book review—Forever Ruined for the Ordinary by Joy Dawson

basically completely unbiblical

I simply have a hard time believing anyone takes the teachings and methods in this book seriously. How can anyone with an ounce of discernment think this author is teaching them anything biblical in this book?

“I want to make it crystal clear that we should never just open the Bible randomly, and casually put our finger on a verse, and automatically go and do whatever it says. What if we did that and read that Judas hanged himself (see Matthew 27: 5), then repeated the action, and landed upon the verse which says “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10: 37)?” (Kindle Locations 551-553). Yet what she recommends is not really any better. Many of the stories she relates about herself and others involve taking biblical verses and even phrases out of context, and pretending that they have a meaning that they don't have. She relates telling a young man to marry a certain woman because of a phrase in II Kings 14. a phrase that in context was used in a mocking way. She relates a time a woman got her pastor to pay for a friend to attend a conference based solely on the fact that she opened her Bible and found her pastor's name in Ezekial 27:15, without regard to the context of that verse.

She calls this “quickening”. Another reviewer compares it to the Magic 8-Ball toy, which I think is more accurate. The Bible nowhere teaches or encourages such a haphazard and trite way of reading and understanding the Bible. Worse, I think this is a kind of fortune-telling, and simply because it involves using the Bible doesn't make it any better; if anything, it makes it worse, because it trivializes the Word of God. Instead of encouraging people to a serious study of biblical teachings, this encourages them to simply open up the Bible and scan the pages until something “pops out!”, or to think they are getting random biblical verses in their minds and then try to shoehorn what that verse says into some kind of personal message for them and their situations.

This book is all law, all legalism. You have to do things her way, you have to do all of the steps she tells you to do, you have to follow all of her principles, and if you fail at even one point, well, you may get some bad messages from demons, you may act presumptuously, you may get kidnapped, or you may end up not being able to speak at all. But the steps and principles she's made up are not anywhere found in the Bible. No epistle teaches that, if the people in the churches want to get messages from God, then they need to silence their own voices, rebuke demons, then sit around quietly until God finally decides to give them some kind of unclear message or out-of-context scriptural passage.

“Unconditional obedience is the key to a successful Christian life. Think about that!” (Kindle Locations 1546-1547). There may be some truth there, but it's only at best half of the truth. Because none of us are completely or unconditionally obedient. There is little hint in such a mindset that one would join Paul in lamenting “Oh wretched man that I am, who shall save me from this body of death”, or in agreeing with him that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief”.

If the misuse of biblical passages isn't enough of a bad sign for you, here's a pretty plain one—she recounts in this book a time this “god” who speaks to her in feelings and impressions wanted her to do something in support of something Benny Hinn was doing. Hinn is a known false prophet, a fake healer, a prosperity gospel shill who has enriched himself with false promises and false words he claims are from God, he has even preached that we are “little gods”. The God of the Bible would not tell someone to do anything in support of such a false minister.

But I do think that there might be a few people who could be grateful for this book, those who work at putting together conferences and scheduling speakers for them, because this author would likely be a nightmare for them to deal with or to trust.

As someone who was in YWAM for a few years, I'm very glad to be away from this kind of feelings-based way of trying to figure out God's will. Sadly, I was one of those people who took these kinds of teachings seriously, trying to look inside myself and interpret my feelings to see what God might be trying to say to me through them. Perhaps it goes without saying, but it was incredibly unhelpful and very untrustworthy. Reading a book like this now, I can see how unbiblical this author's teachings are.

book review—The Power of Uncommon Unity by Joey Letourneau

fairy tale theology

I got a copy of this book when the publisher offered it for free.

This book is far too long. If someone had made him to cut out all the needless repetitions, this book may well have been about half it's current size.

I hardly know where to begin in properly critiquing the unholy mess that is this book.

First, I seriously think that this author has never read the Bible. Oh, he has his pet verses he hauls out ad nauseam, thinking they prove his points when they actually don't. But any hint of a serious study of what the Bible teaches is missing in the book, and his conclusions have little if anything to do with what any passage says.

For example, his mangling of the story of Jacob in this book is enough to disqualify him from any pretense of being a Christian minister. “Jacob received the blessing from his father, Isaac, and became a renewed person.” (p. 8). Where does the account of Jacob tricking his father tell us that he became a renewed person? It ain't there. “Jacob was about to leave to begin blazing the trail that was alive within him when his father, Isaac, blessed him again:” (p. 9). This is laughable! Jacob left because Esau was making plans to kill him for his trickery. And blazing the trail that was alive with him? What kind of nonsense rhetoric is that! “But we see that Jacob arrives at Bethel and he is at rest. He is not striving to prove himself or create significance.” (p. 11). It was night! Jacob was sleeping, what most people do at night! This guy's attempts to read his ideas into Jacob's life are so pathetic, that they cross over into the comedic!

Oh, and what he does to the account of Jesus raises Lazarus is, if anything, even worse. “Lazarus was wearing grave clothes, probably could have been considered unclean and in need of some help before he could go forward in life. Even Martha, who so eagerly waited for the miracle she wanted, couldn’t help but focus on the stench of death.” (p. 49). When Martha spoke about the smell, it was when her brother was still dead. “Rather, Jesus called out the life in Lazarus knowing that death would be left behind as Lazarus began to live forward. Jesus spoke to the potential of life within him, “Lazarus, come forth!” (John 11: 43).” (p. 50). What??? There was no life in Lazarus! He was DEAD!!! He had been DEAD for a few days! Lazarus didn't begin to live forward (whatever that means), he was brought back to life. There was no potential of life in him, Jesus himself made a dead man alive again.

Shall I go on? He tries to say that we have to be “shaken”, because of something that happened to a small group of people in the account in Acts 4. That is never taught in Scripture. “How many of us are waiting to be lifted into the same palace of our calling as Joseph was? That palace is waiting for you too, but it might not be where you thought it would be.” (p. 66). The account of Joseph is not intended to tell us that we all have some kind of real or metaphorical palace just waiting for us, any more than the account of Moses tells us we have to leave the palace and go into the wilderness.

This guy's main idea is unity. That's all well and good, but for all of his words in this too-long book, we get very little notion of what that unity is to be built around. And Christian unity is built around certain things. Read the epistles, and you'll see that those who tried to come into the churches and teach against sound doctrine, for example saying that Gentile Christians needed to put themselves under the Mosaic law, or that Christ had already returned, or attempted to add any works to salvation, were decried in the harshest terms. The early church was hardly a big tent.

But this guy's rhetoric is postmodern. “Unity in the Spirit is a seemingly misaligned alignment held together by the One who celebrates our diversity and created us to come together not in spite of, but because of our differences.” (from the Introduction). What diversity are you talking about? “The Father’s Blessing changes this; it embraces the differences in our lives and releases us to approve and empower the differences in others.” (p. 6). What differences are you talking about?

This isn't just a nitpicky set of questions. One of this author's other books, Revolutionary Freedom, has a positive review in it from Shane Claiborne, who is a part of the Emergent Church, someone way far to the left on theological and social issues. Any “unity” that welcomes someone like Claiborne is not Christian unity. The author favorably quotes Bill Johnson in this book. Any “unity” that welcomes Bill Johnson is not Christian unity. The author writes of the nonsense that happened in Toronto as if it were from God, which is wasn't. Any “unity” that says that is not Christian unity.

In the end, this book is more fairy tale than theology. As I've shown in a few examples, this guy doesn't tell us what the Bible says, he creates his own ideas and adds a little seasoning of biblical verses to make it seem like biblical teaching. His rhetoric about some special generation reveals him to be an NAR dominionist, but one with a postmodern twist. It's not the first time I've noticed the young NAR types sliding to the left, and it's not surprising, given that both the NAR and progressive theology are build on foundations of extra-biblical thought and whatever feels nice.

book review--Life Outside the Matrix by Venetia Carpenter

freeloader theology

In his book Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, Michael Horton wrote "So much of what I am calling "Christless Christianity" is not profound enough to constitute heresy...the message of American Christianity has simply become trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant." This book, "Like Outside the Matrix", perfectly fits that category. Although a few statements do indicate some aberrant beliefs, overall the book is so shallow and silly, it's difficult to imagine people taking it seriously. But, given the state of the church nowadays, the profane is often called profound.

The basic premise of the book is this, "Jesus was actually asking me to quit my full-time job, sit in prayer before Him for extended hours, journal what He was showing me, and trust Him for all my provision." (Kindle Locations 152-153). And what was one way she was taken care of? "As I began to do this I was led to food and household provision through friends who actually provided me with these things free of charge!" (Kindle Locations 187-188).

What reasons would I have to doubt that she got those instructions from Jesus? Take a look at II Thessalonians 3:6-12, and see if that passages in any way recommends this kind of freeloader non-activity. If anything, it is very much against it. "6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Paul in this context even gives the command, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat".

This author's statement that Jesus told her to quit her job and do nothing to earn her living is directly against Paul's statements and example, and I'll take Paul over this author any day. This woman received no such command from Jesus.

This author tries to convince the reader that they need to see into something she called "the supernatural realm". This is something the Bible says nothing about , she must simply attempt to insert it into a few verses. "The more I pondered this verse (Hebrews 11:6), I came to realize that the supernatural realm is really our birthright as believers." (Kindle Location 170). A look at the verse, and it's context, has nothing to do with any supernatural realm.

And the trite and shallow nature of this book is also evident in how Jesus is written about. Jesus becomes a car lot owner who wants to put you in a sweet ride, a metaphor for provision. Jesus is the partner who's waiting to give you those provisions if you look into the realm of the spirit. "Our partnership with Him calls things into being on this earth even though our physical eyes can't see them right away." (Kindle Locations 360-361), even though the Bible never says that we are able to call things into being. This is simply Word of Faith nonsense.

I got an e-book copy of this book when Destiny Image offered it for a free, and that may well be the only good thing about this book. I'd hate to think that the money I worked long and hard for would end up going to someone promoting this kind of freeloading theology.

book review--The Voice by Don Nori

faulty premise leads to other faulty teachings

I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program.

The main problem with this book is that it's based on a faulty premise. "Yes, the Voice of God speaks to true intercessors", p. 38. "The Voice has much to say; as we hear, feel, and respond to the Voice, Heaven and Earth are forever changed." p. 41. We must let the River of His Voice literally gush forth from deep within our spirits, and then flow out to the spiritual wasteland that is all around us." p. 12

The problem with this striving to hear some kind of voice inside of us is this--the Bible never tells us to do that. When God spoke to the prophets and apostles, He did not do so through some ultra-quiet, difficult to hear inner voice. He came in instances like the burning bush, He gave them dreams and visions, He spoke directly to them. Even when he spoke to the prophet Elijah in a still, quiet voice, he did not speak to him with quiet inner voice, but with a voice that the prophet heard with his ears. God's messages to them were clear, they did not have some vague inner feelings that they had to try to create some interpretations for.

Seeing this faulty premise, it's easy to see how much of the rest of the book goes astray. For example, he tries to create a type of elite "true intercessors" that the Bible says nothing about, and the things he teaches about these "true intercessors" are rather odd. "True intercessors don't take prayer requests." p. 40. Really? Ok, I'll be sure to not tell any "true intercessor" my concerns. "There is only one allegiance, to God alone. Personal desires have no place counseling God." p. 40. Considering that it is God Himself who has invited us to "let your request be made known to God", then I can only think that there is certainly a place for letting God know our personal desires. It may be said that our prayers should be about more than just our wants, but there seems to be no biblical call for us to try to be so spiritual that we ignore our own needs and wants.

Another thing he contends has to do with the Most Holy Place. "For instance, if Christ dwells within, why do we sing, "Come into the Holy of Holies" when we are the Holy of Holies?" p. 134. "Our hearts are the Most Holy Place within which the Presence dwells." p. 180. However, he gives no scriptural support for this contention that we are the Holy of Holies, or that our hearts are the Most Holy Place; in fact, the Bible is rather uncomplimentary about the state of our hearts, calling the heart "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, more than we can understand".

In his chapter titled "Quiet Anarchy", he writes this about the word "anarchy", "This is the word that many folk fear. If you are one of those people who fear this word, close this book and go home. I am sorry. You are not a world-changer." p. 113. Since I see no place in Scripture where we are called to be world-changers, I see no reason to embrace any form of anarchy; in fact, anarchy is a very ungodly concept. It is the Apostle Paul who told the church that they needed to "do all things decently and in order". The New Testament tells us to obey and submit to rulers. We are not to be leftists who think that chaos is a good thing.

The author makes some strange, unsupported contentions. "At one time, such anarchy was seen as pure heresy, rebellion, and immaturity. At one time, though, anarchy was a way of life for all those who truly loved God and sought diligently for a greater truth; to be a believer in Jesus was to openly oppose the government in power." p. 114. Really? Tell us, please, when and where this time was. No, please, do tell, my curiosity is piqued. I'm actually studying early church history right now, and I really haven't seen any time like this, where the church was fomenting anti-government sentiments.

Or this one, "History shows us that the greatest steps in spiritual renewals and advancements were made by those who were regarded by many as heretics, madmen, or worse." p. 123. Since the author does not show us his claim to be true, then why should we believe that history shows it? Who are these "heretics, madmen and worse" that he wants us to admire? Why does he not name them, so that we may determine for ourselves if they are people to be respected and admired?

Probably the most questionable part of the book is the chapter called "Brink of Heresy", as he pretty much says that experience trumps doctrine. "Whether or not they accept the experience is not the issue, for the experience is my reality, and I will not deny it." p. 137. Welcome to Postmodernism, where the only truth is what you experience to be true. Peter Rollins or Tony Jones could write that statement, and I'm not complimenting this author when I compare him to those two.

"It's actually too bad that Bible scholars don't subject their mountains of theology to the same tests as they use on the rest of us!" p. 139. What a nonsense statement! True Bible scholars do subject their doctrine to the same test, "What do the Scriptures say?". That's the test, that's the only test, and that's why this author's teachings fail. "The decision to put their studies above what they witness with their own eyes is both frightening and arrogant." p. 139 The decison to put experiences above sound biblical doctrine is unwise, and arrogant.

While every now and again he does come up with a bit of something that's interesting, it's simply not worth wading through all the unbiblical ideas and mystical mush that he tries to feed us. His unsupported claims make his book come off more as propoganda than any kind of serious biblical teaching. His claim that experience trumps doctrine is a sure road to failure.

book review--Angels in the Realms of Heaven by Kevin Basconi

tedious and scripturally suspect

I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program

Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.

But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.

While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.

Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.

And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.

Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.

Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.

One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.

At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.

This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.

He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?

And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.

To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.

And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.

There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.

mike bickle is a nut (and that's not a compliment)

Last night I just kind of gave an all-over-the-map introduction of Daniel chapter 10, we didn't really go into it, but I gave just a couple of ideas about it, and I would like to go into it a little bit this morning. But I want to say this, for those of you unfamiliar with Daniel 10. It is one of the unique chapters in the Bible for the prayer movement. Daniel 10 draws back the curtain and gives us an insight into the spirit realm, and how intercession moves things in the spirit realm. Angels and demons, how it impacts the cosmic conflict of angels and demons. Daniel 10 is very unique in that it pulls back the curtain to let us see into the realm of the spirit the conflict between angels and demons, but the important part is how the conflict is carried on related to intercession. It's not enought to know angels and demons clash, that's not the message of Daniel 10 that angels and demons clash, the message of Daniel 10 is that angels and demons clash ONLY when there's intercession on the Earth. Beloved, I want to stress that. Governmental angels move in governmental ways in the spirit only in response to intercession on the Earth. So the equation, the spiritual equation of this chapter, goes something like this. The angel comes to give Daniel revelation, this revelation invigorates his intercession. The great problem, the great need is the better way to say it, in the prayer movement, is the lack of revelation. Revelation invigorates the human spirit, makes the human spirit mighty in intercession. Intercession causes the angelic armies to move. The conflict in the spirit realm, with angels moving, dislodging demonic powers from their positions of dominance in history. Then, political events happen upon the Earth, and spiritual events happen in the natural related to that cosmic conflict. Let me say it again, because I want you to get this, this is the premise of Daniel 10. Intercessors pray, angels then move, they wait for prayer, they do not move in a governmental way without prayer. The angels then move, the demons are disrupted, the conflict happens in the spirit, then it is manifest in the natural, and history is changed. We want history to be changed by acting in the natural only, and we have to act in the natural, we have to act in the natural, everybody knows that part. History is filled with men and women acting in natural ways. But history will not be changed in its God-ordained path in the natural without the conflict in the spirit happening in the right way. Angels have to go into conflict against demons, and they will not except in response to intercession. That's part of God's governmental administration of the created order. He say "My heart with my people is so important, the entire cosmic battle is in the balance of how my people interact with my heart. If they interact with my heart, I dispatch angels. If they quit interacting with me, I tell the angels to wait."
Mike Bickle, from a video called Introduction to the IHOP-KC Structure and Model, beginning in the first few seconds.

First, here's the chapter in question.

Daniel 10

Wow. Just. Wow.

Ok, where to begin...

Almost the only thing he said here that I have anything approaching agreement with is that Daniel 10 does give us a bit of a glimpse into spiritual conflict. The angel that came to Daniel to deliver the message does say that it had been fighting, and after it left Daniel would continue to fight again. So, there is a modicum of information about this spiritual conflict.

But after acknowledging this bit of agreement, from this point on out, Bickle takes a header off the deep end.

Let's look at some of his statements.

"the message of Daniel 10 is that angels and demons clash ONLY when there's intercession on the Earth."

I've linked to the chapter above, so perhaps you can read it, and see where the chapter says that. Because I'm not seeing it.

Governmental angels move in governmental ways in the spirit only in response to intercession on the Earth.

So, where does the Bible say anything about "governmental angels"? I can't think of much of any mention about that. The closest I can think of is in Daniel 12, when it mentions the angel Michael being "the great prince who has charge of your people." And that's it. There is nothing else about such things.

So the equation, the spiritual equation of this chapter, goes something like this. The angel comes to give Daniel revelation, this revelation invigorates his intercession.

Read Daniel 10-12, or at least look through those chapters quickly. This visit by the angel to Daniel is the last event recorded in the book. There is nothing recorded in the book about anything Daniel did after this. There is nothing said about his prayers of intercession being "invigorated". The only thing the angel tells him to do is in chapter 12, verse 9, when he says "Go your way, Daniel...", and something similar at the very end of the chapter and book, "13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

Revelation invigorates the human spirit, makes the human spirit mighty in intercession. Intercession causes the angelic armies to move.

So, because one angel came in response to Daniel's words, we can conclude that armies of angels move when we intercede? There's a jump in logic, or, dare I say, illogic.

Intercessors pray, angels then move, they wait for prayer, they do not move in a governmental way without prayer.

So, where does this chapter say that? In fact, where does the Bible say anywhere that angels essentially have their hands tied unless someone is praying?

He says, "My heart with my people is so important, the entire cosmic battle is in the balance of how my people interact with my heart. If they interact with my heart, I dispatch angels. If they quit interacting with me, I tell the angels to wait."

This is the most questionable part. True, the quotes are my own insertion, but you can see from his language that Bickle is talking as if God said this. Whether it is a direct quote or a summation, Bickle is still saying that God said this.

Now, where did God say that?

Does this Bible contain those phrases? Where, for example, does the Bible say anything about the importance of "my heart with my people" having any sort of influence on spiritual conflict? Where does the Bible say that God will "dispatch angels" if His people "interact with my heart"?

You can read Daniel 10 again, and see plainly that it ain't there, despite what Bickle claims.

Bickle goes on in this speech about how crucial this chapter is to the church, and how it addresses the modern-day "prayer movement", even comparing his own House of Prayer in Kansas City to the Temple. While this passage in Daniel is important, because it is in the Bible and is a prophetic message, one may wonder why, if it is so important, the New Testament writers do not stress it? While there is teaching in the epistles about the end times, little if any of it references Daniel 10-12.

And if you read Daniel 10-12, you can see why. This prophecy addresses things that relate to Daniel's people, Israel. But so far as I can tell, the Church is basically a non-entity in the things prophecied about, except insofar as it early in Daniel 12 it mentions those whose names "shall be found written in the book", and of those who have died being raised, and some of them "to everlasting life".

How can something who spews such nonsense gain a position of leadership in the church? How can anyone even take him seriously? His words are not in the Bible, they aren't taught there, they aren't even a reasonable supposition from the events in the chapter. This is pathetic. Bickle is shameful, and the church should be ashamed to have allowed this nut to spew his filth in the church.

how could He not have known?

We read in the book of Genesis that God put the stars and the sun and the moon in the sky, to give us signs and seasons, hours, days, and time. So that's an aspect. And I found out that that's where the number twelve came from, ok. So we're going to deal with twelve as a part of this year. The first aspect of twelve that the Lord asked me to tell you is that He is celebrating this year, 2012. And I went, what do you mean? And he said, "Well, symbolically, I was twelve years old when I discovered I was the Son of God". And it hit me. You know, you're right. The only recorded words of Christ in his growing-up years was "Don't you know that I should be about my Father's business?" And the Lord went on to share with me as I was meditating on this, that he came to Jerusalem with the women. It was a tradition for the women, when it was time to go to Jerusalem for the high festivals, to leave early in the morning with the children and the young men who had not gone through bar mitzvah, or who had no gone through becoming a man of the law. And this year was the year of Jesus becoming the man of the law, 2000 years ago, symbolically. I don't know, you know, some people say he was born 3 BC, some right on zero, you know there's all this debate, 4 AD, but for the sake of this discussion, the number twelve, the Lord said to me, He is celebrating the fact that it was the women who brought him to his revelation that he as the Son of Man found out that he was the Son of God, the dual nature of our Messiah, Jesus Christ. And as our pastor has already illustrated to us, I think it was October 1st, that this year we're coming in to, or already begun because of Rosh Hoshonah, is the year of the women. The women are cleaning up things, they're organizing the house, they're taking care of things. Well, in the case of Jesus, they were responsible for bringing Him to His revelation in the year 12 of his life. Amen, that is just so awesome!
Ron Whitehead, speaking at Daystar Church of Atlanta, GA, New Year's Eve 2011, starting about 6 minutes in

Well. that's something...odd. How about if we look at this passage, since he didn't read from it.

lk.2.41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. lk.2.42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. lk.2.43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. lk.2.44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. lk.2.45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. lk.2.46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. lk.2.47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. lk.2.48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. lk.2.49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? lk.2.50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. lk.2.51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. lk.2.52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 165844-165861). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Let me give an excerpt from this same commentary, about a part of this passage.

44. sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances — On these sacred journeys, whole villages and districts travelled in groups together, partly for protection, partly for company; and as the well-disposed would beguile the tediousness of the way by good discourse, to which the child Jesus would be no silent listener, they expect to find Him in such a group.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 69929-69931). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Now, I don't know where this Whitehead guy got that part about Jesus going up to Jerusalem with only the women. The passage is plain that He was with both of His parents, and likely also traveled with quite a few other people there and back. Also, here's another bit from this commentary, about the festivals themselves.

42. went up — "were wont to go." Though males only were required to go up to Jerusalem at the three annual festivals (Ex 23:14-17), devout women, when family duties permitted, went also, as did Hannah (1 Sam 1:7), and, as we here see, the mother of Jesus.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 69907-69910). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Whitehead gives no verifiable source for his claim that Jesus went to Jerusalem with a group of women, except that he seems to claim that this is what the Lord Himself told him personally.

He says that it was a tradition for the women to leave early, and to take their young children with them. Leave from where? Their home towns? Would the women and young children really travel on their own, without husbands and fathers to protect them along the way? Sounds like the peak season for highwaymen and bandits.

And where were the men? Did they just tarry behind for a few days, puttering about, then rush to join the women in the city, assuming the women and children actually made it there?

Nothing in his description of them going to Jerusalem makes sense, and I've tried to record it just as he said it. It makes no sense that women and children would travel alone, unaccompanied by husbands and fathers and other male relatives who would look after them along the way.

Plus, there is the notion that Jesus did not realize He was the Son of God until this time.

We know very little about the childhood of Jesus, having essentially just this one glimpse of Him from that time, and some general descriptions of how He grew in favor with God and men. And I'll admit, there is something that for me is unimaginable about Jesus, God Himself, being taught, for example, how to walk, how to talk, how to read and write, and how to do various other things around the family's home.

The Bible says nothing about Jesus discovering that He was the Son of God at this time in Jerusalem, or that it was something that He needed to discover at all. This is a mystery here, I'll admit, one the Bible doesn't seem to clarify, but I really doubt that He ever didn't not know that He was the Son of God. How could He have lived a sinless life, if He did not know that?

However it was, we can see that what Whitehead is selling is not at all supported in Scripture. As such, then, what he's saying is whacky and simply shouldn't be taken seriously. And it's an indication of just how far from Scripture this church, it's pastor Enlow, and the whole Seven Mountains Mandate they encourage and teach really is.

24-7 prayer and narcigetical video teaching

"Narcigesis" seems to have become quite the popular term, at least in some circles. It's basically a mashing together of the words "narcissistic" and "eisegesis". Narcissitic, you probably know, is unseemly self-love. Eisegesis maybe a more obscure word, but it basically means reading ideas into a text or maybe other things rather then trying to understand what the text is itself saying. Narcigesis is usually being used in regards to the Bible, to how biblical passages, verses, or even verse fragments are being used or misused.

The idea goes something like this--a pastor or some kind of teacher reads a passage or verse, let's say the story of Gideon putting out the fleeces to see if God had really told him to do what he'd been called to do. The pastor then tries to replace Gideon with someone else, maybe himself, maybe his listeners. He teaches that, just as Gideon tested what he had heard from God, so we need to "put out a fleece" to make sure that what we may have heard or thought we'd heard is from God.

(Actually, "heard" is not the right word for what people today experience. Gideon had an angel give him a message, he actually heard real words. People today don't really "hear" anything, they just get strange feelings which, by and large, will be different in a few days)

So, although the Bible in no way commands us to do what Gideon did, we are told that we should do something like it. Not necessarily going outside and putting a piece of wool or other cloth on the ground, of course, but...well, come up with something.

Here is another example, courtesy of 24-7 Prayer.



This man, I think it's Peter Grieg who is the head honcho of the organization, begins by reading John 1:40-42, about Andrew getting his brother Simon and bring him to Jesus, and Jesus giving Simon the name Cephas. All well and good so far, but then...

Dont you love that? This is Jesus meeting the great apostle of the church, Peter, for the first time. And the very first thing his does is, he gives him a nickname, Cephas, Peter, it means 'the rock', of course. And in a way they would all have been sniggering, it was all a joke, because Peter was the least rock-like person ever. He was impetuous, he blew hot and cold, he shot his mouth off. But Jesus saw something different in Peter. And in fact, of course, the history books tell us he went on to be someone who was even faithful to Jesus unto death.

Isn't it amazing that God looks at you today, not as you are with all the problems and struggles you bring in to this day, or even as you were, but he sees you as you will one day be. And so my challenge, my question for you today is, "What are the seeds of brilliance that God has put in you?" "What is the destiny being out-worked in you?" "What is the unique contribution only you can bring to the world for his glory?"

Wow. Just. Wow.

First, here's the passage. Yes, he read it, but then went tangent.

jn.1.40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. jn.1.41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.† jn.1.42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 167503-167508). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Listening to Grieg speak, one would think that Jesus should have felt honored to have finally met "the great apostle of the church, Peter", instead of noting that it was Simon Peter who should have felt honored beyond the telling of it that he should be in the presence of Jesus.

Now, yes, in this passage, Jesus gives Peter a new name. Ok, very well. On the other hand, Jesus didn't seem to be in the habit of changing people's names like that. I can't think of any other disciple to whom He did that. I know there were the Sons of Thunder, the brothers James and John, though I'm not sure if Jesus gave them that nickname or if they were given it elsewhere. But, really, poor Thaddeus and Philip seemed doomed to be just plain Thaddeus and Philip.

It's always interesting to see how people read Peter's life. It seems like every two-bit pastor or teacher wants to claim Peter as their favorite, portraying him as being rather head-long, acting before thinking, sticking his foot in his mouth, if he had two thoughts in his head at the same time they'd complain about the sudden lack of space, and all that. They don't do that to Thomas or Matthew, one may wonder why.

So, does this encounter between Jesus and Peter teach us that God sees us as we one day will be? Now, why didn't Grieg try to take, let's say, an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees, and try to teach this same lesson? Well, I guess that would have been a bit more negative.

I'm rambling a bit here, I fear, so, to finally get to the point...

This passage is not about what a great guy Peter was. It's not about the "seeds of brilliance" in Peter, or some destiny being out-worked in Peter, or Peter's unique contributions. And it for sure isn't about you or me and anything about us.

Andrew did not bring Peter to Jesus so that Jesus could see what a great guy his brother was. He brought Peter to Jesus because Jesus was the Messiah, the Lamb of God who had come to take away the sins of the world.

Peter was like all of us, lost in sins and in need of a savior. Christ died for his sins, just as He died for those of all of us. Jesus loved Peter, not because Peter was a swell guy, because he wasn't. Jesus loves us, but not because we're lovable. We're not, we're filthy in our sins, we have no seeds of brilliance.

God has shown his love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Grieg is playing to your ego. He's trying to sell you Christianity by making you think it's about you and how wonderful a person you are, how much you have to offer.

You have nothing to offer. Nothing. Christ is the one who gave Himself for you, because you couldn't help yourself. You have no seeds of brilliance, your were dead in sins and your attempts at righteousness are as the vilest of rags. Your destiny was hell, but Christ gave Himself so that you might have forgiveness of sins through faith in Him and repentence. You have no unique contribution that God couldn't do without, you are the one who needs Christ's sacrifice.

This video is pathetic. Shame on Peter Grieg for distorting this passage, and trying to make it say things that it shouldn't. Shame on Peter Grieg for teaching things designed solely to tickle itching ears and draw people, not to Christ in repentence, but to his organization so that it will grow.

This marks the official end of my attempts to like or tolerate 24-7 Prayer. I'm done, they've crossed the line, they're concerned only with their own popularity.

the impossible standard

Deuteronomy 28 tells us what it looks like to be the head:

Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come against you one way and flee before you seven ways. The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses, and in all which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
-DEUTERONOMY 28:3-8

The Lord describes blessing in every conceivable way. It even extends to the defeat of all enemies who rise against them. This is clearly and pointedly what life in the promised land is supposed to look like. The enemy will "flee before you seven ways." Though the seven nations are greater and mightier than you, they will run away in seven directions. This promise of blessing is not something to be "named and claimed" while we are committed only to life in the wilderness. That's the central error of the prosperity message-that God wants us to have and be all these things in the wilderness. Only in the active conquest of the seven greater nations will He bless us like this. And there's more:

The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. Then all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to you.
-DEUTERONOMY 28:9-11

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (pp. 183-184). Kindle Edition.

A few things to point out here.

First, who is God talking to here? This is recorded in Deuteronomy, God made this statement to Israel at the of Moses, which means it was said roughly 3,500 years ago. That's a long time ago. I hadn't been born yet, my father hadn't yet been born, even my grandfathers were not yet born. God was speaking to the people alive at that time, and more particularly to the people of Israel, and one could say by extension their descendents after them. It was a promise to a particular people, Israel.

As such, then, this promise is not to the church. The church does not have some kind of metaphorical or spiritual land that we must conquer, somehow analogous to Israel's conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land.

Second, look at this passage. It has a stipulation to it, an "if". I'll single it out here, but keep in mind the context above.

if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.

The promises Enlow refers to are not without condition. They are promises based on Law, conditioned on the obedience of Israel to the Law God had given to them. And dare I say, it had to be a perfect obedience, for as it is written, to keep the whole Law but to violate it on one point is to break the whole Law.

So, Enlow makes a couple of errors here. One is that he's claiming a promise not addressed to him or to the church, and the other is that he is claiming a promise that's conditioned on perfect obedience to the Law, which he as a fallen sinful man cannot accomplish, nor can anyone in the church today.

Only one has lived a sinless life, has lived in perfect obedience to the Law, and that would be Christ.

Israel could not live up to the stipulation of this promise. They failed, and so they did not receive these blessings. But I think that the Bible says that God is not finished with His dealings with Israel, but that's another topic.

This rhetoric of "We should be the head and not the foot" is an insult. It insults those who over the years have had faith in Christ but have struggled in regards to material things because of their beliefs--they were outcast, they were persecuted, they were robbed and beaten, they were persecuted and even martyred. It insults the early church and the Apostles. It is about the Apostles that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4, "1co.4.9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.† 1co.4.10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 1co.4.11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 1co.4.12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 1co.4.13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day." The Apostles certainly weren't treated like the head and not the foot, and in fact did not seem to have much expected to be.

Finally, it is an insult to Christ, who humbled himself to become a man, and became obedient to the point of death by crucifixion, one of the most shameful and painful and humiliating deaths man has deviced. By his own words, He came to serve and to be served. Here is what Isaiah wrote concerning Him.

is.53.1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?† is.53.2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. is.53.3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.† is.53.4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. is.53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.† is.53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.† is.53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. is.53.8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.† is.53.9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.† is.53.10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.† is.53.11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. is.53.12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 144642-144666). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Christ did not live His life on Earth as the head, but the day is coming when He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But we the church are not called to rule in such a way. As it is written somewhere, let us go outside the camp, bearing his reproach. And as Christ Himself said, If they hated Him, they will hate those who love Him.

not something to ask for

Every nation has a redemptive destiny, and the Lord is urging us to ask Him for the nations as an inheritance (Psalm 2:8).

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 26). Kindle Edition.

Sadly, Enlow's mistake here is quite the popular one. In my time with YWAM, it was quite common for someone in prayer to use this bit from Psalm, "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations", and to ask for some nation or another themselves. In their understand, and in that of Enlow, it is us who are being addressed in the Psalm, we who are suppose to ask for the nations, and they will be given to us as an inheritance.

So, let's look at this verse in context.

ps.2.1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?† ps.2.2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, ps.2.3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ps.2.4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. ps.2.5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.† ps.2.6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.† ps.2.7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.† ps.2.8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. ps.2.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. ps.2.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. ps.2.11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ps.2.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 136830-136847). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Look at the verse before 8, v 7, " I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This is obviously a messianic statement, the Lord is speaking to His Son, Christ. Once that is established, we can see when He says to someone "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession", He is still speaking to Christ.

God wasn't and isn't speaking to us in this Psalm. We can learn from it, yes, but let's not pretend that simply because v. 8 has an implied "you" in it that that "you" means, well, you.

It doesn't. You weren't there, the church hadn't even yet been formed, and the Psalms were written several hundreds of years before Pentacost. God is not urging us to ask for the nations as an inheritance, that's just arrogance to even think He would. This Psalm is about Christ, not us.

seven mountains of nonsense

In the chapters of this book I will refer to these foundations of culture, or sectors of society, as "mountains." Revelation 17 describes a "harlot" who sits on a "beast with seven heads" that are "seven mountains." This demonic entity, described as a woman, must be displaced from the mountains, or seats of power. This is our mission that we were co-missioned by Jesus to do.

Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 9). Kindle Edition.

In some episodes of his Fighting for the Faith podcast, Chris Rosebrough has discussed the Seven Mountains dominionist teaching and movement, and one thing he's pointed out that in the Bible the idea of seven mountains is not something good. It is associated with this passage, Revelation 17.

rev.17.1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: rev.17.2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. rev.17.3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:† rev.17.5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.† rev.17.6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. rev.17.7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. rev.17.9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. rev.17.10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. rev.17.11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 175321-175352). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind what Enlow said, that it is out job, the church's job, to "displace" the woman in the vision from the mountains represented by the beast's heads. Remembering that, look at the rest of the prophecy.

According to the prophecy, who "displaces" the woman? "rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17...rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. " If we are to take Enlow at his words, this these ten kings would represent the church, would they not? They are the ones who displace this woman from her position, though they do so in partnership with the beast.

If that seems suspect, consider a part of the passage that I left out.

rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

So, these ten kings who displace the woman also go to war against the Lamb, who is Christ.

Now, does that sound like the church to you? I have to say, no, it doesn't.

So, looked at in context, we can see pretty plainly that what Enlow is claiming the passage says is not actually in the passage at all.

DTS and nonsense about the Holy Spirit, part 1

I have heard something to the effect that "The best of lies have a kernel of truth in them". It means that the most convincing lies are those that are clothed in the truth, or that even are composed of truth but that have certain things left out that make the words spoken untrue.

I came on this woman a bit ago, listening to some podcasts of lectures. In order to become a full-fledged member of Youth With A Mission, one must take a course called the Discipleship Training School (DTS). Apparently, you're run-of-the-mill DTS is becoming rather blase, so various YWAM bases are coming up with various flavors of DTS, and this one is called the Fire and Fragrance DTS. I'm not sure why. A part of me that knows enough about the hippie subculture to know what the use of burning incense is meant to cover up wants to make some jokes along those lines, but I'll refrain.

Anyway, this woman, Amy Sollars, is in YWAM. From her words in one of the lectures, she's also spent some time at the Kansas City International House of Prayer. And since she didn't say it in a way that seemed to say that she was repentent of having associated with such false apostles and prophets and spiritual power-brokers, I assume she still buys into whatever they are peddling.

On her website, she has some documents that seem to be lecture notes. The fourth one is about "Prophetic Session".

Just as a convincing lie is clothed in the truth, so it seems that false teachings, when thinly coated in Scripture, can somehow be convincing, at least to those who are not willing to dig. I suppose I should be all the more critical, having been such a sheeple at one time, too.

At any rate, here is a bit of Sollars' teachings from "Prophetic Session".

Still small voice of God

This is the soft and gentle voice of God, which comes as wait on the Lord in prayer or meditation.
God speaks this way for personal instruction and encouragement. It comes internally and quietly.
It must be judged in light of the desire of our own hearts

Another abuse of the account of Elijah

I Kings 19:9-13.
And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Elijah heard a real voice, one speaking outside of himself, not some voice that speaks "internally and quietly". The Bible does not teach that the Spirit speaks "internally and quietly".

So, right off, Sollars is teaching false things, things not in Scripture, things she should not teach.

Prophetic Impressions
Thoughts and Feelings
The simplest form of prophetic revelation.
He uses our thoughts and feelings.
What many people think are coincidences are actually valid prophetic impressions from God.
Acts 14:9
9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze upon him, and had perceived that he had faith to be made well, NAS
Acts 27:10
10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. KJV
Impressions are the entry-level prophetic revelation for most people.
A Knowing

Ok, let's see.

ac.14.5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them, ac.14.6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about: ac.14.7 And there they preached the gospel. ac.14.8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: ac.14.9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, ac.14.10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 169557-169565). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition

.

And here is what this same commentary says about this event.

and perceiving that he had faith to be healed — Paul may have been led by the sight of this cripple to dwell on the Saviour's miracles of healing, and His present power; and perceiving from the eagerness with which the patient drank in his words, that he was prepared to put his own case into the Redeemer's hands, the Spirit of the glorified Physician came all upon Paul, and "with a loud voice" he bade him "stand upright upon his feet." The effect was instantaneous — he sprang to his feet "and walked."

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 77329-77333). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

And for her second supposed supporting passage.

ac.27.7 And when we had sailed slowly many days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone;† ac.27.8 And, hardly passing it, came unto a place which is called The fair havens; nigh whereunto was the city of Lasea. ac.27.9 Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them,† ac.27.10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.† ac.27.11 Nevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul. ac.27.12 And because the haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part advised to depart thence also, if by any means they might attain to Phenice, and there to winter; which is an haven of Crete, and lieth toward the south west and north west.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 170288-170299). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

And again, what the commentary says.

10. Sirs, I perceive, that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, etc. — not by any divine communication, but simply in the exercise of a good judgment aided by some experience. The event justified his decision.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 79254-79255). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Paul's perceptions in both cases seem to be more by observation than by any kind of "entry-level prophetic revelation". Paul had eyes, he'd been around, he could observe and make decisions just like anyone else. Did he need divine revelation to know that it was a bad idea to continue sailing, when the voyage had already been difficult? Did he need divine revelation to see that a crippled man was especially interested in what he was teaching?

Moreover, you will notice that there is no plain scriptural teaching on this "entry-level prophetic revelation" of thoughts and feelings. Once we know that there is no Scripture about the idea of an internal and quiet voice, we can see that this teaching about feelings and thoughts is also nonsense. It's all internal stuff, it's all focused inwardly, which is not what the prophets did. They heard God's voice, a real voice actually speaking to them. They had real visions and dreams.

Prophetic Senses
Spiritual Sight
2 Kings 2:15
15 Now when the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him, they said, "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha." And they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him. NAS
They saw in the spirit with there spirit eyes.
Example of seeing someone you think that looks like someone else and get a word for them about that other person. Then later they don’t look like that person.
Sometimes we do see things in this natural realm from the spiritual realm.

This one is hilarious. "They saw in the spirit with there spirit eyes." Really? Wow, I think Sollars must have taken reading comprehension from the same people who taught Mark Batterson.

2ki.2.5 And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. 2ki.2.6 And Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the LORD hath sent me to Jordan. And he said, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And they two went on. 2ki.2.7 And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan.† 2ki.2.8 And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. 2ki.2.9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. 2ki.2.10 And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so.† 2ki.2.11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2ki.2.12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. 2ki.2.13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;† 2ki.2.14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over. 2ki.2.15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 2ki.2.16 And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send.† 2ki.2.17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not. 2ki.2.18 And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not?

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 128927-128956). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

Read the entire account, please. It says nothing about them using "there spirit eyes", whatever those may be. They had seen with their regular eyes Elijah and Elisha cross the river, the had seen Elijah part the waters, they saw Elisha return alone, they could see that he had Elijah cloak with him now, maybe they could hear Elisha's words as he used Elijah's cloak and then God parted to waters for him as he had done so for Elijah not long before. They didn't need "their spirit eyes" to see what had happened.

There's more nonsense here, I don't have time to get more into it right now, I hope to do so later.

a rather dull and boring edge

One of the things that puts any kabosh on any attempts I may want to make to trust the people in 24-7 Prayer, and that overrides my attempts to give them the benefit of the doubt, has to so simply with those they insist upon partnering with. For example, there is this church, which is connected with their organization in New Zealand.

Edge City Church, the link goes to the page where the audio for this sermon can be found.

The sermon I'm listening to is by a woman named Julia. She "exegizes" the biblical account of Mary and the conception and birth of Jesus. What is she saying?

Well, let's see...

The accounts were definitely written from a man's point of view, as they just don't give the kinds of details women would want. Men just don't see a lot of detail, or at least the types of details women would notice. The Bible gives only "a man's amount of information".

If women had written the Bible, it would have been a lot longer, with a lot more detail, and somehow the book of Numbers would have been more interesting. Don't ask me why any of that is true, or even relevant to the topic of the conception and birth of Jesus. Hey, I'm just a guy.

Maybe the reason Moses wrote the Bible instead of Miriam was because the scribe, the guy putting words into the clay tablets, just couldn't keep up with Miriam as she was talking. I'll assume all of that was, somehow, meant for humor. But the fake stammer, apparently in an attempt to imitate Moses, was rather off-putting for one like myself, who has suffered from much that same kind of problem.

Advent means pregnancy. Actually, I thought Advent meant arriving. Like when the one guy a few years ago was making a big deal about the advent of Google, he certainly meant that the advent or arrival of Google was the big deal, at least in his own mind. Advent, in the Christian calendar, has to do with the birth of Christ, His arrival.

The life of Christ in us is like the pregnancy of Mary. Oh, joy, unfounded and unsupported assumptions and metaphors. This lady claims almost complete ignorance of "exegizing", so is it any wonder that her attempts at it wind up really being eisegesis, or reading into the text, and not exegesis, reading and understanding what the text itself is saying.

At least she admits it's a metaphor, for any credit that may be worth (precious little, if any).

She must be using The Message, because she's reading a verse from Luke 1that says that Mary said "I'm bursting with God-news". Really, why is the Message such a popular translation? I've read parts of it before, and it's style isn't modern, it's stilted. Like that. Who would use a word like "God-news"?

Apparently, all women who are pregnant are bursting with God-news. Nope, Mary being pregnant, no big deal. Oh, btw, I guess that explains why so many of those pregnant women go get aborted that child in them that causes them to be bursting with God-news.

And, apparently, the passage in Luke 1 in whatever translation she's using also has Mary saying "He took one look at me, and look what happened". To this lady's mind, apparently that's an excuse many women have made when in the same condition. This part of the message is very distasteful.

I'll agree with her some that we may tend to idealize Mary's pregnancy, not to mention the birth of Christ. Concerning the latter, we have carols that have lyrics like "Silent Night", when very likely it wasn't really a very quiet night at all, or "Little Lord Jesus no crying he makes", when Jesus as a newborn would likely have cried if He had been awakened by the nearby cows. So, a bit of a point for her, but, seriously, this is still not exegeting the text at all.

Apparently, being pregnant or having just given birth means people will talk about all kinds of bizarre things with you in public. I'll take her word for it. She's had a lot more experience at that than I, being just a guy, will ever have. Or, hopefully, that's just a Kiwi thing.

As she points out, the Bible doesn't talk about that stuff all that much. Why she is, while "exegizing" the text, I'm not sure, either.

Now, she'll continue using the metaphor of Mary's pregnancy, or maybe pregnancy in general, to discuss the idea of the life of Christ inside of us.

Pregnancy is uncomfortable, but it will be worth it. I've no doubt.

She's "exegizing" the cankle now. Again, she admits it's not in the Bible. For whatever reason, she's showing pictures, anyway.

The life of Christ inside of us can require discipline, and what she calls the uncomfortable process of change.

To kind of pause things a bit, I've made a bit of a search of the few resources I have, to see what the Bible say about this idea of "the life of Christ". It seems to be a surprising rare phrase, at least in the one concordance I've looked in, which is a fairly good one but, I'll admit, not exhaustive. Only one verse seems to have that phrase, in II Corinthians 4. Here's some context.

1Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we
faint not: 2but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking
in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is
veiled in them that perish: 4in whom the god of this world hath blinded the
minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 5For we preach not
ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for
Jesus’ sake. 6Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness,
who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7But we have this treasure in earthen
vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not
from ourselves;

8we are pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not unto
despair; 9pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed;
10always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of
Jesus may be manifested in our body. 11For we who live are always
delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be
manifested in our mortal flesh. 12So then death worketh in us, but life in
you. 13But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is
written, I believed, and therefore did I speak; we also believe, and therefore
also we speak; 14knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise
up us also with Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15For all things are
for your sakes, that the grace, being multiplied through the many, may
cause the thanksgiving to abound unto the glory of God. 16Wherefore we
faint not; but though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is
renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is for the moment,
worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory;
18while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which
are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things
which are not seen are eternal.

So, there is mention of "the life of Christ" in that passage. It still seems, though, that she is using it in a slightly different way than that passage does. For one thing, this passage doesn't liken it to pregnancy at all. We are not pregnant with the life of Christ, but rather as the passage says, we are delivered over to death so that the life of Christ may be manifest in our bodies.

She's treating this "life of Christ in you" in an almost therapeutic, Oprah-fied way. We should allow it stretch and grow us. Again, look in the passage above. It is in bearing about in our bodies the dying of Jesus that this life of Christ may be manifest in our bodies. When we are delivered to death for Jesus' sake, the life of Jesus may be manifest in our bodies. Here's an excerpt from a commentary about this passage.

10. bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus — that is, having my body exposed to being put to death in the cause of Jesus (the oldest manuscripts omit "the Lord"), and having in it the marks of such sufferings, I thus bear about wheresoever I go, an image of the suffering Saviour in my own person (2 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 1:5; compare 1 Cor 15:31). Doubtless, Paul was exposed to more dangers than are recorded in Acts (compare 2 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 11:26). The Greek for "the dying" is literally, "the being made a corpse," such Paul regarded his body, yet a corpse which shares in the life-giving power of Christ's resurrection, as it has shared in His dying and death.

Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 86449-86455). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

A pregnancy will speak for itself. Well, yeah, after a while, it will.

People out there, lost people, people you work with if you work with lost people, are not looking for lectures of sermons, but just looking for you to be you. I'm not sure exactly what that means. The real me is a despicable, sinful person, full of evil, whose attempts are righteous works are merely putrid rags. Those aren't just words, I know rather well how evil and sinful I am. I do at times give an echo of sorts to Paul's words about doing what I know I should not do, and not doing what I know I should do, and realizing over and again how wretched I am, wanting to be saved from this flesh of death.

Don't be boring. Really? That's what the pregnancy of Mary is about, not being boring?

Hold faith in the story of God inside of you. What? Isn't that putting faith in the wrong thing?

But thing big thing is, at least so far, to make sure that what you say or do meets the approval of all those other people around you. Don't be boring to them, don't force your beliefs on them, don't talk about things too very much to them.

Sometimes we don't allow God to be God in those around us. That is a rather strange phrase.

There is a place for community, or rather the Church. We are told to not forsake the assembly.

She believes the story of Christ inside of each of us is more powerful and more compelling than we may realize. What is this? Faith in the story of God, the story of Christ inside of us? What about faith in God, the life of Christ in us?

Apparently, hugging etiquette among Christians in New Zealand is very complicated.

In the most disturbing part of this 'sermon', a bit before the end, she tells about giving a friend of hers, who is not a Christian, a CD of her music. The friend admits that she uses the CD in meditation that involved crystals and incense, her CD is this woman's meditation music. And this speakers response to this? "That's awesome! I love it! Because she is finding His face, she's locked the door, she's trying to get away, and in every way that she knows she's looking for a little bit of a God-moment, and she's actually looking for a spiritual peace time-out, and something I've created off the God inside of me brings peace". Much of this 'sermon' has been ridiculous, but this is blasphemy.

And here we have it, basically a waste of a sermon, exegeting pregnancy far more than anything said in the Word of God, with the topper that it is cool to practice unbiblical mediation so long as it is done with her music that was created off the God (or maybe god) inside of her. Outside of an occasional random good point, all who heard this 'sermon' basically wasted their time.