Merry Christmas (If That's OK)

A politically correct carol from the Santa Claus episode of the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. Rather amusing how this was written to make fun of political correctness, and now, a decade later, this is amazingly true in some circles.

Podcast: Steve Kelly and Thinking Big

In the following episode, we examine a message by Steve Kelly on "thinking big," which he delivered last Sunday (12/8/2013) at Wave Church's evening services. We especially focus on Steve Kelly's treatment of scripture.



The episode where we examine the cult-like teachings of Steve Kelly on leadership can be found here.

A Simple Review of "October Baby"

Several weeks ago, my wife and I were still on a "Christian movie" fix after having something of a weekend marathon with Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and Courageous. Cruising through Netflix, I suddenly remembered that my wife had made mention of a 2011 movie called October Baby, about a young woman who discovers that she is, in fact, adopted, and that her original mother had tried to abort her. It sounded interesting, so we decided to give it a watch.

The film opens up with Hannah (Rachel Hendrix) suffering from another spell of epilepsy. While at the doctor's office with her parents, it is revealed that she was adopted. Of course, this would probably stun anyone, but on top of this, it turns out she had been the product of a failed abortion. Said abortion happened in Mobile, AL. Hannah's old childhood friend and awkward love interest Jason (Jason Burkey) happens to be headed to New Orleans with some friends, hitting Mobile along the way. While there, Hannah does some investigation, finding out that her mother is now a famous lawyer. Their first confrontation leads to a rejection, and her adoptive father arrives, leading her to come to grips on accepting her past and present situation.

If I sound like I'm having difficulty describing the plot of the film, there's good reason for that. Truth be told, October Baby is really two movies: on the one hand, it's a decent film about a young woman realizing she was the product of a failed abortion; on the other hand, it's perhaps one of the worst teen-bopper movies I've ever seen.

The road trip to Mobile plot is, really, just a long plodding part of the movie. Part of this is because of the obvious conflict between Jason and Hannah, who secretly love each other but can't admit it. This could have been fine all it's own, but they turn it into a love triangle by adding in that Jason has a girlfriend, Alanna (Colleen Trusler). Granted, this also could have been an okay addition, but unfortunately Alanna's character is not treated well at all: she's the cliche evil girlfriend with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and who serves as the foil to the lead female character, making you feel sorry for Hannah and assuring you it's perfectly fine when Jason ends up breaking up with Alanna at the end. On top of this, Alanna is comically evil, as seen in a sequence where Hannah and Alanna are forced to share a hotel room: Alanna does nothing but openly insult, belittle, and mock Hannah, to the point that the latter leaves the hotel room and continues the journey on her own. Most girls would be more subtle, and it might have been more effective to have subtlety. Unfortunately, the screenwriters don't want that - you're supposed to hate Alanna, so Alanna must be evil. Mwa ha ha.

Add to this the goofy "love" montages between Hannah and Jason. What I mean by this are various sequences where Hannah and Jason will either be frolicking on the beach, staring into space in separate places, or just spending time together, and a song will be playing over the scene. Near the end of the movie, it started to feel like most of the 107 minutes were just these "love" montages. I was beginning to have flashbacks of the film Twilight, and the annoying, oft repeated scenes of Bella and Edward staring at each other while new age music plays. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work here (granted, a lot didn't work with Twilight).

Worst yet about this road trip plot is that it ultimately goes nowhere. You're introduced to all these characters, such as the hippie Bmac (he loves hamburgers...GET IT?!), but you either never see them again after Hannah leaves the hotel, or you only see them briefly in a later scene. Really, the whole thing becomes a waste of time. It felt like the filmmakers were trying to appeal to young adults by making a Christian equivalent to all the teen-bopper films that had come out in the past decade, but this (along with the love triangle) only serves to distract from the main plotline. There was one point where I was actually thinking, "Hey uh...wasn't there something about an abortion in this movie?" It's really unfortunate when you watch a movie and suddenly realize that the topic of murdering newborns has become more preferred.

Midway through the film I just got downright bored. In fact, it was at this point, right as my boredom was setting in, that my wife admitted to me that she never watched the film the whole way through. This was followed with punishment by tickling.

There are also some annoying plot holes that come from this little road trip. Like how did Jason manage to have enough money not only for hotel rooms, but a rental car? And where did he pick the car up? How long did he reserve it? Where did he return it? I've rented plenty of cars in my time - they're definitely not cheap, and they're not easy to acquire. Also, Bmac is supposed to be knowledgeable of VW vans, but his idea of sleeping in it is to do so in the two front seats (they're famous for having enough sleeping space in the back). When a beach cop (Robert Amaya, a.k.a Javier in Courageous) catches them with their van parked on an endangered sea turtle dune, he just up and lets them all go without another thought because Hannah says she's trying to find her aborting mother (yeah, sure, like any cop would just immediately believe that, or overlook endangering sea turtles). When Hannah and Jason break into the abandoned hospital where she was born, the lights somehow still work. When Hannah meets the nurse who signed her birth certificate, they sit down for a drink...with it having been established that Jason was outside in the car. Really? They're just going to have him sit out in the car while they enjoy a little chit chat? They're not going to at least invite him in or something? In one scene, Hannah makes a big deal out of her being a virgin, and not wanting to sleep in the same bed as Jason...and then a few minutes later they're falling asleep on the couch together, cuddled up. It's also hard to believe that while Jason is established as the "popular" boy, someone like Rachel Hendrix would not have been popular among young males. Yes, I know her health problems would have probably driven a lot away, but it's hard to imagine that she would be the "outcast" at any school.

When the goofy road trip plot gets abandoned, and we return to the main storyline, the film's quality actually turns for the better. The filmmakers actually did handle the conflict well, especially in regards to dealing with the issues of forgiveness and moving on. While I've been critical of the script's handling of characters in the first half, I do have to admit that I felt for Hannah in regards to her relationship with her natural mother (Shari Rigby), and then later with her adoptive parents.

One thing I was surprised with, however, were the theological issues that weren't explored. For example, I was expecting someone to bring up the issue of adoption in its relationship to Christ and our own adoption (Ro 8:15; Ga 4:5; Ep 1:5), and there were a few parts where Hannah and her adoptive parents could have explored that or represented it in a clearer light. In fact, Hannah is generally portrayed as disrespectful to her parents, and though the two groups reconcile somewhat near the end, nothing deeper is explored. I also couldn't help but somewhat roll my eyes at the part where a policeman tells Hannah something to the effect of, "Hate the crime, not the criminal," an obviously secularized version of the saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Really, the highlights of the film for me were the parts actually related to the abortion plot and not the love story or road trip elements, as well as Robert Amaya's cameo appearance. The clip over the end credits, where the audience hears the testimony of Shari Rigby and her own real life abortion, was touching, but one has to make their way through the entire movie to get there. All the faults sadly turn it into a mediocre Christian film that tries to entertain its audience more than edify them. If I had to grade it like a film critic, I would probably give it 3/5 stars. If you're looking to watch a Christian movie, this film might entertain you. If you're looking for a great movie that might edify you and give you something more to chew on than most films nowadays do, then I would unfortunately suggest you look elsewhere.

What Francis Chan attending OneThing means

Francis Chan is set to attend the OneThing Conference held by the International House of Prayer every year in Kansas City. When I first heard this, I was somewhat shocked by this, as I had heard about Francis Chan and listened to him speak some years ago, and had some respect for him. As I've come to find out, this may simply be the culmination of Chan's fellowship with those at the 2012 Passion Conference, as well as Rick Warren and other false teachers (see here). I had tried to look for a way to contact Francis Chan privately to communicate with him and try to inform him of the teachings and falsified accounts that have come from IHOP-KC, only to find it very difficult to reach him (his own website offers no personal email address, claiming he is too busy with his own ministry to answer questions). In light of what I've recently learned about him, it could be that he would not be interested in what others have to say on the matter.

However, this post is not about Francis Chan himself. Rather, Christians concerned about IHOP-KC need to realize that the inclusion of Francis Chan, an otherwise well known and respected pastor (to some), for the OneThing conference bodes something deeper within the Houses of Prayer, especially those under Mike Bickle. That is...the movement is starting to go through a decline.

Recently, I've been receiving a good number of emails and phone calls from people who have either left IHOP-KC, or are still attending but have yet to leave either for personal or financial reasons (in fact, there's apparently an "underground church" of sorts at IHOP-KC, made up of members who know the movement is presenting false doctrine or is rife with problems). One source told me that the number of interns has dropped dramatically, estimating somewhere from about 400 per quarter to around 100 (these may not be exact numbers, but the point is the decrease is noticeable). Another source has told me that Mike Bickle has admitted to various leaders, behind closed doors, that the "vision for IHOP is at its lowest point," and they "need people to buy into the movement."

Why is there a decline? There are two reasons we can bring up:

Partially it's because those who are leaving the movement based on various bad experiences are telling their friends and associates, and hence causing a detriment to potential interns or employees.  Interestingly enough, most of the people who leave do so not on the realization of theological error (though those sorts of people do exist, and tend to be the ones to contact me), but rather are those who cannot balance supporting a family and having a job with putting dozens of hours into the prayer room and other IHOP-KC related responsibilities. It has also been pointed out that Mike Bickle is infamously anti-conflict - not only against critics, but for all problems relating between people in his ministry. Whenever conflict arises, things are either covered up (such as an IHOP-KC leader who was caught soliciting prostitutes) or people are told to "simply pray about it." Because of this, much doesn't get resolved among the interns and workers, and so many simply choose to leave when it becomes too stressful or aggravating.

Partially it's because of the internet, and the fact that so much has been written or spoken of on IHOP-KC, exposing its false doctrine, its teachings, and the various inconsistencies behind the "Prophetic History" Bickle presents. Major Christian apologists or teachers like Todd Friel, Phil Johnson, Chris Rosebrough, Matt Slick, and others have spoken on the group, so it's not like the sources of criticism have been minor or on the fringe. Influential voices from various ministries, cult watchdogs, and apologetic groups are telling their listeners that something is afoul in Kansas City.

The point is, as much as IHOP-KC would like to keep their problems behind closed doors and pretend they don't exist, the word is getting out there about what is unfolding in Kansas City. While many people are getting convinced that they need to be part of an "Anna anointing" for the generation expecting to see the return of the Lord, God, by His grace, is using the internet to warn others of the dangers behind the Houses of Prayer. Likewise, the Lord is using one-on-one testimony from IHOP-KC expatriates to warn others of what they might encounter in the movement.

Hence this is why popular pastors like Francis Chan and others are being invited to speak at major IHOP-KC conferences like OneThing. It is, in fact, the same reason John Piper had Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God conference, and why TD Jakes was invited to speak at the Elephant Room: there needs to be a PR shift, and a wider audience needs to be reached. IHOP-KC needs someone to come in from the outside and support them, so that they can turn around and tell people, "See? We're legitimate. We're not a cult. We don't have any major theological problems. There's nothing under the surface. We're just like any other ministry." Like Bickle said, IHOP-KC needs people to "buy into the movement."

Will it work? Perhaps. Then again, it doesn't appear like many people have come to accept Rick Warren as legitimate, or TD Jakes as legitimate, who were not already inclined to think so - it only fed the fuel for those who wanted either Warren or Jakes to be seen as actual teachers by critics. No doubt IHOP-KC and their supporters will reference Francis Chan's speaking at OneThing 2013 as a sign that they are a normal, orthodox ministry that should be accepted by all Christians (as Allen Hood attempted to do so with similar arguments at OneThing VA Beach). Will it convince those who have heard from former IHOP-KC members about the dangers of the movement, or those who have been warned by others about the theological errors of Bickle & Co? Most likely not. There might be some exceptions, of course, but, given precedence, there is great doubt this will do anything significant.

The fact is, IHOP-KC will continue as is, as more and more people leave from the unresolved conflict Bickle causes with his policies, or as more and more people become aware of the errors stemming from Bickle's teachings. Most interesting will be what happens if Bickle finally falls or passes away, or even as it becomes clearer and clearer that the quick return of Christ expected by Bickle will not happen, and more and more become disillusioned. It could the movement will reform itself to be less eschatology-minded (as the Seventh Day Adventists did), or it may depart further and further away from the teachings of their founder and closer to a complete, sincere reliance on scripture (as the Worldwide Church of God did after the death of Herbert W. Armstrong); it could very well splinter into many other groups, or just gradually decrease altogether into a shadow of what it once was. We won't know for sure, and I'm not pretending to know myself, but if things continue as is, something will happen.

In the meantime, our role is to pray for those involved at IHOP-KC, and pray that God delivers them from the wolves they are under, and the strong delusions placed upon them. Let them go somewhere that will give them the Gospel on a regular basis, and give them the spiritual nourishment they truly need. Pray for their souls, and pray for their personal and spiritual freedom.

Podcast: A Christmas Shoes Rant

In this podcast, I listen to and rant about the song The Christmas Shoes, with some help from my wife.



Here's a link to the original blog post.

Joe Riddle and Revelation 5:12

One thing I've noticed about large churches or ministries is that, whenever they ask for money or try to inspire the people to give money, they almost always have to find a verse to do so - and most of the time, it's a verse that has little to anything to do with giving, tithing, or similar. For example, Wes Hall of the International House of Prayer, while speaking at OneThing VA Beach, took the story of Cornelius the Centurion from Acts 10, quoted how Cornelius "gave alms generously" in verse 2, and tried to inspire the people to likewise give their generously (despite the fact this wasn't what the passages were commanding).

Another example I heard the other night, while watching Wave Church's online broadcast of their six o'clock Sunday services. Joe Riddle, the young adults pastor of Wave Church, while the offering plate was being passed around, turned to a passage from the Revelation of John to substantiate the need to give to your church. He specifically quoted Revelation 5:12, which reads (I'm quoting here from the ESV):

saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”

What Joe Riddle did was take the use of the word "wealth" and say, "See? God deserves even our finances!" Thus, people there were to take Revelation 5:12 as inspiration to give money to Wave Church. As many former members of Wave Church have told me, getting your money is something Steve Kelly and his leaders are rather adamant about.

The question for us, in any case, is whether or not Revelation 5:12 is truly teaching that we are supposed to give money to our church.

Let's first recognize some context of what is being spoken of here: the people speaking are the "myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands" (NASB) of angels on the scene (see v. 11) who are joining in with the previous praises said by the living creatures and elders in vv. 8-10. While many commentators view the living creatures and elders as a summary of creation and the church, the angels obviously represent the heavenly bodies. We see this as a gradual culmination of praise that reaches its climax in verse 13, where all created beings - heavenly and earthly - join together in praise of God.

This tells us that angels are singing this in the verse, not people. Are we therefore to expect that angels are singing that God deserves their finances? Do angels tithe? Does this mean angels have paying jobs with incomes from which they tithe? If not, what then do they tithe? From what financial account do angels give?

Some will probably contend here that the angels are singing about what man should do, to which we should move on to the second point: there are seven specific traits here mentioned of God being worthy to receive. They are:

• Power
• Wealth
• Wisdom
• Might
• Honor
• Glory
• Blessing

If we are supposed to assume, from Joe Riddle's interpretation of "wealth," that these are things we give to God, then we must likewise presume, in order to be consistent, that all the other traits are things we likewise give to God. Do we therefore give God power? Do we give God wisdom? Do we give God might, honor, glory and blessing? Remember, these are all nouns, not verbs (we cannot say "glory" means "to give glory," as we would in prayer or thanksgiving). We would have to presume that God is somehow lacking in wisdom, or might, or honor, and so He would require this from us. I hope the reader will forgive me for what may be lazy Bible study, but permit me here to say that I am certain most Christians would recognize God is not lacking in any of those, and needs them from no one, therefore there is no need for me to present scriptural evidence for the positive case.

What, therefore, is the context of this passage? It would help to notice that the wording in this version is making reference to a common rabbinical way of describing God: that He has power, wealth, wisdom, might, honor, glory and blessing. These are traits God possesses, and which He is worthy of possessing. It is worth noting that, as this verse is speaking of Christ (the "Lamb who was slain"), this passage is a good example to prove the divinity of Christ is taught in scripture.

In any case, what is the "wealth" spoken of in this verse? The root word for wealth (πλοῦτος) can also refer to "abundance," which can be used for earthly or spiritual things. In the context of that which God has, we know that God isn't like the dragon Smaug, sitting atop a mountain somewhere cuddling with a huge pile of gold. Rather, scripture always speaks of God's gifts in a spiritual context, either having an abundance of something or presenting something to humanity in abundance. We can clearly see this in other verse which speak of God's riches or gifts, such as Romans 2:4, Ephesians 1:7, 1:18, 2:7, 3:8 and 3:16, Colossians 1:27 and 2:2, Hebrews 11:26, or James 1:17. It is also worth noting that, in the New Testament, whenever πλοῦτος is used in regards to earthly riches, it is almost always in a negative context (see Mt 13:22; Mk 4:19; Lk 8:14; Jas 5:2, etc.), whereas when it is spoken of in regards to spiritual riches, it is always in a positive context (see especially 1 Tim 6:17). 

So is Revelation 5:12 about us giving money to Wave Church, let alone any church? No, it's not. The wealth spoken of here is God's wealth, and that which He lovingly bestows upon those who call upon His name. They are freely given, and they are given out of love and gracious providence. They do not require giving, tithing, or any other "if/then" statement. Keep in mind that I am not writing Christians shouldn't give or support their local church, only that this verse does not speak of such a thing, and to distract people from the context of this verse is to distract them from the love and beneficence of God. It turns something which God possesses in full to something that is required of us to do.

As usual, the leadership of Wave Church are not afraid to abuse the context of scripture to obtain money from their congregation and followers. They are the false teachers whom the apostle Peter warned would, out of greed, exploit their people with false words (cf. 2 Pe 2:3). Those attending Wave Church I would exhort to leave, and never look back. Flee from the wolves, and seek a Bible-honoring church in which you can grow and be edified.

Where are the husbands?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast: The State of African Christianity Today

Is there revival going on in Africa right now? Or is there a greater need for reform? Find out in this podcast as I'm joined by brother Kofi from the Fiery Logic blog. We discuss the history of Christianity in Africa, how the Word of Faith and Hyper-Charismatic movements became so big, what things are like now, and even how the situation can change.



Some additional links:

The video of "Bishop" Oyedepo slapping a poor young lady in front of the congregation.

An article by Conrad Mbewe that explains much of the cultural context of what was discussed in the podcast.

Another article by brother Mbewe, this one also discussing the religious state of many African churches.

A brief documentary from Kenya showcasing the corruption and false theology in many of these churches.

A Brief Thought on Criticism and Discussion

Since I and fellow bloggers Steven and Kofi did our collaborative podcast regarding Michael Brown's support of Mike Bickle and other false teachers, there has been some response to the episode. Most of it was fairly positive, but some was not. This, of course, is not bad in and of itself.

What I could not help but notice, however, was that the criticism tended to follow the same format:

1. The person makes a statement of criticism.
2. A request is made to substantiate the statement.
3. Either the person employs a burden of proof fallacy, or the statement is simply repeated.
4. Another request is made to substantiate the statement.
5. The person either backs down immediately, or simply refuses to offer any substantiation.

For example, I received an email from someone accusing me, Steven and Kofi of being ungracious and unnecessarily mocking of men like Brown or Bickle. When I asked him to tell me where, in the podcast, any of us had been ungracious or mocking. He told me to listen to the podcast again. I told him I had, and wasn't aware of anywhere that I had been ungracious or mocking towards people. He said that it was probably fine then, and then later admitted that a friend of his listened to the podcast and couldn't find anything ungracious or mocking.

I was then accused of having, in essence, a personal vendetta against IHOP-KC, and that my criticism of them was really minor and not worth denying that Mike Bickle and his peers are true believers. I asked the person to interact with what I had written and said on the subject, and show me where I was overstepping my bounds and to demonstrate that I simply had a personal vendetta against them. After much prodding to do this, the person replied, and I quote: "I don't have the time or the interest."

Immediately, I had deja vu regarding my interaction with Michael Brown (see here and here). Namely, a refusal to read criticism of a certain false teacher, a refusal to interact with what a person has said about the false teacher...and yet, a strong condemnation of what the person has said regarding the false teacher. The mindset of some people seems to be, "I don't know what you believe or why you believe it...but it's wrong." Such a mindset is neither gracious nor rational.

This mindset, indeed, is one that has already made it's mind up. It doesn't matter what Mike Bickle, Rick Joyner, and countless other false teachers could teach, or what they might teach, the fact is they fit the standard for a biblical teacher in the individual's mind, and that's that. Anyone who opposes this false teacher is automatically in the wrong, even if they may have valid reasons for it. In fact, said valid reasons aren't even considered. They are instead automatically deemed irrelevant without being examined, or at best are dismissed in straw man renditions. Sadly, this kind of thinking is all too common in Hyper-Charismatic circles, where the cult-like mentality of "Don't touch God's anointed" and "Don't pass any form of judgment on anyone ever" becomes a repeated mantra that ignores all teachings from scripture regarding biblical discernment. It becomes a veil for someone to hide behind, so that they can ignore the plain truth and love a lie. Brothers, this is not how it should be.

If we are to enter discussion on the topic, we must do so with a desire to examine and see, from scripture and plain reason, if what is taught is indeed truth and honesty. If we truly worship He who is Truth, then let us show that we are Truth's disciples.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part V

Here is the final part in our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Thoughts on the "Sons of God" and the Nephilim

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. [Genesis 6:1-4]

These verses present one of the more interesting moments in scripture, which has created a lot of theology and stirred a debate or two. The belief held by some is that the "sons of God" are angels, who came down and married, and procreated with, women, resulting in the creation of "giants" (the Nephilim). This was a Rabbinical tradition, likewise recorded down by the Jewish historian Josephus:

For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. [Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:3:1; source]

It was also seen in some early Church Fathers, such as the second century apologist Athenagoras:

Some [angels]...created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them...these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants. [Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, XXIV; source]

Let's take a moment to examine this passage of scripture, and do so by examining two points:

The Identity of the "Sons of God"

Many people, as we've seen, identify the "sons of God" as fallen angels, who went to earth and procreated with human women. This is partially because the term "sons of God" is used in reference to angels in the book of Job (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7), as well an assertion that Jude's epistle states the fallen angels engaged in sins of the flesh:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 1:6-7]

However, the term "sons of God" is likewise use in reference to believers, especially in the New Testament (Matt 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26). The similar phrase "children of God" is likewise used to refer to believers, both by the apostle Paul (Rom 8:16, 21; 9:8; Php 2:15) and the apostle John (John 1:12, 11:52; 1 John 2:28, 3:1, 10; 5:2).

In like manner, the words in Jude's epistle do not explicitly clarify that these angels are the "sons of God" seen in Genesis 6. We must likewise consider the full context of what Jude has written:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 1:3-7]

Jude explains that he had begun a letter talking about faith in general, but felt compelled to write about a serious topic: false teachers had infiltrated the churches. He then goes into examples of how those who disobeyed and rebelled against God were treated in the past: many saved out of Egypt were punished for unbelief, fallen angels were put in eternal chains as a result of their rebellion, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their immorality. Those who attempt to tie in the fallen angels with Sodom and Gomorrah forget that these three examples are all one train of thought. They also forget the example of the people fleeing Egypt - were these people also guilty of sexual sins? Perhaps as much as everyone is, but Jude's point in citing them is irrelevant to the matter of sexual purity. The use of "which likewise indulged" in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah is most likely referring back to the false teachers mentioned earlier, whom Jude will make mention of as "defiling the flesh" (v. 8). Jude's point in this discussion is to cite various examples of those who sinned against God for various purposes. He does this again when he cites Cain, Balaam, and Korah together (v. 11) - obviously these three men were not guilty of the same exact crime, but were all guilty before God for specific, unique crimes. Therefore, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be tied backwards into the fallen angels, and hence it is assumed that these fallen angels engaged in sins of the flesh.

Perhaps the most problematic part of assuming that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are angels is the fact that they said to have married daughters of men. Why is this problematic? Because, as Christ himself said, angels do not marry.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." [Matt 22:30; see also Mark 12:25]

In this verse, Christ is talking to the Sadducees about the resurrection and the place of marriage, and says that those in the resurrection live like the angels in heaven. One trait is that the angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage." We therefore have a dilemma here, as either: 1) Christ gave a contradiction, as clearly there's an example early on in scripture where angels marry and were given to marriage; or 2) the "sons of God" are in fact not angels. The only logical course would be to assume that the "sons of God" are not angels.

If the "sons of God" are not angels, then who were they? That answer comes with the age old rule of reading: context, context, context. Genesis 6 comes from a long narrative in Genesis 4 and 5, detailed the lineage of both Cain and Seth. Seth's lineage especially continues all the way down to Noah, who takes center stage in Genesis 6. It is likewise said during the beginning of Seth's lineage that "at that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Ge 4:26). Following this trail of thought all the way to Genesis 6, we have to conclude that the "sons of God" are those early believers, and the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain, who were not believers. The two begin to mingle and marry in Genesis 6, and scripture always presents negative results when believers are swayed by unbelievers in marriage. We see this in Genesis 6:5, where, after the procreation, wickedness is said to have filled the earth.

The Identity of the Nephilim

Most people are more familiar with the translation of "giants" for the word Nephilim. This was how the word was translated in many older translations, in particularly the KJV, the latter of whom has given a great influence on how we understand certain wordings within scripture. The very word nephilim (נפלים), however, is of unknown origin, as the NET notes explain. Many commentators believe that it comes from the word naphal (נפל), meaning "to fall."

The use by some translations of the word "giants" most likely comes from two sources: the only other use of the word, in Numbers 13:33, in which another group of Nephilim are described as being of great height; the Septuagint, which renders the word here in Genesis 6 as γίγαντες, from which we get the word "gigantic."

Many assume that the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men. The argument they make is, "Would two normal people be able to produce a giant?" However, scripture seems to suggest they existed at the same time. Genesis 6 reads that the Nephilim were already on the earth "in those days," when the sons of God and daughters of men procreated, as well as "afterward." In other words, you have two parallel timelines: you have the sons of God and the daughters of men marrying and procreating; at the same time, you have the Nephilim frolicking across the land. Therefore, we cannot immediately assume that the Nephilim here are the results of the breeding between the Sons of God and Daughters of Men.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part IV

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of Matthew Gallatin handling the question of whether or not Romans 9 teaches predestination and election.

A Salute to John Knox

When Reformation Day was around the corner, I was studying the life and times of John Knox, the Scottish Reformer: what he said, what he believed, what he put up with, etc. Each Reformer seemed to live a unique life, in one way or another, and Knox is certainly no exception: from his days as a bodyguard to George Wishart, to his time as a tutor of children at St. Andrews, to his two years as a galley slave for a French ship, to his time in the Church of England, his time in Geneva, and finally his time of sincere Reformation in Scotland, including the four big meetings with the Queen Mary.

Knox was definitely not a politically correct man, by today's standards that is. He called the pope the Antichrist, called the Latin mass idolatry, and openly said Purgatory was a fiction. When compelled to venerate a statue of the Virgin Mary on a French galley, he replied by tossing it into the river and assuring them that she was light enough to swim. He annoyed Anglican bishops by speaking out against anything resembling the Roman church, campaigning especially to remove any worship of the host during communion. Even when Scotland was ruled by a queen who was popular among the people, Knox was not afraid to call her out for her political or religious faults - either from the pulpit or to her face. At his funeral, the Regent of Scotland said, "Here lies one who never feared the face of man."

You have to look at us today and ponder if we are willing to be as bold as Knox is. Are we willing to tell others they're wrong? Are we willing to speak out against false Christianity when we see it? Are we not afraid of offending everyone when we believe the right thing needs to be said? Or are we willing to forgo error for the sake of "charity" or "unity"? Are we willing to speak out against national leaders and church officials alike? Can it truly be said that we never fear the face of man?

Let us pray that God grants us to be as brave as Knox was, and that many more men like Knox will arise in the centuries to come. Amen.

Special Podcast: Michael Brown and Mike Bickle

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

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



My open letter to Michael Brown can be read here.

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

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part III

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

Follow Up: My Open Letter to Michael Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown on Mike Bickle

To Dr. Michael Brown;

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

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

Greetings, sir;

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

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

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

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

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

God bless;

Tony-Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless,

Tony-Allen

The False Drought Prophecy of Bob Jones

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

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

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

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part II

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

The Unwritten "Word of God"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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