Talking about IHOP-KC: My Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

Recently I was asked to come on the Long for Truth podcast to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. We talked about a variety of topics, from Bickle's teaching of a Kenotic Jesus to what IHOP-KC teaches on the power of prayer, as well as a bit on prophecy and what Bickle teaches it means. I pray that God uses to reach out to His sheep and save them from false doctrine.

The original blog post can be found here, over at the Long for Truth blog.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "The Dangers of Mike Bickle Part 2 With Tony Allen" on Spreaker.

The Purpose of the Silence from Heaven

The following is from John's commentary for John 5:3.

As the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the Prophets, was a sufficient witness of the divine presence, religion at that time needed no other confirmation; for the Law had been sanctioned by abundantly sufficient miracles, and God ceased not to express, by innumerable testimonies, his approbation of the worship which he had enjoined. But about the time of Christ's coming, as they were deprived of the Prophets and their condition was very wretched, and as various temptations pressed upon them on every hand, they needed this extraordinary aid, that they might not think that God had entirely left them, and thus might be discouraged and fall away. For we know that Malachi was the last of the Prophets, and, therefore, he closes his doctrine with this admonition, that the Jews may "remember the Law delivered by Moses," (Mal 4:4) until Christ appear. God saw it to be advantageous to deprive them of the Prophets, and to keep them in suspense for a time, that they might be inflamed with a stronger desire for Christ, and might receive him with greater reverence, when he should be manifested to them. [source]

John Hagee's Four Blood Moons Debunked

"END OF DAYS!! END OF DAYS!!!"

Just in case anyone thought John Hagee's blood moon statements were to be taken seriously...


Part 2 can be found here. The part specifically dealing with John Hagee can be found around the 48:20 mark.

My only contention with Chris Rosebrough's presentation is his belief that Joel 2/Acts 2 is speaking on the events around the crucifixion - I would put forward it was about the early apostolic period, and was finally fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. I did an examination on Joel 2/Acts 2 and whether or not it's an end time event in this post here.

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.

The False Drought Prophecy of Bob Jones

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

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

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

The Unwritten "Word of God"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast: IHOP-KC and Prophecy

Below is the latest podcast, covering the International House of Prayer and their beliefs regarding prophecy.

I had a prophetic dream!

Hey hey hey! So I had a prophetic dream! Wanna hear it? Here it is!

So, I was in a church, right? And there are these people singing! And they're all dressed as chickens, but there was one guy that was dressed as a moose. Well, I didn't feel right, because usually chickens and moose don't get along, so I tried to get out, but then I saw a Nazi soldier in a coffin. And then the Nazi soldier jumped out, and he multiplied into more Nazis, and they formed a chorus line, and came at me. I fought them off for a while with my pinky finger, because it morphed into a sword, right? But eventually they overcame me and tossed me down a well behind the altar.

I fell and I fell, until finally I landed in a pool of oatmeal. Well I ate all the oatmeal, and then I had to use the bathroom, and I found one nearby, but someone knocked on the door and suddenly I didn't have to go. So I left, and I was walking through a tunnel, and that's when I found a flower. It was like a rose, but it was blue. Then it changed to orange. Then it changed to indigo. And he said to me, "My name is Indigo Montoya." Then it wasn't even a flower any more, it was a Ferrari. And I got in and drove through the tunnel, and then I got pulled over by an elephant on a unicycle and he gave me a ticket, and it was a golden ticket, which meant I could go to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.

So I go to the chocolate factory, and I enter the front doors, right? And there's this long hallway, and it's kinda dark, but there's a light up ahead. Well, I start walking up, and who should be up ahead but Jesus Christ! I couldn't believe it! I froze in place! The fear of the Lord 'n stuff came over me! And Jesus began to approach me, right? And he got closer, and closer, but didn't say anything. I was frozen! Yeah I was! And he got closer, and closer.

Finally the Lord spoke, and he said, "You're dreaming dreams."

"Yes, Lord!" I said, looking about at my surroundings. "What is this?"

And the Lord spoke, in a much louder voice, and the Lord said, "This is why you shouldn't mix Dr. Pepper with Tylenol PM."

I think the overall meaning of this little "prophetic dream" is that we shouldn't rely on the rambling dreams of people who claim to be prophesying directly from God. Let us rely on the word of God as our authority. God bless.

Did Agabus get it wrong?

Some supporters of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC), in an attempt to justify founder Mike Bickle's position that New Testament prophets can get details of a prophecy wrong, or can prophesy wrongly (see my posts here and here), have tried turning to a scriptural example. They turn to the prophecy of a prophet named Agabus, found in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. Using his very own personal account, Luke recalls the prophesy given by Agabus regarding Paul's eventual journey to Jerusalem and his imprisonment.

While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" [Acts 21:10-11]

IHOP-KC supporters claim that this was wrong, as it was the Romans who bound Paul. To verify this, they go to verse 33.

Then the tribune came up and arrested [Paul] and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. [Acts 21:33]

Therefore, they say, since Agabus was wrong (at least "partially") on the details, this is scriptural proof for the IHOP-KC position that New Testament prophets can get some things in a prophecy wrong. Is this the case?

First, let's remember what the apostle Peter wrote regarding prophecy in general:

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

As I discussed in the previously cited post, both the words and the grammar here are clear. The apostle Peter begins by saying that "no prophecy of Scripture" comes from someone's own interpretation (not referring to sola scriptura, but man making up scripture with no assistance from God), and then explains why in the next verse: it is because no prophecy was ever by "the will of man," but as men "were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The original word translated in the ESV as "carried along" means that God is in complete control, and what God wants to be said will be said. God is not a victim of fatalism to the personal spiritual whims of the creature, and His prophecies are not capable of being given with any degree of error. At the time of this writing, I have yet to have a follower of Mike Bickle or IHOP-KC's doctrines give a real response to this passage of scripture.

Secondly, we should point out that the idea that Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong is vastly foreign to the over 2000 years of Christian exegesis and scriptural study. Some recent men, such as Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson, have certainly made the claim that Agabus spoke in error (and IHOP-KC's followers readily quote them), but their opinion is in the vast minority. Some of the greatest theologians and expositors of scripture throughout history have interpreted Agabus's prophecy as being completely fulfilled with no mistake on his part (even with verse 33 in consideration). This list of great men includes John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Wesley, John Gill, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, A.T Robertson and many, many others.

Thirdly, let's try to understand what occurs in Jerusalem when Paul arrives. While the backing of Christian history can be vital, it is not Matthew Henry, D.A. Carson or anyone else who gets the final word, but scripture itself and its plain meaning. We find, in this section, the apostle Paul at the Temple performing Jewish forms of worship, and a riot occurs:

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd were shouting one thing, some another. And as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. And when he came to the steps, he was actually carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd, for the mob of the people followed, crying out, "Away with him!" [Acts 21:27-36]

Paul was indeed bound by Romans (v. 33), but it was at the instigation of the Jews (v. 31-32), who had already seized and dragged him out of the Temple (v. 30). It was because Paul's enemies had instigated the people and caused the riot that the Romans were compelled to chain him. Some commentators, such as John Gill, suggest that the reason the tribune puts Paul in chains is to calm the Jews and pacify the situation, and, if this were the case, then the Jews of Jerusalem would indeed be responsible for Paul's binding. Certainly Tertullus, spokesman for the Jewish leadership, made the claim later on that it was they who captured Paul (Acts 24:6). Although there is a textual variant in the next verse where Tertullus gives some credit to the tribune, this is not in the earliest manuscripts, and is left out of most modern translations.

Fourthly and finally, if Agabus got the details of the prophecy wrong, the characters of Acts - including the author Luke himself - are completely silent on the matter. We don't see Agabus and others being befuddled by the differing events in the same manner Mike Bickle, Bob Jones and the other Kansas City Prophets were befuddled by differing events from their own prophecies (as was often recorded by Bickle himself). In fact, let's take a moment to understand how the apostle Paul interpreted the events of Acts 21. To the Jews in Rome, Paul said:

"Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." [Acts 28:17]

Did Agabus get the details of the prophecy wrong? That's completely foreign to the apostle Paul himself. Paul interprets the events as the Jews capturing him as a prisoner (thus being bound, even if only by instigation) and handing him over to the Romans. According to the apostle Paul, Agabus got everything right. If Agabus had been wrong, Paul should have said something similar to simply: "I was arrested by the Romans." There is good reason, therefore, that the previously mentioned theologians believed that Agabus's prediction was completely fulfilled, and that is the apostle Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, confirmed it so in this verse. At this moment in my life, I do not believe myself spiritually mature enough to disagree with the apostle Paul.

It is perfectly fine to turn to scripture affirm or review our theology. However, when we reach a level where we attempt to accuse prophets of God of prophesying falsely (even if "partially") and ignore how scripture itself interprets an event, then we are not continuing in a mindset where scripture has the final say. Instead, we are entering a mindset where our presuppositions and desires to validate another man's ministries and false teachings are carrying the day. I humbly ask that those supporting IHOP-KC, Mike Bickle and his peers carefully and prayerfully consider this. God bless.

Destroying Discernment: Mike Bickle and What Makes a False Prophet

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

He explains further:

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And another:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He likewise wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

In his book, Bickle writes:

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

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

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

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

Are all Christians supposed to prophesy?

Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) centers his "prophetic ministry" on the idea that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. To give an example of his argumentation:

The church, from its inception on the Day of Pentecost, was to be of a prophetic nature. It is clear that the spirit of prophecy is potentially available to all..."For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn..." (1 Cor 14:31). [pg. 38; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008]

1 Corinthians 14:31 is especially used by Bickle over and over again as a kind of grand proof-text for his theology. The idea is this: Paul says "you can all prophesy," so that must mean "all of you" as in "all you Christians." Hence, all Christians should be able to prophesy, and so all Christians should be willing to participate in the "prophetic ministry" that is pouring out of IHOP-KC and into other churches.

Is this the case?

Firstly, let's not forget what Paul had said earlier, when he was discussing the important part every person played in the church:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [1 Cor 12:27-30; emphasis]

Paul's point here is that not all people are prophets - only those with the gift are. The original grammar of "Are all prophets?" suggests that the question is to be answered with a hardy "No." Bickle actually acknowledges this specific verse in his Growing book, but treats it only briefly before skimming across it to another topic. He also, on some occasions, tries to separate between prophets and those who are prophetic, even though scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and Bickle's ultimate conclusion would still contradict Paul's point.

Secondly, let's remind ourselves of the three rules of exegesis: 1) context; 2) context; 3) context. So, seeking to follow all three of these rules at once, let's review the full context of the verse quoted by Bickle.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. [1 Cor 14:26-33]

Paul begins this section by saying that when the Corinthian church comes together, "each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (v. 26). Paul is going back to what he said in chapter twelve, when he discussed the importance of individual roles, comparing it to the parts of the human body (1 Cor 12:14-20), and later applying this to the individual skills within the church (1 Cor 12:27-30). The purpose of this gathering together and the using of individual skills is "for building up" - that is, the edification of all in the church (v. 26). Just as every part of the human body serves some need that benefits the others, so too does every individual member of the church perform some task that benefits the others. No one is unimportant, from the pastor who gives the sermon to the old man who just comes to listen and be edified. The important thing, as Paul will demonstrate here, is that our goal be not the use of our gifts alone, but the building up of God's body through those gifts.

Paul goes into detail about the individual gifts, starting with those speaking in tongues, stating that there should be "only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (v. 27). Note again that Paul is emphasizing order in the church for the purpose of edification. In this vain, Paul states something I think many Charismatic churches forget: "if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church" (v. 28). The original Greek here is actually pretty strong - in fact, quite strong. In our modern language, Paul would literally be saying, "If there isn't an interpreter, tell 'em to shut up."

Paul now moves on to those in prophecy: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (v. 29). Note that Paul is talking about a specific group, just as he was before with those who speak in tongues. Here he is talking about the prophets, not the entire church. He says "let two or three prophets speak," and then "let the others weigh what is said" - who are "the others"? The others with the gift of prophecy. He outlines the order of this further with: "if a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent" (v. 30). In other words, Paul is starting to tell them to take turns - if someone starts to fulfill their role of prophet, don't interrupt them.

At last we've come to the part Mike Bickle always falls back on: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (v. 31). With a greater understanding of the context, let us ask: who is the you here? Is the you here the entire church? Is it every Christian who has ever lived? No - given what we've seen before, the you here refers to those with the gifts of prophecy. This is seen when Paul says "one by one," referring to the previous rule regarding those with the gift of prophecy. Paul is saying that those with the gift of prophecy should take turns - not that everyone can prophesy.

And just in case some might want to pull the "your interpretation versus his" card, here are some others who are on my side:

All - Who have that gift. [John Wesley's commentary]

For ye may all prophesy one by one,.... Not every member of the church, but everyone that had the gift of prophecy... [John Gill's commentary]

In fact, it would seem that no one has interpreted this verse to mean literally all Christians everywhere until the time of Mike Bickle and his Kansas City associates. While I am not saying that the mere novelty of something is enough to dismiss it, when we have to assume that everyone has misread a passage of scripture until more than 1,900 years after it was written, it should be enough to make us ask for discernment. Especially when, reviewing the entire context of said passage, that interpretation is shown to be an invalid one. Nowhere in scripture are all Christians commanded to prophesy, let alone is that taught in this verse. That is a conclusion that one simply can't come to when looking at 1 Corinthians 14:31 honestly.

In the past I've written that when I see someone misuse scripture, I don't immediately assume they're doing it on purpose. I assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The first one cannot be the case as Bickle has written this in a book and spoken about this in sermons, and so has had plenty of time to review the verse. The second one can't be true because anyone can see what this verse means by reading the fullness of the chapter, and no one in any previous commentaries misunderstood the verse this way. It's possible that the third one might be true, and Bickle is going off another interpretation, but then he would be guilty of gross negligence for not examining the scripture himself - something a spiritual leader should not do. The fourth one is entirely possible, given what we've seen before. If it is possible - whether intentional or unintentional - Bickle needs to come to repentance.

And if this is the case, then Mike Bickle has taken a verse out of context and abused it to give validity to his warped theological views. His views take but one spiritual gift and extend it well beyond where Paul intended it to go, and is using this to try to convince people to join his "prophetic ministry" movement, centered around IHOP-KC in Kansas City. If anyone reading this is caught up in this "prophetic movement," I encourage you to let this blog post be the beginning of spiritual discernment. Examine what is said, and examine everything by the testimony of scripture. Where a person strays from God's word, go no further - where a person complies with God's word, stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Don't let what anyone says or teach be the final word or the final clinching argument for you - let God speak, and let God guide you with His eternal and holy word.

Isaiah 53 and Early Christian Apologetics

Many Jews argue that what Christians call "the suffering servant" in Isaiah 53 is actually a metaphor for the entire nation. Here we have an early response to this in the works of Origen.

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” (Col_2:15) At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus. [Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 55]

The Day After

A good Lord's Day to all my readers. As you may well be aware, today is May 22, and clearly the rapture expected by Harold Camping and his followers did not happen on May 21.

One thing that shocked me was just how prolific the knowledge of this became. Obviously it was covered by local and national news, and when something goes viral on the internet it can't be stopped. Perhaps what surprised me the most was how often I saw it on Facebook, and from friends I never even considered all that religious. Every other status or post was about the May 21 prediction and the end of the world. Most of it - nay, the vast majority of it - was done in jest. Even Christian friends of mine were making cracks at it. People joked about being raptured, others joked about meeting God, others just made general statements about how nothing had happened.

I've been thinking on this for some time, and I've begun to realize that this is a lot more serious than many of us realize. While I have been making jokes about it myself, in the past week I've tried to make an effort not to post anything publicly that would be mocking it or treating it as a joke. Because let's face it...it's not a joke. I don't mean by this that it's true or has any merit, but rather that this is not from a TV show or movie, but a real belief held by real people. Harold Camping is a real false teacher who has real followers who sincerely believe that they were to be raptured up on May 21. His followers have made radical life decisions (sold cars, quit jobs, etc.) over this. Many even considered suicide for fear that they wouldn't escape the judgment that would occur. This is hardly something to truly laugh about.

I am certainly not implying nothing should be said of Harold Camping ever again. I am not implying we take the attitude of "no harm, no foul." If anything, true believers should go on the attack in the weeks to follow, making sure that Camping cannot get out of this like he did the 1994 prediction. We should expose his teachings in the hopes of preventing anyone else being deceived. We need to also be on the lookout for movements or beliefs that may come from this folly, or may try to imitate this in order to receive money or followers.

However, the joking and humor directed at the false prediction cannot help but be noticed to have been general mockery now of future judgment. The biggest fear I have is that this will be used by the devil to make people laugh at the very notion of future judgment, and thus never seek their only Savior. Why look for He who can rescue you if you don't need rescuing?

Christ never spoke of what  time He would return - but He always spoke in such language that we should expect it to be now. "Be on the alert then," He told the disciples, "for you do not know the day nor the hour" (Matt 25:13). Therefore we "must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will" (Matt 24:44). Our Lord likewise said: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev 3:20). This can all come in either one of two ways: 1) by Christ's literal return, upon which all men will be judged; 2) by our death, in which the Lord, for His purpose, cuts off our life and we wait for judgment. All men will be judged for what they do in their life, in which they reap what will be sown. Judas had every chance to repent up to the moment he placed the noose around his neck. Herod had every chance to repent right up to the minute he declared to all that he was like a god. Yet they did nothing of the sort, and now they are awaiting judgment when the Lamb of God will, for them, become the Lion of Judah.

If you were a victim of Harold Camping's false teachings, let me assure you that this was not what Christ truly taught. Camping was a false teacher, and the false nature of his prophesy has proven true. However, I assure you that this is not the end all. We are not saved by the teachings of Camping - we are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and is our Mediator to the Father. Through faith in Him we are reconciled to God by His cross, and the wall of hostility is torn down. Christ has never gone back on His word, He never abandons His people, and what He says are true words. I invite you to take this chance to come to know the true Christ, who will not endow you with a secret knowledge of when He will come back, but will endow you with life eternal, so that you may become sons through adoption.

If you weren't a victim of Harold Camping, but have yet to confess Christ, I likewise invite you to come to know the truth. Harold Camping was not a Christian, and his teachings were far removed from anything that could resemble orthodox Christianity. That Christ did not come on May 21 does not mean He will never return. Error does not imply the lack of truth. Christ could come at any moment, and when He does, there will be a reckoning. Everyone will be held accountable for their sins. Anyone whose sins have not been blotted over by the blood of the Lamb will be judged righteously for their deeds. All men are guilty of their sins, and all are without excuse. However, what we could not do God did, by sending His Son to live the perfect life and offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. In Him we have life, and He gives it abundantly. I invite you to ponder this in your hearts, and I pray that the Spirit will drive you to do further research, and to seek after He who does not lie, but is the very incarnation of Truth.

God bless.

Is the World Ending on May 21, 2011?

Recently there's been a lot of hooplah about the supposed prediction by Harold Camping that the end of the world will be on May 21, 2011. The immediate passage many Christians may be thinking of is the words of the Christ to the disciples:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." [Matt 24:36; NASB]

Christ seems to make it clear that the day and hour of His return no one knows except the Father in heaven. Why, then, does Harold Camping seem to know?

Well, in his tract No Man Knows the Day or the Hour? (source), Harold Camping (or at least, the writer of the tract) seems to have an answer:

...we learn that during the church age there would be a great curiosity concerning the time of the end, but believers were not to be at all preoccupied with this question. They were to concentrate and focus all of their attention on the task of bringing the Gospel to the whole world.

Therefore, regardless of how brilliant or how learned a theologian or Bible student might have been, or how diligently they studied the Bible or faithfully served Christ, it was impossible to learn from the Bible the timetable for the end of the world. Anyone who claimed he knew the time of the end was always wrong.

Nevertheless, there is a very striking statement in the Bible. It is recorded in Ecclesiastes 8:5. There God declares:

Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth [better translation: will know] both time and judgment.

In the Bible a wise man is a true believer, to whom God has given a profound trust in the authority of the Bible. True believers have been in existence since the beginning of time. But the timeline of history as it is revealed in the Bible was never revealed to the hearts of the true believers....However, it was not until a very few years ago that the accurate knowledge of the entire timeline of history was revealed to true believers by God from the Bible. This timeline extends all the way to the end of tirne. During these past several years God has been revealing a great many truths, which have been completely hidden in the Bible until this time when we are so near the end of the world.

Alarm bells should be going off in our head about now. Any time someone speaks about "revealing a great many truths," especially those which have been "completely hidden in the Bible until this time," it is usually in the spirit of false prophecy.

In fact, before we continue, something important must be noted: Harold Camping has already been shown to be a false prophet. He had before predicted the world would end somewhere between September 15-17 in 1994 (source). At another recorded time, he pinpointed it to be September 6, 1994 (source). Guess what didn't happen that September?

Scripture is very clear about false prophecies:

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." [Deuteronomy 18:22]

For the sake of discussion, however, let's continue to review Camping's claims about 2011, since many people may be curious about the claims made by him and his followers.

Perhaps the biggest shock to most learned Christians at this point is the completely false application of Ecclesiastes 8:5. Camping interprets this as meaning that a true believer will be made known about the end times. Is this really what the writer of Ecclesiastes is talking about? Let's review the context quickly.

I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases." Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?" He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure. For there is a proper time and procedure for every delight, though a man's trouble is heavy upon him. [Ecclesiastes 8:2-6]

Is the author of Ecclesiastes saying that "true believers" will come to know the hour and day of the end times? Not at all. The point the writer was trying to make was that a wise man (not a "true believer," but simply someone with a deeper sense of tact) knows how to handle various situations. One cannot possibly come to another conclusion unless one springs verse 5 from its immediate context and invents new meanings to its words...something Harold Camping has unfortunately done and, in later interviews and discussions, has done over and over again.

Some nights ago, I was on Skype with a friend, and brought up this very subject. Without saying anything beforehand, I asked him to turn to Ecclesiastes chapter eight, then asked him (since he had the KJV, which Camping also uses) to read aloud verse five. Even he, without any teaching from either side and simply going to the text itself, recognized that Camping was being both erroneous and eisegetical with this verse.

In any case, I'd like to point out something here with the use of Ecclesiastes 8:5: we have completely jumped from our train of thought. What do I mean? We had earlier established that Christ had warned His disciples that no one knows the day or the hour, not even Him. Christ made it abundantly clear that the only one to know when the end time would be was the Father alone. What is Harold Camping now doing? He has jumped from that text, and is now declaring, "Oh! Well, actually, according to this verse in Ecclesiastes, any true believer knows the day and the hour!" How did we jump from "the Father alone" to "any true believer"? Those are two contradicting points.

This is something that happens all too often when a person, faced with a scripture or verse that contradicts their theology, becomes guilty of a non sequitor in an effort to distract from the chain of thought. The greatest fault in this is that, in jumping to another verse, the person refuses to deal with the interpretation of another. This is similar to people who don't like the reading of Romans 3:10-11 and so will jump to another verse to try to prove their point, never seeming to realize that in doing so they are contradicting both the apostle Paul and the Psalmist. With Camping we have something similar, though given that one comes from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and one comes from previously proven false prophet Harold Camping, I think I know which one to place my money on.

From here, Camping moves on to justification that such revelation would take place in the end times.

In the book of Daniel God has much to say about end-time events. Much of this was understood by Daniel, and because it was such awful information, great agony came upon Daniel. We read for example in Daniel 8:27:

And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

But then God told Daniel in Daniel 12:4 and 9:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. And He said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

In other words, God is telling us that there is important information concerning the time of the end that has been recorded in the Bible ("the book") but is not to be revealed by God until the world is near its end.

Note, first off, the immediate assumption: that the book spoken of in Daniel was the Bible. Was this possible? Absolutely not. For one, the Bible had not yet been completed, whereas the book which Daniel held was completed, and in fact was ordered to be sealed until the end times. The book referred to by Daniel is, in fact, merely the book of written prophecies which Daniel had seen. The statement made "seal the book" was one made by prophets as a statement of judgment against people who did not understand (Isa 29:11), and was intended for a revelation that would not come to pass until much later. Remember that, in Revelation, John is told not to seal up his book of prophesy (Rev 22:10) by contrast.

Also note that the book discussed had been written by Daniel...did Daniel write the entire Bible? So even Matthew through Revelation and all that we know of as the New Testament was written by a prophet before any of those events even came to past? These questions, along with the previously stated facts, are what I mean by the fact that this book simply cannot be the Bible. That is simply a bold assumption read into the text.

Camping goes on to write:

In Revelation 22:18-19 we read:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

These verses absolutely assure us that after the Bible was completed about 95 A.D. no other words could ever be added to the Bible. Therefore, whatever end-time information had been given to Daniel, but was not to be understood until the time of the end, had to have been included in the Bible before the Bible was completed. However, God wrote it in such a way that it could not be understood until the world was almost at its end. Remember, understanding comes only from the Lord Jesus Christ, as we read in Luke 24:45: "Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." This explains why the Bible is written in such complex and difficult-to-understand language.

Of course, we see that again Camping and his followers commit the same erroneous application of any use of the word "book" as meaning the Bible. Yet what does John himself record at the end of Revelation? "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy." Much like Daniel was only referring to his book of prophecy, John is only referring to his book of prophecy.

Note also the dangerous application of Luke 24:45. When Christ opened the eyes of the disciples, why was this? So that they may understand that He was seen in the Old Testament (see Luke 24:44-47 for greater context). This, however, was personally given by Christ, and it was given to the apostles so that they may preach Christ crucified from Holy Writ. What application is being made here? That Camping is receiving this teaching directly from Christ, and that by his teaching the scripture is made more clear. Any time a man claims to speak directly from Christ, especially in regards to prophecy which only he can substantiate, we must be wary.

The strange statement at the end, which says the Bible was "written in such complex and difficult-to-understand language" seems to demand a special teaching authority, something often done in cults. Of course, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. " (2 Tim 3:16-17). He likewise wrote to Timothy: "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). That some of the Bible may be difficult for the laymen (in particular the prophetic passages) is true; however, that all of the Bible is written in "complex" and "difficult-to-understand" language is something that even scripture itself says is untrue. Any time a person claims scripture is so difficult that an outside authority must be relied on in toto, it is usually the first sign of a false teaching.

In the next section, after a lengthy quotation of Revelation 5:1-9, Camping writes:

These verses teach that there is a book that had been sealed and that was to be opened by Christ, Himself. The only book that can be in view is the book that the Bible describes in Daniel 12.

Note, again, an immediate assumption made without explanation of why the conclusion should be drawn. Nowhere in Revelation is this tie-in to Daniel's book made, nor is the book (often translated as "scroll") seen in Revelation 5:1 in any way connected to Daniel's book. In fact, if we wish to compare it with Old Testament events, there's many more similarities to the scroll seen by Ezekiel (see Eze 2:9-10) than the book written by Daniel. Yet the plain facts from scripture are that the scroll seen in Revelation 5 is specific to these events in Revelation: the seven scrolls represent the seven time periods which the breaking of each scroll will cause, none of which are recorded of in Daniel's prophecy.

Note also the contradictory thinking. We had established that the book in Daniel was supposedly the Bible, yet now we are claiming that the book in Revelation 5 is the book written by Daniel...is God therefore holding the Bible? Was the Bible given seven seals, which no one could open until the end times? Why, then, do so many people have Bibles? Why were large chunks of the Bible (namely the Old Testament) so readily available during the earthly ministry of Christ? Camping tells us, "The only book that can be in view is the book that the Bible describes in Daniel 12"...Yet wasn't that book in Daniel 12 the Bible? So the Bible is saying it came along in Daniel 12 but can't be opened except by Christ itself, yet we're reading that it can't be opened even though we have to open a Bible to read that? I hope people can understand why this logic is so astoundingly circular. I also recognize many will argue that the "seals" are supposed to be "that which figuratively seals someone from true understanding," but that is not the context given in Revelation 5.

At this point, I won't touch on much after section of the tract because all coherency and logic falls apart. The dates and numerology stray far, far from what scripture says and how Christians should read scripture. Should we be worried that the world will end on May 21, 2011? If it didn't happen around September of 1994, and scripture says not to worry about men who prophesy falsely, then chances are we have nothing to worry about.

Here I'd like to reiterate something that many others have: the danger here is not whether or not Christ will return on May 21, 2011...the danger here is what damage this will do for many out there in the world. How many people who become involved in this will fall away from the faith when nothing occurs? How many more will see this as what "real Christianity" is, and use it as a strawman to mock all Christians? How much damage will this do to the fact that someday Christ will return, and that we should all be living with willing readiness for whenever that day may be?

Let us all take this as an example of why discernment of the scriptures is so important, and why the most important factor in a Christian's life is not when Christ will return, but would we be ready if He should return today? God bless.

------------------------

EDIT - FEBRUARY 1, 2011: A Harold Camping supporter attempted to post a response to this, but due to the nature of the email I haven't allowed it to go through. What do I mean by "nature"? Well, let me post some excerpts:

...even if you doubt the bible look at the signs of the times moron...

...now d---head let me tell you what that means you ignorant a-- whole in the day of noah just in case u didnt pass 5th grade because everybody knows the noah story, god told noah that he was going to detroy the world in 7 days noah told everybody but no body listen they did exacly what your duma-- is doing ingoring it eating and drinking acting like everything is normal...

...so before you say the world not ending do your research and try not to look like a jacka-- because you do look pretty stupid.

...every thing thats in the bible is true and for d--- head a-- morons to say sum s--- like this p--- me off read your bible and prey for understanding them mabe you will be caous of what you say d--- head...

I'm especially amused that I'm told to read the Bible and listen to the words of God, then in the same breadth I'm called a chain of expletives. An immediate verse of scripture comes to mind, namely the lament of the apostle James with: "from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).

If this person wishes to have dialogue on this blog, I might give a word of advice: I do not allow name-calling or curse words. We are all adults here, and we should interact as adults. Likewise, if we are going to talk about the word of God, we should do it with respect for the subject matter. In the meantime, I ask my readers to pray for this individual, that his eyes might be opened to the deceit he has apparently supported with great fanaticism.