IHOP-KC and Acts 2

Introduction

Among many of the favorite passages of scripture used by International House of Prayer founder Mike Bickle is the prophecy found in the second chapter of the Book of Joel and used again by Peter in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. From here, Bickle draws inspiration for his "prophetic ministry," as well as his beliefs regarding the end times (which he believes will happen within the next generation at the most). Here is a sample from Mike Bickle himself:

When the prophetic ministry flourishes, it is often confirmed by signs and wonders. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted the Joel 2 promise for a last-days' revival. Of course, the last days began with the cross, the Resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. However, the complete fulfillment of the Joel 2 promises will be in the final decades of the last days - those years just prior to the second coming of Jesus, which I refer to as the "End Times."

The first half of the passage in Acts 2 speaks of the outpouring of the Spirit and the increase of prophetic revelation on the entire body of Christ:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My manservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy - Acts 2:17-18

The second half of the passage focuses on the great increase of the acts of God in nature:

I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs on the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved. - Acts 2:19-21

There is a specific order and sequence in the text: the outpouring of the Spirit, followed by the increase of the prophetic dreams and visions, followed by the occurring of confirming signs in the sky and on the earth. We have witnessed a few supernatural confirmations in nature of significant prophetic words. [pg. 11-12; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008 edition]

Bickle believes that these signs and wonders spoken about in Joel will increase as Christ's return draws near.

In the end times, the awesome signs and wonders in the heavens and on Earth prophesied in Acts 2:17-21 will be much greater than anything ever before seen in history. [pg. 21, Prophetic]

Bickle uses this teaching to emphasize the importance of "prophetic ministry" that he and others at IHOP-KC teach.

...the outpouring of the Spirit, the prophetic ministry, and the signs and wonders in nature are clearly a part of God's agenda for the End Times. God has ordained that the church needs the input of the prophetic ministry to stay properly encouraged and focused as well as to minimize unbelief that plagues so many ministries today. [pg. 22, Prophetic]

Bickle even believes that what is being spoken of in Joel 2 and Acts 2 is being fulfilled in the here and now.

We know that a "Great Awakening" is soon to sweep across our nations. Though many see no hope, no solution to the coming crisis, we look with confidence to God’s promises to pour out His Spirit on all flesh in the last days (Acts 2:17-21), when all nations will receive the witness of the kingdom with power (Mt. 24:14; Rev. 7:9). What a privilege to live in this awesome hour of history! [pg. 5; 7 Commitments of a Forereunner, 2009]

Many believe the words of Mike Bickle that "the church needs the input of the prophetic ministry." Thousands flock to the IHOP-KC prayer room every day, and countless more watch the live webcast of their prayer room at home. A former neighbor of mine had the webcast on every day, and even had it playing with the speakers directed out his windows, as if some kind of magical force was flowing from them. Someone at my last church who knew an IHOP-KC attendant said that she had it playing at her house nonstop. People have left their homes and traveled hundreds upon hundreds of miles to live in Kansas City, just to be close to this prayer room. Thousands flock to the conferences sponsored by IHOP-KC and associates such as Lou Engle. Its visitors are of many ages, but a large number of them are teenagers and young adults.

How legitimate is Bickle's exegesis of Acts 2? Does it really speak of an end times prophetic movement? Does it really speak of a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the end times? I thought it would be worth going over Acts 2 and examining what is really going on with Peter's sermon to the Jews. I recognize that, in doing so, I could cover a whole lot more than just IHOP-KC (Dispensationalism comes to mind), but for this post I will focus on Mike Bickle's own exegesis and teachings.

Analysis

First, we need to understand the immediate context that leads to Peter's quotation of Joel 2.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel..." [Acts 2:5-16]

After the sending of the Holy Spirit, the apostles had begun speaking in tongues, shocking all present because each individual Jew (visiting from their home nation) heard the apostles speak in their own native tongues (signifying that these "tongues" were in fact foreign languages). Some started to disregard this, saying the apostles were just drunk, but then Peter speaks up. Note what Peter says: "This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel." What is the "this"? Peter is referring to the Day of Pentecost as the center of the Joel prophecy. Hence, immediate context of the Joel quote involved what was unfolding that day, and would have been applicable to those listening.

For certain, much of what is described by Peter happened in those times. Peter describes the Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh - that happened at Pentecost with the Jews (Acts 2:4) and then with the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-45). Peter says their sons and daughters would prophesy - and indeed, men prophesied, as did many daughters, such as those of the evangelist Philip (Acts 21:9). Peter says young men shall see visions - and indeed, many did see visions (Acts 9:10, 10:3, 11:5). Peter says the old men shall dream dreams, and indeed, old men dreamed dreams (Acts 16:9, 18:9). Peter says men and woman shall prophesy, and indeed, people did so (Acts 11:28, 21:10-11). There's nothing from the immediate context of scripture that says this wasn't fulfilled in Peter's day.

Those at IHOP-KC would argue that they recognize the first part of the Joel prophecy could be related to Pentecost, but that the second half is related to future events. Mike Bickle's own handling of Joel 2 involves cutting it up, dividing it in the middle of verse 19. From this, he says that the "wonders in heaven and signs on the earth beneath" are about general wonders and signs, while the "blood and fire and vapor of smoke" are about specific future signs and wonders. However, no such division exists in Peter's original use. Peter quotes it as a single passage. Humorously enough, even the translation Mike Bickle uses treats it as a single thought. To quote from it:

I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. [v. 19]

Note the colon there - what purpose does a colon serve, grammatically speaking? Colons serve either to explain, prove or list elements related to what preceded before it. What Bickle's own translation says is that the signs described by Joel involve "blood and fire and vapor of smoke."

Now granted, colons weren't present in the original Greek manuscripts, therefore some might call this contention a non sequitor. However, whether by using a colon, semi-colon, comma, or run-on sentence, most translators recognize that what Joel is doing here (and verse 20) is describing specific signs that will be seen in heaven and earth. By cutting verse 19 in two and dividing up the context, Bickle is manhandling the text to get it to say what he wants. Unless Bickle can claim he's seen "blood and fire and vapor of smoke," he can't attribute this to any signs or wonders he's seen to this passage. To do so is to read into the text what isn't there.

As we said earlier, many at IHOP-KC repeat what Bickle says, which is that half of the Joel prophecy (from "blood and fire, etc." onward) is about future events, and can't be about Pentecost because none of that happened at Pentecost. In some ways, they are right - it is about future events. However, it involves the near future, and it is still related to the Day of Pentecost, as I hope to explain shortly, and in this manner:

The apostles, on the Day of Pentecost, were addressing the Jews - the Gospel had not yet gone to the Gentiles, and God would not send anyone to the Gentiles until Acts 10, with Peter and Cornelius. Peter's quotation of Joel is important because when Joel says "in the last days," it was generally understood by most Jews (as John Gill discusses from Jewish sources) that this referred to the age of the Messiah. Hence, when Peter says this prophecy is being fulfilled in their midst, the Jews listening understood the significance.

Peter finishes the Joel quotation with: "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." He then - while still addressing the Jews - attests to the historic reality of Christ. Quoting from the ESV:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." [Acts 2:22-24]

He goes on about the raising of Christ, and concludes regarding Christ's authority: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (v. 36). The Jews understand the significance of this as well - Peter is saying that Christ, whom many in Jerusalem believed to have died - was in fact the Messiah, and was now seated with authority on heaven and earth. Realizing this, they ask what they should do, to which Peter gives the call for repentance (v. 37-38). He then says that the promise of salvation is for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" (v. 39). Remember this part for later, as it will become relevant.

Then comes an important statement from the apostle:

And with many other words [Peter] bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:40]

Who is "this crooked generation"? That has been a topic of debate for those who study eschatology, but given the immediate context and audience, it is clear that Peter is referring to that current Jewish generation. Moses had called the Jews of his time a "crooked and twisted generation" (Deu 32:5), and Jesus himself had referred to those in Peter's time as a faithless and twisted generation (Matt 17:17; Luke 9:41). Christ had likewise said: "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah" (Luke 11:29). The sign of Jonah was Christ's being in the earth for three days and rising up to bring repentance to men (Matt 12:40). Peter had preached repentance, and now it was time for those in this "crooked generation" to repent.

Now we must ask this: when Peter says "save yourselves," what do they need to be saved from? Many might immediately respond that they need to be saved from the final judgment, and this would not be inaccurate. However, let's refer back to that second part Bickle referred to:

"I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." [Acts 2:19-21]

Remember, Mike Bickle divides up verse 19 and tries to separate the signs and wonders from the descriptions, but that isn't how the text reads - they correlate with one another. What specific signs and wonders does God intend to show? Blood, fire, vapor of smoke, the sun turning to darkness, the moon into blood, and all before the great and awesome day of the Lord. Again, unless Bickle wants to claim he's seen all of these already, he can't apply these verses to this day. It will be granted that Bickle often talks about miracles and signs he's witnessed, but none of them include the aforementioned signs. Therefore, they are irrelevant to this verse. I don't care if Bickle saw Bigfoot come down from heaven and completely heal Stephen Hawking with a bent seven iron while doing the hokey pokey - if it's not blood, fire, vapor of smoke, the sun turning to darkness, the moon into blood, etc...then it's not relevant to Joel 2/Acts 2.

In any case, the language used by Joel is obviously figurative language - unless someone wants to claim the moon is going to become a giant glob of plasma floating around the earth, we can't assume the prophet Joel is speaking literally. This is also obviously apocalyptic language, dealing with destruction compounded with woe, calamity and misery. The sun is not going to be darkened because there's a light switch God can flick whenever He wants, but because of the vapor and smoke mentioned before. In like manner, the moon will appear like blood because the vapor and smoke in the atmosphere will give it a reddish or orange tinge (this can be seen sometimes even today).

Now, what significance would this have to the Jews with whom Peter was talking, and how does this relate to what they would be saved from? These are all, in fact, talking about the approaching siege and destruction of Jerusalem, which was God's judgment upon the "crooked generation" for their rejection of the Messiah. The destruction of Jerusalem, and with it the Temple, was performed by Roman soldiers under Titus in 70 AD, nearly forty years after Pentecost. The Jews had rebelled against Roman rule in the mid-60's, but soon turned on one another, murdering and torturing fellow Jews as different factions made a bid for power. Thus when Titus arrived with his legions (the "armies" described in Luke 21:20) against Jerusalem, the city was already torn by conflict.

After a prolonged siege and great famine, the city fell and was obliterated. This great calamity, described by the Jewish historian Josephus (who was an eyewitness), saw the city and the Temple engulfed in flames. Roman soldiers left not one single stone of the Temple atop another, fulfilling the prophecy given by Christ (Matt 24:1-2). Aside from the loss of property, the loss of life was even greater, and although there exist no accurate estimates, they range anywhere from a hundred thousand to a million.

This was the "great and awesome day" of the Lord spoken of by Joel, for it was the day of judgment for the Jews who had rejected their Messiah. Even Josephus, who was shocked at the conduct of his own countrymen against one another, and who was certainly not a Christian, believed this was God's judgment.

"It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions." [Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, 1:5]

If we argue this is the "day of the Lord" spoken of by Joel, one might then ask about the following passage which says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." We should first wonder: what happened to the Jerusalem Christians we read about in Acts? Did they perish under the Romans? In fact, the Christians had left Jerusalem before the city fell. The famous church historian Eusebius accounts that the Christians in Jerusalem fled as soon as they found out the Romans were coming. As a result, the Jewish Christians were spared from the destruction of Jerusalem and what befell the unbelieving Jews therein.

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella... [Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 5:3]

It might be helpful to note here that, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter does not quote all of Joel's prophecy in full. This is not because Peter himself was playing with the text, but because he had given the full gist of it, and most Jews listening probably would have been able to fill in the blanks themselves. It is also because Peter indirectly refers to it later on. Let's review the full quotation of that section from Joel:

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. [Joel 2:32]

Joel prophesies that "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved," yes, but then adds: "For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape...and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls." Remember what Peter said in Acts 2:39? He had told the Jews to repent and be baptized and turn to Christ for forgiveness of their sins, then proclaims that the promise was for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." It is then, in the next verse, that Peter exhorts the Jews to save themselves from this crooked generation. This is a definite tie-in between the generation to whom Peter is preaching and the prophecies given by Joel. The Jews at Pentecost were to save themselves from the crooked generation because judgment was fast approaching upon that crooked generation.

And as it stood, God kept his promises for all parties involved. Those whom He had called were saved from the destruction that befell that crooked generation, but as for that crooked and faithless generation, they were judged. There was blood (from the massacre of Jerusalem's inhabitants), fire (across the city and in the temple), vapor of smoke (rising from the ruins), the sun turned into darkness (from the thick smoke) and the moon turned to blood (from the haze of the smoke). Joel 2's prophecy was fulfilled, as Peter had said it would be.

Conclusion

There are a few assumptions made by Bickle and others at IHOP-KC about what Joel 2 and Acts 2 teach, all of which are false.

1) God will perform natural signs and wonders in the prophetic church today: This is false, at least from the text Mike Bickle relies on. As demonstrated earlier, he comes to this conclusion by chopping up verse 19 and isolating each piece from the full context. This is a blatant mishandling of God's word that is unbecoming of a Christian leader.

2) God will perform other natural signs and wonders at the end times: This is false, and for reasons dealing with the previous section. The signs and wonders in heaven and earth and the blood, smoke and vapor mentioned by Joel are related to one another. There are not two separate groups of signs and wonders here - Mike Bickle has read that into the text by, again, mishandling God's word.

3) The latter half of the Joel prophecy is talking about the very end of days: This is also false. Given the immediate context of Peter's sermon in Acts, accompanied by what he says later and what we know from history, and how the orthodox Christian church has interpreted these verses up until the rise of Dispensationalism and other problematic theologies, Peter is warning the Jews to escape the approaching judgment upon their nation.

The prophecies in Joel refer to the Day of Pentecost, the era of the apostolic church, and the impending judgment of the Jewish nation. They had nothing to do with the church today - let alone do they have anything to do with Mike Bickle and his prophetic ministry.

Your average online discussion about religion...

All credits to the original artist.

Happy Birthday, Jonathan Edwards!

Today is the 309th anniversary of the birth of my favorite theologian, Jonathan Edwards. So, to celebrate, here's an excerpt from his book A History of the Work of Redemption.

God’s disappointing the design of building the city and tower of Babel belongs to the great work of redemption. For that was undertaken in opposition of this great building of God of which we are speaking. Men’s going about to build such a city and tower was an effect of the corruption into which mankind were now fallen. This city and tower was set up in opposition to the city of God, as the god to whom they built it, was their pride. Being sunk into a disposition to forsake the true God, the first idol they set up in his room, was their own fame. And as this city and tower had their foundation laid in the pride and vanity of men, and the haughtiness of their minds, so it was built on a foundation exceedingly contrary to the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and his redeemed city, which has its foundation laid in humility. Therefore God saw that it tended to frustrate the design of that great building which was founded in Christ’s humiliation: and therefore the thing displeased the Lord, and he baffled and confounded the design. God will frustrate and confound all other designs, that are set up in opposition to the great work of redemption.

Isaiah ii. representing God setting up the kingdom of Christ in the world, foretells how, in order to it, he will bring down the haughtiness of men, and how the day of the Lord shall be on every high tower, and upon every fenced wall, Christ’s kingdom is established, by bringing down every high thing to make way for it, 2 Cor. x. 4, 5. “For the weapons of our warfare are mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.” What is done in a particular soul, to make way for the setting up of Christ’s kingdom, is to destroy Babel in that soul.

They intended to have built Babel up to heaven. However, that building of which we speak shall reach to heaven indeed, the highest heavens, at the end of the world, when it shall be finished: and therefore God would not suffer the building of his enemies, in opposition to it, to prosper. If they had prospered in building that city and tower, it might have kept the world of wicked men, the enemies of the church, together, as that was their design. They might have remained united in one vast, powerful city; and so have been too powerful for the city of God.

This Babel is the same with the city of Babylon; for Babylon in the original is Babel. But Babylon is always spoken of in Scripture as chiefly opposite to the city of God, as a powerful and terrible enemy, notwithstanding this great check put to the building of it in the beginning. But it probably would have been vastly more powerful, and able to vex if not to destroy the church of God, if it had not been thus checked.

Thus it was in kindness to his church, and in prosecution of the great design of redemption, that God put a stop to the building of the city and tower of Babel. [I, 3]

Silly Arguments Part II

Well, kids, that ol' Facepalming Picard means that it's time once again for a very silly argument.

Has this ever happened to you? Have you ever been sitting in a Starbucks, minding your own business, enjoying a good venti-sized vanilla bean frappacino, when suddenly some guy crashes his Dodge Ram truck through the window, rolls out the driver door dressed as Ronald McDonald, and proceeds to tell you that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD? You were probably thankful that you hadn't been hit, then after those sentiments of survival subsided you immediately asked the person a bit more about their position. You come to found out that they believe the copy of the Septuagint written before Jesus' time was merely the Law, and the rest of the Old Testament wasn't translated until the second century AD. Hence, when Matthew and the other Gospel writers quote the Old Testament in Greek, they were either inventing their own Greek verses, or the New Testament as a whole was written from the middle to late second century. You then tased him, not for what he said, but for the simple fact he's a lunatic crashing through buildings dressed as Ronald McDonald.

OK, maybe I've exaggerated this account just a little, but I did hear someone make the argument mentioned here.

The biggest thing we need to do is discuss some biblical history. When the books of the Old Testament were originally written, they were a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In the middle third century, under the funding of Ptolemy Philadelphus (then ruler of Egypt), it was decided to translate the Law into Greek, which had become the international language during the inter-testamental time. According to various stories, seventy-two Jewish scholars were selected, and finished translating the Law during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. It was perhaps the first major organized translation of scripture in history, similar to the work done by the King James Bible translators thousands of years later (and like the KJV, there's much mythology around its translating...but that's for another post).

The original Septuagint, as previously stated, wasn't the entire Old Testament, but rather was simply the five books of the Law. The question then comes: when were the other books finished? We have no solid evidence for the exact date that all the books of the Old Testament were finished. There are many signs, however, that much of it was done before the time of Christ, as seen by external evidence: the mid-second century Jewish historian Eupolemus mentions a Septuagint Books of Chronicles; the writer known as Aristeas quotes from the Septuagint Job; a footnote in an early Septuagint version of Esther suggests that it was in circulation before the end of the second century BC; the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in the apocryphal 1 Maccabees 7:17.

One of the biggest evidences we have that the Old Testament was completed by the time of Christ is found in the apocryphal work known as the Wisdom of Sirach. In the introduction, the author writes:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. [RSV]

While speaking of translating from the Hebrew into the Greek, the author makes mention of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books." This is compounded with the fact that Philo and Josephus - two well known Jewish authors who lived during the lifetime of the early Christian church - quoted extensively from the Septuagint, and not just the Law. All historical signs point to evidence that the Septuagint, as in the complete Old Testament, was completed by the time of Christ. Most scholarly sources place its completion in the middle second century BC.

So, was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? Absolutely positively not - there is too much evidence to the contrary. So...where did this idea that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD come from? One can't just make this stuff up out of thin air. I personally believe the individual making this argument was confusing it with the various streams of Septuagint revisions, most of which happened about the second century AD. The ones most known about:

The revision by Aquila (early 100's AD). By this time, the Septuagint was becoming unpopular among Jewish circles, partially because of the rise of Christianity which heavily utilized the Septuagint. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, attempted to make the first major revision to the Septuagint, and did so by translating from the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word. This made for a somewhat awkward rendition, but one that was popular among the Jews for the next 500 years or so. Today it is only known through fragments.

The revision by Theodotion (late 100's AD). Theodotion was a Jewish convert that relied heavily upon the original Septuagint. His version was heavily quoted by many Church Fathers (including Justin Martyr), and his version of Daniel was especially widely preferred by many over the Septuagint's version.

The revision by Symmachus (soon afterward). Symmachus was said by the writer Epiphanius to have simply been a Samaritan convert to Judaism, although Jerome and Eusebius claim he was an Ebionite. He sought to smooth Aquila's translation by using the original Septuagint and Theodotion's work as reference. His translation likewise only exists in fragments.

Perhaps a worthy final mention is that of the Church Father Origen (late second century, middle third century AD). Origen was a Christian who understood Hebrew, and saw differences between the Masoretic texts of his time and the Septuagint. He collected together what was probably the first interlinear Old Testament, as well as the first example of textual criticism. What he did was place side by side: the Hebrew; the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters; Aquila's work; Symmachus' work; the Septuagint; and Theodotion's work. Origen even included notes and symbols that signified when the Septuagint added or left out specific parts of a verse (not unlike the use of italics and footnotes in today's translation). Unfortunately, this momentous work only exists in fragments today, although it helped to preserve examples of the Septuagint revisions done by the other three men.

So to repeat our question of the day: was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? As we've seen, some streams of it were, but the Old Testament translated into Greek was finished and widely available by the time of Christ. The writers of the New Testament were not making up Greek verses, nor is the Septuagint evidence that the New Testament was written in the second century AD. The contention made at the beginning of this post is, as stated before, simply a silly argument.

------

UPDATE, February 12, 2013: Another possible source of this confusion might be that the individual is using KJV-Only sources. Some KJV-Only advocates try to teach that the Septuagint comes from a later date, even after the time of Christ. One such KJV-Only advocate writes: "People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ are living in a dream world." (pg. 50; Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1976).

What happened in one Christian home...

The following is somewhat inspired by real events, though greatly exaggerated...

One night a Christian husband came home from work. He saw the only light on at the house was a dim lamp light seen through the living room window, but he thought nothing of it. Perhaps his wife was already asleep. He was happy to get home from a long, tiring day to her, and he looked forward to finding rest. He didn't expect any further trouble.

That was until he opened the front door. As he entered, he looked to his right, into the living room, and saw his wife sitting alone, on a chair that faced the door. She was tugging on a handkerchief and had her knees and feet together, suggesting she had been there for some time, waiting anxiously for him to get home.

"Hey, honey," the husband said, smiling at his wife, "are you all right?"

The wife looked up at him, and immediately the husband saw her eyes were red from crying, and dried tear trails could be seen on her cheeks. As if trying to find the right words, she bit at her lower lip, then finally said:

"I...was on your laptop earlier..."

As soon as she uttered those words, the husband felt his heart sink. His eyes widened, and all he could mutter was, "...were you?"

"And..." The wife shivered, holding back another round of tears. "...and...I found something..."

The husband dropped his briefcase near the door, walking into the living room, "What did you find...?"

"Well...I was going through your personal files, and found a video...I..." The words died coming out, and she could only shake her head, "I...I thought I could trust you! You were hiding this from me?!"

She was getting excitable, and tears were already starting to drop from her eyes again. The husband sighed and said, "I'm not trying to hide anything from you. What was it you found?"

The wife lifted her arms up, showing she had the husband's laptop on her lap. She opened it up and turned it around, resting it on the table beside her. A video was opened up full screen - a video the wife couldn't even bear to watch. She turned her face away, knowing the husband would at least be able to see it, and that was all she desired. And indeed he saw it. There was a heavy feeling of embarrassment and sadness as he looked at the laptop and saw...

...Dave Hunt's presentation What Love is This?

"What?!" the husband said. "Baby, no wait, I can't explain..."

"I thought my theology was enough for you!" the wife screamed, standing up and storming out of the room.

The husband chased after her, "Baby! No wait, it's just research! I wanted to listen to him and give a response!"

"I'M GOING HOME TO MOTHER!" shouted a voice from the bedroom.

"I promise!...Wait!...Don't slam that door!..."

Submitted for your approval...a man watching Dave Hunt. He tried to keep it a secret...but no one can keep any secrets once they find themselves in...the Twilight Zone...

Where did Cain's wife come from?

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... [Genesis 4:17]

These words appear after Cain has been banished from his family's land, as punishment for the slaying of his brother Abel. It is most likely that Cain was married before he was banished, and hence the account here is simply when the couple began to bear children. What follows in chapter five up to chapter six and the flood details the sons of man (Cain's descendants) and the sons of God (Seth's descendants).

Cain's wife had not been previously mentioned nor named - indeed, neither was anyone else other than Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. This, however, does not presume they did not exist, as the author of Genesis had a point in focusing on a select group of people. John Calvin writes that "many persons, as well males as females, are omitted in this narrative; it being the design of Moses only to follow one line of his progeny, until he should come to Lamech." Genesis 5:4 mentions that, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam and Eve begat many other sons and daughters. Therefore, although other human beings were not named specifically, this first generation of man was much larger than simply four people.

The situations around our verse presents what is to many a large stumbling block: just where did Cain's wife come from? If there were no other women outside the immediate family unit, does that mean he married his sister? These are difficult questions for certain, and from them arise two possible explanations for Genesis 4:17:

1) These women existed outside of the Adam/Eve family unit. This can go one of two ways: a) these women were made by God in the same manner Adam and Eve were; b) these women existed in populations outside Adam and Eve. However, if we permit either of these, we must then ask what becomes of the federal headship of Adam, and how his sinful nature carried down into the rest of mankind. One would have to explain the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin..." (Rom 5:12). This would also affect the previously mentioned dual lineage seen in chapter five.

2) These women were sisters of Cain and Abel. This will, to many, sound strange, given the ban on incest in the Mosaic Law (Deu 27:22). Many commentators say the reason it was permitted here was necessity, as well as the fact humankind had not fallen into such a state that the health ramifications were a problem. As Albert Barnes writes in his commentaries:

The wife of Cain was of necessity his sister, though this was forbidden in after times, for wise and holy reasons, when the necessity no longer existed.

David Guzik likewise writes in his commentary:

We don’t know where did Cain got his wife. Genesis 5:4 says Adam had several sons and daughters. Cain obviously married his sister. Though marrying a sister was against the law of God according to Leviticus 18:9, 18:11, 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22 (which even prohibits the marrying of a half-sister), this was long before God spoke that law to Moses and the world. Here, necessity demanded that Adam’s sons marry his daughters. And at this point, the “gene pool” of humanity was pure enough to allow close marriage without harm of inbreeding. But as a stream can get more polluted the further it gets from the source, there came a time when God decreed there no longer be marriage between close relatives because of the danger of inbreeding.

And the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament writes:

The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may therefore be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family but the genus, and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bands of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin. (Comp. Leviticus 18.)

John MacArthur writes in his commentary:

Cain's wife obviously was one of Adam's later daughters (5:4). By Moses' time, this kind of close marriage was forbidden (Lev 18:7-17), because of genetic decay.

Hank Hanegraaff, in an article related to this very subject, writes:

Furthermore, because genetic imperfections accumulated gradually over time, there was no prohibition against incest in the earliest stages of human civilization. The Levitical law against incestuous relationships was given by God hundreds of years after Cain at the time of Moses. Thus familial relationships were preserved and birth defects were prevented (Leviticus 18:6, 9). [source]

We might conclude from this, then, that at this time it was not only a necessity, but that the human condition had not fallen into such a state that the medical effects of incestuous relationships were worthy of concern. We can definitely see a steady decline in the state of man's health up to the time of Abraham, if ages are to mean anything: Adam lived to be 930-years old (Gen 5:5), while Abraham lived to be 175-years old (Gen 25:7).

John Gill, in his commentaries, presents what may seem to some a more reasonable possibility. Namely, that this woman Cain married could have "descended from Adam by another of his sons, since this was about the one hundred and thirtieth year of the creation." This still does not, however, answer how the other, unnamed son reproduced, and we would have to assume it was through a sister. Therefore, we return to the dilemma we started with.

John Gill likewise mentions a tradition among the Jews and others, that Cain and Abel each had twin sisters when they were born, and that one married the other.

At first indeed Cain could marry no other than his sister; but whether he married Abel's twin sister, or his own twin sister, is disputed; the Jews say, that Cain's twin sister was not a beautiful woman, and therefore he said, I will kill my brother and take his wife: on the other hand, the Arabic writers say, that Adam would have had Cain married Abel's twin sister, whom they call Awin; and Abel have married Cain's twin sister, whom they call Azron; but Cain would not, because his own sister was the handsomest; and this they take to be the occasion of the quarrel, which issued in the murder of Abel.

This would still present something of a problem, as marrying a sibling's twin sister is still technically marrying a sibling - hence, once again, we are back to the original conundrum.

After reviewing this situation and the various solutions, the most likely answer is that Cain's wife was an unnamed daughter of Adam and Eve, being Cain's sister. At the time, this was permissible, both for necessity's sake, as well as for the simple reason man had not fallen into such a miserable condition as they are today.

Many will here ask why God would permit it in one moment, yet ban it later on. God, however, permits and forbids actions or deeds according to His purpose and according to the timeliness of the ban or permit. For example, ravens were declared unclean diet for the Jews under the Mosaic covenant (Deu 14:14), and yet ravens were earlier saved from the flood due to God's mercy on His created animals (Gen 8:7). In fact, there were many unclean foods the ancient Jews were banned from eating under the Mosaic covenant, and yet they are permitted under the covenant with Christ (Mark 7:19). Another example, the looking upon a bronze snake was permitted by God for a temporary time (Num 21:9), but banned later on when it became idolatrous (2 Ki 18:4). These are not contradictions any more than a law enacted by a civil government that limits or bans something which was at one point permitted but has now become an issue or a problem. A city, for example, may keep a public park open 24/7, but because of crimes at night enact an ordinance that bans activity in the park after a certain hour. That, however, is not a "contradiction," and those who argue as such are ignoring the circumstances around the change.

Ah, those pagan parallels...

This meme summarizes how I felt yesterday, after eavesdropping on a chance conversation. I wonder if these people realize how many of these supposed parallels have been refuted? As in...a thousand times over.

Allah sent me an email

This was actually sent to my workplace. I swear I am not making any of this up.

From: Allah [mailto:god@llah.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:46 AM
To: [n/a]
Subject: Where?


Help! I am Allah, God of The Religions, am now here on Earth, and asking the Press to help Me locate an organization, community or nation to receive Me. Here is all you have to do on behalf of your company, community or nation: send an email to god @llah.mobi (no spaces) or SMS/VM 707-925-2488 and say something such as "On behalf of, (your company, community, or nation) We want to welcome you, God Allah." Be sure to include your email, SMS text number (if you have one), name and phone number. Then I will contact you back through email with more information about how this applies to your company, community, or nation. If you want to learn more of God Allah (or God the Father, Christianity) see a church or mosque near you for more information. Please be advised this is a very, serious emergency for many people around the world so you were advised to communicate with Me immediately. Also, due to the nature of this emergency, it is possible there could be spiritual repercussions for your failure to comply. Thanks.

Emergency Message,

God Allah
Author, Holy Qur'an / Bible
Lord of the Worlds
god @llah.MOBI (subscribe)
god @llah.US (unsubscribe)
P.O. Box 701
San, Mateo CA 94401
+1 (707) 925-2488 SMS/VM
A.LLAH.US

In the event of subscribe error, go to https:// ALLAH . zendesk .com

Sympathy in Temptation

The following is from JC Ryle's Expository Thoughts on Matthew, and refer to the temptations of Christ in the wilderness.

The sympathy of Jesus is a truth which ought to be peculiarly dear to believers: they will find in it a mine of strong consolation. They should never forget that they have a mighty Friend in heaven, who feels for them in all their temptations, and can enter into all their spiritual anxieties. Are they ever tempted by Satan to distrust God's care and goodness? So was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to presume on God's mercy, and to run into danger without warrant? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to commit some one private sin for the sake of some great seeming advantage? So also was Jesus. Are they ever tempted to listen to some misapplication of Scripture, as an excuse for doing wrong? So also was Jesus. He is just the Savior that a tempted people require. Let them flee to Him for help, and spread before Him all their troubles; they will find His ear ever ready to hear, and His heart ever ready to feel: He can understand their sorrows.

May we all know the value of a sympathizing Savior by experience! There is nothing to be compared to it in this cold and deceitful world. Those who seek their happiness in this life only, and despise the religion of the Bible, have no idea what true comfort they are missing.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints

Here we are at long last at the final letter in the TULIP acronym. This one is the "P", which stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are brand new to this series (and you are late, young man!) can start with my very first post and work their way on forward, as I tend to assume I've already established certain ideas or dealt with certain objections already in past posts. You can also just click on the "TULIP" keyword. On a side note, please try to keep things organized, and please only respond with objections or questions in the relevant posts (ie., don't ask something about Total Inability in this post, etc.). Any way, let's move on...

Perseverance of the Saints is often confused with "Once Saved Always Saved" or even "Easy Believism." Many people misinterpret that this doctrine teaches believers are free to sin as they please, or that after their confession of faith there is no further responsibility placed upon them. I once had a person ask me, if I believe I'm elected, then why don't I go out and kill someone then? The idea is, if I'm justified before God, then I don't need to worry about hell or judgment.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what the doctrine teaches. For one, part of the Perseverance aspect is not only that a person elected by God is secure from losing that election, but that the individual will be perfected and sanctified throughout their election. For another, it would violate the commands of scripture that believers forsake their sins, and that, because we are saved, we should strive to obey God all the more. A believer is not sinless, but they are striving to sin less. They are never what they ought to be, but they are striving to separate from what they used to be. This leads into a discussion that deviates from this topic, so for the sake of time I'll refer to those who are more curious to this post here.

For our scriptural discussion on this topic, I am going to return to Paul's epistle to the Romans and review the last section of chapter eight. This will perhaps be the longest of my TULIP posts, but I believe it will be well worth it. First, however, some back story:

In chapter seven Paul had been discussing the state of the matured believer, torn between what he knows he should do and what he desires to do. He opens up chapter eight with the beautiful words: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (v. 1). He then launches into a wonderful Trinitarian discussion on the nature of man's salvation. That is, God the Father sends God the Son as an offering for sin, so that the law might be fulfilled in us who are marked walk according to God the Holy Spirit (v. 3-4). Those who are in the flesh - that is, non-Christians - cannot please God (v. 5-8). However, those who are not in the flesh but the Spirit - that is, Christians - belong to God, and Christ will give us life through the Spirit dwelling within us (v. 9-11). We (believers) are hence led by the Spirit of God, and those led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God (v. 14).

Paul then gives very clear Trinitarian language in this manner: God the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God the Father (v. 16), and if we are children of God the Father, then we are fellow heirs with God the Son (v. 17), provided we suffer with him so that we may be glorified in him. Paul elaborates this last point by saying that the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the future glory (v. 18), talking about the "groaning" of creation (v. 22) and the future coming of our glorification, for which we likewise groan. He states that "we hope for what we do not see," and "we wait for it with patience" (v. 25).

Thus having discussed suffering and patience, Paul then writes:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:26-30]

In regards to the Spirit's help for our patience and suffering, Paul states that the Spirit intercedes for us for our flawed prayer, and does so with groaning (which shows the Spirit is personal, not impersonal). The Spirit performs this for the saints according to the will of God the Father (v. 26-27). Paul adds that we know "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (v. 28). Many people, in attempting to refute Reformed theology, will only quote the first half of this verse ("those who love God"), as if it depends upon us - not seeming to realize the second half ("those who are called according to his purpose") completely refutes it. It is the same notion as what Paul speaks of in his epistle to the Ephesians, where he speaks of those who have "been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11).

Having established the sovereignty of God's will and His strength within us, Paul then writes what has become known as the "Golden Chain of Redemption," which I'll highlight by requoting its fullness below:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]

The "golden chain" is seen in the transition of a person from one state to another: those foreknown by God are predestined; those predestined are called; those called are justified; those justified are glorified. The context of "those" doesn't change in between the actions - they are all one of the same "those." It is a continuous chain of events by God, which are all done by Him and seen through by Him. I talked about this a bit more in this post here.

Many will attempt to get around this by honing in on the word "foreknew" and declaring that God simply had foreknowledge of those who would believe and those who wouldn't, and hence no real election is going on here. However, they forget two things: 1) "foreknew" here is a verb, not a noun - it is something God is doing, not something He is relying upon; 2) the direct object of the foreknowing is not the individual's actions, but the individual themselves. Likewise, if God "foreknew" someone would believe or accept salvation, then the predestination, calling, and all that followed (things done by God, not the individual) would be unnecessary. The fact here is that "foreknew" is a personal verb, referring to the fact that God foreknew those whom He would predestine, call, justify and glorify.

Even more ironic, there are some who uphold "once saved always saved," deny irresistible grace, and yet use the golden chain of redemption to verify their theology. This is because they chop it up into two parts: the foreknowing, predestining, and calling, all of which they believe man can reject at any point; then the justified and the glorified part, which they believe means any person justified will in the end be glorified. The problem is that this is an inconsistent handling of how the word of God is used. The apostle Paul is clearly giving an unbroken chain, and if you read backwards from the glorification part, you see that it continues backwards all the way to foreknowing.

Continuing on, the apostle Paul writes:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” [Romans 8:31-36]

Having established not only in the Trinitarian work of the Godhead in our salvation - as well as God's supremacy in our salvation - Paul now asks a bold question: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (v. 31) He asks again, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies" (v. 33). By "charge" it does not mean a Christian cannot receive a traffic ticket because of some weird kind of divine immunity, but rather it refers back to what Paul said in verse 1: "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." As God has performed the act of justification and obtained for us that justification, granting it to us as a gift, who then can lay any charge against us, especially when it shall come to the great day of judgment?

Paul asks, in the same way, "Who is to condemn?", adding "Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us" (v. 34). Meaning, of course, that it was Christ who died and was raised, and is interceding for us, as by his death and resurrection, as Paul stated earlier, "the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us" (v. 4). Having done this, then, the Law is fulfilled, and there is no one who can condemn God's elect. In other words, our sins have been fulfilled in Christ. There is no longer room for any further justification. No prayers to saints, no charitable deeds, nor anything else can add to or complete what Christ started and did.

Continuing on with his bold questions, Paul asks: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?" (v. 35) Paul illustrates this point by quoting Psalm 44:22, on how Christians realize that for the sake of God they are as sheep led to slaughter (that is, they will endure tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, and the sword).

Moving on from this, Paul writes:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 8:37-39]

Despite the dangers presented in the previous section, we are conquerors - nay, more than conquerors! - yet it is not because of us, but rather we conquer "through him who loved us" (v. 37), that is, God. Paul then states, very explicitly, that "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation," will ever be able to separate the true believer from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 38-39). In other words, our salvation is secure - nothing, be it spiritual powers or natural, earthly powers, can cause us to fall away.

Generally I've received two kinds of responses for this section (especially verses 38-39):

1) Some people say, "This isn't about faith, it's about God's love." Under what context, however, is this love? Just a general love? On the contrary, it is love for God's elect, whom Paul has been talking about since verse 1. He even made it clear he was talking about God's elect as recently as verse 33, and every use of the pronoun "us" is in reference to Paul and his fellow believers. We even see this in verse 39, with the use of "the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Those not in Christ Jesus (believers) do not have the love of God spoken of in this section, and cannot receive the benefits therein (as explained in verses 9-11).

2) Some people respond to the words "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation" by saying: "Ah, but see - we can reject God separate ourselves from His love!" Therefore, according to their own logic, they, by themselves, are more powerful than death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, and anything else in all creation. Aside from the fact this is impossible, it is also missing the point the apostle is trying to make here. Paul is literally belaboring the point (as he often does throughout Romans) that there is nothing - nothing, nada, zip, zero - which can separate us from the love of God. God's elect cannot be taken away by him by any means, be it by death, by deeds, by force of arms, or by their own individual personal struggles.

What do we see in this chapter, especially in the last half? We see the very real power of God in the perseverance and endurance of the believer. God is at work in us, preserving us with the Spirit, keeping us in Christ, despite whatever obstacles may come before us. Those whom God foreknew will in the end be glorified. There is no chance of separation from God. With this revelation, let all believers rest easy in the knowledge that God is not a passive God, but an active God who is active in our life - every day, every hour, every second. We will never be perfect until glorification, but as we still draw breath on this side of resurrection, we shall always be loved of God.

At this point, my little series on TULIP has come to a close. As I said in my first post, I did not intend to "convert" anyone to Calvinism, and even if I indeed did not, I hope I at least gave a presentation that corrected misunderstandings, and gave the reader a more edified understanding of Reformed theology. I thank you for your time, and God bless!

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.

Silly Arguments Part I

Hello, gentle readers. You're probably wondering why Facepalm Picard has graced the posts of this blog again. Well, similar to the post he was in before, we've got a doozy of a discussion for you today. Let me ask you...is there something evil behind the name of Jesus? I don't mean Jesus himself was evil - no no no. That would be too much! I just mean the name "Jesus" itself is evil. Yup, that's what someone brought forward to me. Let's start reviewing this argument:

In Scripture - names have meaning.

"Joshua" or Yah-u-shu-ah - means "YAHUAH is salvation" - the name itself points to the NAME of YHWH. It contains the FATHER'S name. It points to the Father as Savior.

True, most Hebrew names carry a meaning, as most names in any language do. For example, Isaiah's original Hebrew name (Yesha'yahu) means "the LORD is salvation." Jesus' original Hebrew name was indeed Yahushua, which means "The LORD saves." All right, so far so good.

The name "Jesus", and as you correctly say Iesous, since there was no "J" in either Greek or Hebrew means something else.

Yes, Jesus is taken from the Greek Iesous, and there is no "J" in the Greek or Hebrew alphabet. Neither is the sound related to the letter. Again, so far so good.

Transliterated - Iesous - or "H'sus" - in Hebrew means "horse".

Wait, what? Hold on a moment...you don't transliterate words backwards! The Hebrew name came before the Greek, so you generally transliterate words from the Hebrew to the Greek. Transliterating backwards makes about as much sense as putting something in English into Google Translate, translating it into Chinese, then translating it back into English and defining the English context by what comes out. Here, let's have some fun:

English (Before): I need to go down to Office Max and buy a stapler.
Chinese: 我需要去办公室最大，买一个订书机。
English (After): I need to go to the office to buy a stapler.

Ah, see? "Office Max" must refer not to a store chain that sells office supplies, but a specific office somewhere that apparently sells staplers, because when you translate the Chinese backwards, it comes out that way. Aha!

In all seriousness, the Hebrew word for "horse" used in the Old Testament is indeed sus. The form mentioned here, hassus, is, as far as I can tell, merely one such form of the word found in the Bible, and is used only eleven times out of 139 occurrences. The more popular forms are susim (used 34 times) and the regular form of sus (used 22 times).

By the way, the only connection between Iesous and Hassus is they kind of sound the same. Man, that's some hardcore etymology, I must admit.

Do you think that is a coincidence?

Why yes I do. Thank you for asking. It's just as coincidental as the fact that English word "meme" is close to the Turkish word for "boob."

In Latin it gets worse. "Sus" means pig. Greek "Geo" or "Ge" means "earth".

...wait, what? What was the relevance of going to the Hebrew? Now we're going to Latin? Also, "horse" is kind of a nice name. I mean, I'd love to have my name mean "horse." Horses are cool, man. You can ride 'em and charge into battle on 'em and leap over fences and stuff and stuff. What's wrong with your name meaning horse?

By the way, Iesous is a Greek name, not a Latin name. And why are we chopping the name up like this? So the first part of Jesus' name refers to "earth" in Greek (even though there's no "G" sound in the name), but the latter part refers to "pig" in Latin? Why does this matter? This makes about as much sense as me cutting up my name into two parts in two different languages. Observe:

"Did you know that in the name Tony, the word 'to' in Japanese is a quoting particle, whereas 'ni' means 'you' in Chinese? Don't you see! The name Tony is telling us to quote ourselves! We're our own authority, not God! OH MY GOODNESS TONY IS SUCH AN EVIL NAME D'AAAH SAVE YOURSELVES!"

See how silly that is? The name "Tony" is merely the shortened form of "Anthony," in this case specifically from the Italian António, which stems from the Latin Antonius, which means "priceless" or "praiseworthy." There's no grand conspiracy behind the name. It really is as simple as that.

In like manner, there is no grand conspiracy behind the name Jesus. The name Iesous is merely the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yehushua. There were many others in the New Testament named Iesous, but the use predates even the time of Christ. There are countless others in the Greek Septuagint (both in the Law, the Prophets, and the other books) whose names, usually seen as Joshua in the Greek, are rendered Iesous.

Do you think that is a coincidence? Could this be the name above all names?

Yes, it is a coincidence, and one you invented, by cutting the word up and picking and choosing what you wanted the bits to mean. You do this to try to prove that a bunch of third century BC Jews, desiring to preemptively insult the Messiah they had been longing for, took a Greek word that sounded kinda like "horse" in their language and just so happened to mean "pig" in a foreign language that wasn't that widely used at the time, and then combined it with the Greek word for "earth," then applied this new word to the name "Joshua," with no one in the entire Jewish community taking notice at all regarding the degrading change.

That makes perfect sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter by what rendition of his name you call upon him. Whether you speak English and you call him Jesus, whether you speak Serbian and call him Isus, or whether you speak Cantonese and call him Yasu, he will hear you. He will hear you. This is because it is not according to the specific form of his name by which he is called, but by his grace alone. Christ is not a magical being who can be summoned by a magical incantation that requires an exact pronunciation of exact words - he is the Son of the Living God, who died on the cross and rose again, suffering for the sins of his people, so that they may know true life. On the day of resurrection there shall be "a great multitude...from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev 7:9). These shall be believers, and they shall be united not by language, but by faith, and they shall all call on the Lamb by his beautiful name, even if it be in its rendition from their own tongue. I can promise you that, to the Lord, every single rendition and pronunciation shall be beautiful, for the desire to speak such a name came from a beautiful source.

Dead Men Answer?

All credits to the original artist. For those who might be curious, see my post here.

The Story of a Non-Christian

Gather 'round, chil'ren, it's story time again...only now with a twist.

Once upon a time there was a man who hated Christians. I don't mean to say he merely disagreed with them, or wasn't a Christian himself...but he truly hated them and what they stood for. He thought they were stupid, had silly beliefs, and he truly thought that people were better leaving Christianity. He considered philosophy and mankind's understanding of the world to be the highest thing to obtain, not spirituality of any sort.

He hated Christianity so much, in fact, that he started to write books attacking the concept of God. He mocked the idea of God giving revelation, let alone infallible revelation. He claimed the only people who believed in God were the poor, uneducated and heavily deceived members of society. He claimed that Jesus' miracles had never happened, even suggesting he was perhaps at best a magician. He would mock the scriptures. He would use his literary skills to belittle and poke fun at the expense not only of Christians, but of Jesus and God Himself.

Who was this person? You're probably thinking of some of the "new atheists" today, but in actuality this man was a middle second century philosopher named Celsus, one of the first public critics of Christianity, certainly one of the first to attack them directly. He certainly wasn't one of the only ones of Ante-Nicene period: the philosopher Lucian (late second century) doubted all religions and believed we could only understand things through philosophical understandings, and considered the love of Christians to be silly enthusiasm; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (late third century) attempted to prove contradictions between the Old and New Testament, claimed the early church leadership was divided between Paul and Peter, and said Jesus was merely a great teacher whom men had turned into God; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Hierocles (late third century) claimed Christ's miracles and divine traits had been invented by the apostles, and tried to draw parallels between Christ and local Greek religions.

Hm...does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

There is truly nothing new under the sun. The thing is, however, Christians never responded to this criticism by proverbially closing their eyes and ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!" Christian apologetics is almost as old as Christianity itself. In response to heathen or atheistic/agnostic criticism of Christianity, many men such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Tatian, Origen, and Tertullian arose to specifically address such criticism, even responding to critics by name and addressing their specific points. Some later men, such as John Chrysostom, would make reference to the ancient critics and briefly touch upon, and then respond to, their beliefs. The point is that since the days of the post-apostolic church, Christians have responded to the criticism of unbelievers.

What often amazes me is that, while most knowledgeable Christians are aware of the arguments made by those who attack the faith, many of the most verbal non-Christians (in particular atheists) seem to be completely unaware of the Christian response - nay, they seem completely disinterested in any possible response. Many ask questions or bring up contentions which a simple Google search or the reading of a single Christian apologetics book would resolve. Some have made arguments (such as conspiracy theories) that, if presented for other topics, would be considered utterly and reprehensibly foolish. Truly, if some internet atheists treated mathematics, engineering, nuclear physics or any other subject with the same silliness and disrespect which they applied to the topic of religion, no one in those fields would take them seriously. If some non-Christians started treating their own faith with the same silliness and disrespect they showed Christianity, they'd become at best agnostics.

It's not that I believe non-Christians are inherently stupid insofar as they have low intelligence. Many are very bright or capable in many areas. With a few extremes, most are also fully functioning members of society. However, there is a fine line between simple ignorance and willful ignorance, and many display a case of the latter. They display no desire for serious dialogue, nor an interest in understanding the other side. They would rather laugh at an internet meme that agrees with their worldview than read an opponent's book which explains his worldview. Ad hominems and straw men are of more interest to them than sound counter responses. They'll talk of knowing the truth, but just start asking them to demonstrate that truth and it won't take long before they throw up the blinders and begin the personal attacks. There is no interest in an opposing viewpoint that is worth responding to.

Perhaps the highlight of all this came in an incident many years ago, with an online chat I had with an atheist gentleman. He was telling me, "You know, I consider you a pretty smart guy, so I don't get why you believe in God." He added, "I've done my research, and put the dots together." I then asked him if he had read the Bible. Nope. I asked him if he had read any Church Fathers or Christian theologians. Nope. His extensive research had amounted to reading popular atheist authors and feeling satisfied, having had his emotions fulfilled. What's more, it seemed to flabbergast him that doing any research on the counterarguments was be worthwhile. Apparently, "doing a lot of research" didn't include reading the opposing viewpoints and responding to them, let alone simply reading both sides of the issue. In fact, this seems to be what "doing a lot of research" is for a lot of people.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, and it's at times heartbreaking. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they throw things at you like "Jesus' Greek name really means Hail Zeus" or some other silliness that is easily disprovable and they most likely got from a goofy website rather than a scholarly source. It's difficult to try to respect someone's opinion when they clearly have no respect (even if unintentionally) for you. It's hard to take someone as fair when they claim to have great arguments, when a little research into past discussions on the topic would reveal that their contentions had been responded to more than fifteen hundred years ago.

This is why we must remember that, without the regeneration of God, a person's mind will remain shut. The power of God is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18), and will continue appearing to be foolish so long as the veil remains (2 Cor 4:3). Let us not, however, use this as a sign of superiority against non-believers. Rather, let us strive to pray for those people, for they were once as we. Let us pray that they might turn to Christ, and upon turning to Christ, have the veil removed (2 Cor 3:14-16). God bless.

Using Evil Recorded in the Bible Against the Bible

It's popular for many today to quote passages dealing with evil in the Bible, and use it against the Bible. It's done either in the tone of "Look! Evil! That must mean this book is evil!" or "This happened in the Bible, this must mean God approves it." How many times, for example, have we heard the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38) quoted as if to embarrass us that it exists in the Bible?

Let's review a few things regarding this:

Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.

What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?

Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.

Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.

What a man wants

As this post suggested, I recently became engaged to a wonderful daughter of God. I had spent the months leading up to the proposal questioning whether or not she was the perfect woman for me, and if I would truly be happy spending the rest of my life with her. Were we a good match? Did we share similar interests? Could I depend on her to be my lifelong support? Would we be able to support one another? This also got me thinking about the mentality of those who seek a loved one, and all that pertains.

The apostle Paul once wrote: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways" (1 Cor 13:11). Of course, he was speaking in this verse of spiritual maturity, but in many ways this is true of our attitude and maturity in other areas. In regards to romance and a lifelong partner, there is often a difference between what a man may want, and what he truly needs. In my job as a graphic designer for a news station, I often recognize that there can be a world of difference between what a news producer wants for a graphic, and what they actually need for a graphic. In a similar fashion, a man may have an idea of what he wants in a woman, and yet fail to grasp what he needs in a woman.

When I was younger, the woman I wanted was different than the woman I wanted now. I was seeking empty satisfaction in both the physical and emotional departments. I was desperate to fill in the void that had been there in my life, and didn't care what it was I used to fill that void. It was like someone who was hungry, and desired to fill it with readily available junk food rather waiting for more nutritious food. This led me down some very dangerous paths, and, even in the youthful days of my faith, introduced me to some very dangerous women. I came to know all too well the words of Solomon when he writes: "The mouth of forbidden women is a deep pit; he with whom the LORD is angry will fall into it" (Prov 22:14).

As I matured in my faith, God grew me from a child of God into a man of God, and made me realize my need for a woman of God. First and foremost, I realized I needed a believing, God-fearing woman - I could not engage in a relationship with a non-believer, insomuch as I would engage in "missionary dating." I needed a woman with whom I could go through scripture and not worry about controversies. I wasn't looking for a walking theological catechism, nor did I desire a woman who saw eye-to-eye with me 100%, but wanted as close a theological match as possible.

Physical appeal and attraction became somewhat secondary - not that they were thrown out entirely, but rather they were removed from the pedestal I had placed them. Not every woman has the elegance of Audrey Hepburn nor the appeal of Christina Hendricks, only because Hepburn's elegance was matched by Hepburn, and Hendricks' appeal is matched by Hendricks. The vast majority of woman have elegance and attraction that belongs to them and them alone. It is unjust to hold one woman up to another woman's standards and ignore how her elegance and attraction belong to her alone. Likewise it is unjust to ignore her other traits. I had realized, by the sanctification of God, that such "other traits" do exist. I realized - again, by the sanctification of God - that those "other traits" far outweighed what I had previously believed to be important. As scripture states: "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised" (Prov 31:30).

I should pause here a moment to alert the reader that they should not confuse this for "settling." That is, I am not saying a person should enter the mindset, "Well, I found a person who likes me, I guess that's good enough," nor even, "Hey, she's a believer - good enough for me." There's a difference between seeking what you need and just settling for what you have. I might compare this to a boy who desires to own a car as he grows up: at a youthful age, he wants a cool looking sports car like the ones on his favorite action movie or cartoon show; at his more mature age, he realizes there is more to a car than looks, and gradually he begins to want a car with good gas mileage, a good warranty, a good engine lifespan, and the like. Eventually the boy, now a man, chooses a car that has the latter options rather than the former. This does not mean the boy has "settled" - it means the boy's understanding of the car he needs is now more mature, and he is basing his decisions off this more mature understanding.

What a man truly needs in a woman is someone to be "bone of his bone" and "flesh of his flesh," with whom he can become "one flesh" (Gen 2:23-24). The man needs a woman with whom he can be physically comfortable (cf. 1 Cor 7:1-5). The man needs a woman with whom he can educate his children (cf. Prov 1:8). The man needs a woman that he can love, care for, and edify, just as Christ loves for, cares for, and edifies the church (Eph 5:25-30). The man needs a woman with whom he can enjoy the rest of his life (cf. Ecc 9:9). All this is important, hence why the word of God says: "An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels" (Prov 31:10).
------------------
The above image is an edited version of Dante and Beatrice by Henry Holiday. 

How IHOP-KC is defended

About a year ago, a Facebook friend had quoted from and referred to my post regarding Mike Bickle's minimizing of Biblical standards of discernment. Some of his friends, who participated with or supported IHOP-KC's ministry, began to respond. My friend tagged me to suggest I come in and join the discussion. I obliged, linking to the blog post to permit people to read it and respond.

A supporter of IHOP-KC joined the conversation, but did so without responding to anything I or anyone else had said or written, whether in the original article or in the Facebook. Instead, he began with a long response that was as follows. I've changed the gentleman's name (along with the name of my friend) because his personal identity is not important - what is important is what he said.

As for Tony and Joe...Neither one of you know Mike Bickle or have a relationship with him. You dont listen to anything he teaches with a heart that is impartial, discerning, or longing to learn more about God...instead you listen with judgement and pre-conceived ideas about who he is and what IHOP is all about...your voices whimsically fade into the clutter of the voices of all the other pharisees and self-proclaimed theologians of our generation who seek to contend with Mike Bickle and the House of Prayer...stepping out in a faith and missing it sometimes when it comes to the prophetic doesnt make someone a false prophet and looking at examples of what Paul teaches in the new testament concerning false prophets doesnt condemn mike or anyone in the kc leadership at ihop. You pronounce judgement on a man who has walked faithfully with the Lord in ministry for over 35 years and whose ministry has lead thousands to Christ and whose fruit has been consistent and awesome for many years now....Try walking in the prophetic and excercising a little bit of faith in your walk before you go around in what i perceive to be ignorance because you obviously dont know any better and render judgements and statements filled with condemnation on men who could easily sit with you and in less than 5 minutes dismantle every bitter and evil judgement coming from your mouth with his understanding of the Word of God which Mike has spent the great majority of his life studying...Repent for the arrogance and the evil in your heart that has brought you to a place where you feel okay about using a public forum like facebook to accuse and a slander a mans name...which is libelous and wrong anyway. I think that if either of you had to stand before the King of Kings today you might be surprised as to what he would say to you about the condition of your own hearts...Live to show mercy instead of rendering judgement so that you yourselves may know His mercy...Shame on either of you for using this forum to create more confusion in the body of Christ than there already is...you expect God to bless your ministries or lives while you sow seeds of discension and confusion in the lives of others...not gonna happen. Where is the humility in your hearts? The same humility that is seen in fullness in the life of the Lord Jesus which you both so adamantly proclaim to know...My heart in saying this is that you would consider with the fear of the Lord what you say and do especially when it comes to speaking about other believers particularly leaders in the body of Christ...in pronouncing judgments of this magnitude on someone you then invite the same magnitude of judgement into your own life. Consider what you have said and honestly find something better to do with your time then camp out on facebook to have virtual arguments about theology with people you feel intellectually and spiritually superior too...Lets just say for the conversation sake that Mike Bickle is a poor prophet and he has missed a few things along the way...I would rather be a poor prophet than a pharisee any day of the week...On the list of all the needs in the church right now what you two have chosen to do here is not found there and its sad that you find satisfaction or fulfillment in accusing leaders like Mike Bickle.The spirit in which your operating in is not of God...its of the Devil himself and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for what you have said here. I dont take everything that comes from Mike's mouth and just believe it nor do i actually agree with 100 % of everything he has ever taught but i do not go around publicly accusing him of being a false prophet because thats not my place or position. I pray that in reading this your hearts would turn...that you would delete what you have posted and publicly withdraw your accusations lest the judgments that flow from your hearts turn back on you more than they have already begun too...Come on guys...There are so many other things to do with your time that would be so beneficial to the Church than this...You both have been given spiritual gifts and talents...Now go out and use them to bring life to the body and not breathe death as so many others around us choose to do. Grace and Peace from the Lord Jesus be with you today my friends.

I simply replied:

Bob, with all due respect, your argument is entirely emotional, and - once again - avoids everything that has been discussed. It's the classic "you're being a jerk!" fallacy combined with the "don't judge ever ever ever!" fallacy.

The fact is, I have not gone from second-hand sources. I went directly to Bickle's work. I read what he wrote. I listened to his sermons. I took notes on what he taught. I studied his history and what he had done previously. I then compared it to the word of God, and what I found is that Bickle distorted the word of God and taught falsely. These are not the signs of a Christian, let alone a Christian leader.

God does not want us to forgo discernment for superficial peace. That's what the devil wants. I can now see why there was Athanasius contra mundum - because the world ("mundum") is so easily swayed towards false teachings in the name of superficial peace, cooperation, and grace.

He replied:

I dont really wanna post another long paragraph...i forgot about how much guys like joe and tony get-off on people arguing with them. Your both pharisees and legalist lovers of judgment and wrath...What you sow will be returned to you in time i promise...If you ever are given a platform other than facebook in life it will not be one given to you by the Father but rather your father the devil who is using you to launch loads of accusations into the body of Christ...You are a brood of vipers and your hearts are malicious and evil...You do not seek unity or peace but rather satisfaction that comes from correcting and accusing people...I pray sincerely that neither one of you are ever promoted to a place where you have the attention of large groups of people that you can poison with your words. You say my argument is emotional...thats the zeal of the Lord in my heart that comes out when it sees to young intellectual bullies on facebook trying to force their misguided religious agendas down others throats...young men like yourselves have been part of the problem in church decades and will co ntinue to be until you recognize the error of your ways...In 20 years when the church is experiencing great revival and refreshment you will be the ones sitting on the side-line in your pathetic apologetics groups criticizing God's great move because it simply didnt happen through your dead and cold leadership in whatever denomination you so proudly claim or cling too...i dont answer most of your questions because i dont let you steer the conversation with all your religious jargon that your so proud of publishing...im not gonna answer joe's question because its irrelevant...using the rape illustration to bring about the conviction and the bloodshed your so hungry for isnt going to get me to join you in what your doing...if either of you are living in lakeland and helping to contribute to the problems we have here with the religious system then please pack up today and move as far away as possible...we dont need any more voices of accusation running around here...GO! Yea im emotional...Im passionate about the restoration of His bride and seeing the church walk in fullness and in the power of the Holy Spirit. If you think the height of your calling in this life is judgment then you have missed it completely anyway....learn to love first...and then when you have learned to love we shall see if the Father releases you to walk around doing what you feel justified in doing...NO. It saddens my heart to see that the enemy has gotten a hold of 2 more bright and gifted minds and is using them to attack God's people...like i said earlier...repent or reap the consequences of what your doing.

I replied:

Bob, again, with all due respect, that is sheer emotionalism. You haven't responded to anything anyone's said. You're putting up the blinders and throwing the Pharisee card. A person who is unable to answer a direct question and launches into imaginary ad hominems is not speaking from a heart for God. That is the clearest sign of a deceived heart. Your love is not for God, but for a group of men.

He replied:

im not out to prove you wrong...time will surely do that...God is emotional. He is not dead or stoic as you would have others believe. Yes i love God and yes i love men like Mike Bickle who have the tenacity and great heart to teach God's people with an open and humble heart.

Go to kansas city and accuse him yourselves or ask him whatever questions you have...Mike Bickle will be teaching at the onething regional conference in orlando on january 27th-29th...during that time he had Q and A sessions where you can say anything you want...so if your so confident in the accusations you have made then at least have the integrity and courage to go ask him yourselves...if your not willing to do that then shutup

...you are being given advance notice so find time off from work and go...no gas money? i will fill your tank myself...im off here...hav a nice day

I responded:

"if your not willing to do that then shutup"

Thank you for showing me what God's grace looks like. However, I pray someday you will realize there is nothing Pharisaical about discernment, and the goal of Joe and I is not to look for arguments and attack others, but to warn the people of God about false teachers. We do what we do BECAUSE we love the people of God, not against it. We have used nothing but scriptural truths to verify what we have said. You have used character attacks. I pray you will realize there is no dawn for your position, because it is bent on defending men and their doctrines rather than God.

He replied:

im not attacking character tony...suggesting you shutup if your not willing to confront the accused in person with the claims you so boldly post facebook is quite alright in my book...circle is right joe...i dont know why we do this but one thing is clear...ihop's ministry continues to be blessed by God and continues to consistently produce fruit that brings glory to the Name of Jesus and His Kingdom...i dont have to defend that...bless you guys

I replied:

Any "fruit" IHOP-KC produced is IN SPITE of its leaders, not because of them, or because God has particularly blessed them. God saved thousands of people by permitting Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery - that doesn't mean Joseph's brothers had any kind of special anointing. As I brought up in my article (which has yet to be responded to, at all), that God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick brings no glory to the crooked stick itself.

As it stands, you have yet to respond to anything the opposite side is saying. You're character attacking, whether you like to admit it or not (and accusing people of trying to look good on Facebook or being Pharisees is, indeed, character attacking); you're refusing to respond to direct questions and arguments; you are refusing to deal with points made by the opposite side; you are telling people to "shut up." None of this shows a love for God - it shows the signs of cultic mentality.

Like it or not, Mike Bickle and his ilk are teaching false doctrine. They've been recorded doing so for the past 20-years. I don't have to go ask him personally about it - it's all in writing, and oftentimes in his own writing. I've presented a case against him. You have yet to respond to it, and again I pray that God will lift the shadow from your eyes to see that what you are doing is defending wolves masquerading as sheep.

At this point the gentleman said he refused to respond because I was a "coward," and the conversation here ended. Cowardice, however, is not placing your arguments in public settings and permitting them to be reviewed - even encouraging review. Cowardice is name-calling, lambasting, character attacking, and using red herrings while all the while refusing to respond to your opposition, and constantly backing out when you are pressed to do so. That is the highest form of intellectual cowardice.

I decided to post this in the hope of permitting others to see this conversation. I hope they see that when IHOP-KC's supporters are pressed to answer direct questions, they are unable - even unwilling - to do so. I hope they see that IHOP-KC's supporters will accuse their opposition of working against God, despite the fact that their opposition are the only ones using scripture. I hope they see that in the face of sound and reasonable criticism, IHOP-KC's supporters are only able to launch into accusations of ambition and Pharisaical tendencies. I hope they see that when faced with the truth of scripture, IHOP-KC's supporters will jump to unscriptural conditions and fallacious arguments such as "Don't knock it until you've tried it," or "Don't judge until you know them personally," or "Don't criticize them until you've met them." According to such standards, Christian heroes such as Athanasius, Martin Luther, John Owen and J. Gresham Machen were all wicked men.

From the blog post to this conversation, I accused Mike Bickle of being under the influence of Satan because he is teaching contrary to the word of God. IHOP-KC's supporters accuse me of being under the influence of Satan because I am teaching contrary to the word of Mike Bickle. I hope and pray that God will open their eyes to see what that truly means.

As I said before in the conversation, this is not the mentality of Christianity - this is the mentality of a cult.

A Double Standard in Liberal Theology