boy, I sure enjoy sniffing glue!"
Person B: "Dude, you realize that will kill your brain cells and lead to greater drug use, right?"
Person A: "DON'T CRITICIZE IT UNTIL YOU'VE EXPERIENCED IT!"

Do we now see how irrational this kind of argumentation is? Person A completely ignored everything Person B had said and simply jumped to an emotional argument. A person does not have to experience something to tell whether it is right or wrong.

"They're a nice person."

I've actually had people use this excuse. It's as if we should throw out bad teachings, bad ministry practices, or immoral character simply on the basis that, upon being met, the person was overall agreeable. Are we supposed to presume a person holding heretical views will automatically have bad personal traits, and likewise presumes that a good personality covers heretical views? This is a false equation: that a person is "nice" does not mean they will are orthodox; likewise, that a person is "mean" does not mean they are also heretical. Some of the worst heretics in history were said by their contemporaries to have been nice or had some redeeming qualities - that does not negate their error.

"Who cares as long as they talk about Jesus?"

This is perhaps the worst argument to make. Our Blessed Lord taught:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matt 7:22-23]

It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your statement of faith. It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your ministry. It is not enough to simply claim you believe in a man named "Jesus." In this day and age when statements of faith are often put up simply as a front to appease critics, we must go deeper and understand what a person really means when they call themselves Christian or refer to a belief in Jesus. Faith has to also display regeneration, and it has to show a love for God's word and an adherence to what God calls the truth. If the person shows none of this, then they do not have Christ, and do not deserve to mention His name even in passing.

"You're being mean!"

This is oftentimes the last card played by the individual supporting the false teacher. Granted, there are wrong ways to approach error (see my post here), but generally this is said when there is nothing left for the person to say, and in the spirit of true emotionalism will attempt to simply accuse the other person of being a jerk.

Aside from being emotional, it is also a red herring. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the person really is mean. Does that automatically negate everything they say? If it's a sunny day, and a mean person says it's sunny in a mean way, does that mean it's no longer sunny? Of course not. In like manner, truth does not stop being truth simply because of the delivery.

"You don't know this person personally!"

The gist here is, since we don't know the person on personal terms, we shouldn't comment on their teachings or motives, and to do so is premature.

The problem is that you don't have to know every ounce of a person to know something they've done is wrong. If a man cheats on his wife and is caught red-handed, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're guilty of adultery? If a man is proven a murderer by the law and sent to jail, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're a murderer, or guilty of murder? The most obvious to all these things is: no. The requirement to know the person on a personal level is a condition added on to avoid responding to the situation. If a person teaches doctrine contrary to or removed from scripture, then they are teaching falsely and hence are false teachers. We don't need to have a few beers with them before we can say this.

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Ephesian elders, said:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. [Acts 20:28-30]

Paul does not say: "After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; but make sure you know them personally and if you do, then you'll know if they're wolves or not." On the contrary, he says that they will know them because they will be "men speaking twisted things." If the Ephesian elders encountered men speaking twisting things, how well they knew them personally was a moot point - they were wolves. Scripture always distinguishes false prophets by their teachings and not their personality.

The worst thing we can do is forgo sound doctrine for the sake of superficial peace. As the apostle Paul wrote:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. [2 Corinthians 11:3-4]