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.

well, there goes hope

Right when one might have had hope concerning this coming election, the Evangelical purveyors of superstitious hyper-spiritual practices have gone and ripped it from us.

Intercessors Set up 'David's Tent' For 24/7 Worship Outside White House

I remember they did this last year, before the presidential election. Yeah, how'd that work out, folks?

One of the sure signs that these NAR types are false prophets and teachers can be found simply in this, that when they prophecy and proclaim something, the opposite happens. I remember Lou Engle writing this,  "Standing on that basketball court, with the U.S. Supreme court beneath the feet of Jesus and my feet, I declared, "From this day forward there will only be pro-life judges." Well, that didn't happen.

And now, there's this kind of stuff, again. These 24-7 kinds of places have become very popular in some circles, such the IHOP and YWAM crowds, not to mention the group that calls themselves 24-7 Prayer. And it's all hyper-spiritual busywork, all based on a superstitious view that if they do this, God will do something.

Hog and wash.

"David's Tent" is some kind of big cause celebre among these NAR Dominionists. They think there 24-7 music fests will have something to do with making "David's Tent" a reality, even though that's not what the Bible teaches.

Anyway, having any kind of hope in the current political situation is rather a difficult thing even on the best of days, but knowing that thus bunch is out there doing their schtick of false praise and worship just took hope right out the room. Please, folks, just stop, you've already done quite enough damage.

what is Destiny Image doing, putting out this book?

A while ago, I did something crazy, and joined Destiny Image's book review club, or whatever it was at that time. Hey, if I'm going to read NAR junk and put reviews of it on Amazon, it may as well be for free. I've tried to be fair and my reviews, and some have even had a slight positive side to them, but overall...yeah, garbage.

Anyway, DI did change things recently, and now they simply offer e-books for free or on sale on Amazon, and send e-mail notices about them.

So, a few days ago, I got one of the e-mails. There was a bit of an ad for a book they will release soon. What got my attention about this ad was the quote from someone whom I guess had read the book, and liked it. Here's that quote and the person who is credited for it.

"This book may just save Christianity from us Christians"--Frank Schaeffer.

I don't do it much, for reasons of health, but I know that I have opined about Schaeffer a few times here. For example, Schaeffer is the one who gave us such gems as "...BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN". Please note, I did not add the all-caps, that was Schaeffer's doing. Or, these paragraphs...

The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.

Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.

Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.

 Please note, yes, I have linked to my own articles above. You can find links to the sources for those quotes on that page, but, frankly (pun intended), I have little desire to stomach any more of Frank Schaeffer's hate-filled nonsense then I must, and so will not link to his words any more than I must.

So, Destiny Image is proudly putting a blurb of this man's words in an ad for a giveaway for this book, Undiluted, by someone names Benjamin Corey. Take a good look at the book's cover, and you'll see that there are a few words in praise of the book at the bottom of the page, by one Brian McLaren. Yep, the same man who has pretty much denied every cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

Now, since the book's page has the author's website, I made a quick little visit, and was certainly not surprised by what I saw, given Schaeffer's and McLaren's words of praise. Basically, it's a blog in favor of progressive --ianity (that may be my new word for it, as there is basically no Christ in it at all).

So, in other words, Destiny Image is proudly promoting a book put out by someone on the far left. Yeah, let that sink in.

If you want to find basically any book on bad Charismatic theology, Destiny Image is your source. So, don't (repeat: DON'T) be surprised at Destiny Image and charismania going to the left. This isn't the first time I've seen this in charismatic writers, and why should it be a surprise? Consider that both charismatics and progressives put much more emphasis on hearing a supposed voice of God inside themselves, over what is actually taught in the Bible. Since both get their guidances from the same source, why should a meeting of their minds not happen?

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—Girl at the End of the World by Elizabeth Esther

preview of things to come?

I received a free copy of this book from Waterbrook Multnomah's Blogging for Books program.

For me, the first few chapters were the weakest. Some of the author's attempts at humor came off as needlessly crude, and why the editors allowed the F-word to be retained at one point, especially in such a pointless way, is not easily understood, as it comes off as a gratuitous attempt to be shocking and offensive.

And there were times it seemed I was being asked to feel outrage at things I couldn't understand. Why should I be against homeowners setting up standards of dress and conduct for those who stay in their house? Am I suppose to think it wrong that parents are concerned about how their high-school aged daughter is dressing, the types of friends she has, the boys she's noticing? Am I suppose to think it ridiculous that a church teaches its youth to resist sexual temptations?

And am I allowed to notice a bit of irony that this publisher, Convergent, puts out this book, which seems to be very critical of a form of “community living” as the author's parents practiced it, but also has books written by at least one person involved in New Monasticism? Do NM communities that say you have to pool all the money you earn into a common purse, maybe have a small bit of money given to you for your own personal spending money, and may even determine if you may move away to pursue career aims, seem less oppressive than anything mentioned in this book?

The middle part of the book, until just before the end, was the strongest part. The attempts at crude humor are mostly set aside, and real serious issues with her grandparent's church are brought to the fore, and how they are affecting her and her own family. The double standards inherent in a cult of personality are shown, and those who dare to ask reasonable questions are told to not ask about such things. I doubt any reader would think the author and her husband wrong to leave that network of churches.

And some of her observations on the culture, in and out of the church, are rather pointed, too.

I think there are a few reasons this book may well be worth reading and taking the events recorded in it seriously. I think what the author went through is a lot like what many others are going through, and will go through in the not-too-distant future.

One reason is because the church the author got out of is not very unlike too many other churches today. It is becoming plain that too many megachurches are simply cults of personality. The vision-casting church leader has replaced the pastor who shepherds the flock of God, and in some cases the words of this vision-casting church leader have replaced the Bible. And it is becoming plain that there are double standards in such churches.

Similar to that is how obviously disqualified people are made into leaders in the churches. Do I need to mention names like Todd Bentley and Bob Jones, the prophet? And those are only two names among far too many.

To put it in so many words, in far too many ways the church as a whole is simply a disaster waiting to happen, as occurred with the church this author's grandparents started.

A 3 to 3.5 rating for this book is about the best and worst I can give it. I think it would be worth reading, though I don't have complete agreement with the author in everything she wrote.

book review—How to Believe: Restoring the Passion of Worship by Tommy Tenney

garbage

I got a free e-copy of this book when Destiny Image offered it for free.

At one point in this book, the author makes this comment concerning the things some preachers say in their sermons, “He (God) probably listens to our preaching and says , “Did I say that? I don’t remember saying it quite that way….”” (Kindle Locations 1007-1008). He may be right, but it is not merely ironic, but hypocritical, for him to say that, because throughout this book he is continually putting words and ideas in God's mouth.

For example, he says in this book that we need to build a Mercy Seat. Good luck finding where Paul or any other epistle writer tells the churches to do that, because they don't. They don't say a word about the churches needing to build any such thing. Oh, but this author must be oh-so-much-more spiritual and enlightened then those old fuddy-duddy apostles from 2,000 years ago, 'cause he can tell the church that it needs to do something that they didn't even consider.

He says that we shouldn't trust anyone who doesn't have a limp, like Jacob. That makes about as much sense as looking at the life of Moses and saying we shouldn't trust anyone who doesn't stutter, or the life of Samson and saying we shouldn't trust anyone who hasn't been blinded. He says that if we are in prison, we should sing and praise like Paul and Silas did, and God will open up the prison doors for us. Funny, though, 'cause in Acts 12, Peter was asleep when the angel came to free him from prison. And Paul wound up in prison again later on, related in the last few chapters of Acts. I guess he just didn't sing and worship enough, 'cause he stayed in prison for quite a while.

When it comes to the Bible, the author is much more interested in reading his own make-believe stories and ideas into the accounts than in looking at what the accounts actually say. “Read the second chapter of Acts and explain to me why the disciples stumbled and staggered out of an upper room so inebriated in the Spirit that people accused them of being falling -down drunks.” (Kindle Locations 816-817). He should read Acts 2, and show us where it tells us that the disciples “stumbled and staggered out of an upper room” in anything like inebriation. It doesn't. “Esther refused to trade the winking approval of men in the king’s court for the favor of the king himself.” (Kindle Locations 943-944). There is no hint in the account of Esther that she experienced “the winking approval of men”, that's something the author found only in his own mind. He inserts this in the account of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman, “They (the disciples) said something like, “Jesus, we saw a Burger King right down the road there. We’re going to get something to eat. We’ll bring you something back, is that okay?”” There is no hint in that passage that the disciples were in the wrong to have left to get food.

“He will even put “His strength into captivity ” to come sit with us because He is so desperate for us to be with Him (see Ps. 78: 61).” (Kindle Locations 660-661).That verse in context teaches no such thing. Psalm 78:56-66 tells of times when God's people Israel rebelled against God, and the consequences of that rebellion. Verse 61 is referring to God's judgment against His people, one form of which was them being sent into captivity. “When lucifer fell from glory, I believe a crucial aspect of heavenly worship fell with him.” (Kindle Location 1071). You won't find that taught anywhere in the Bible, nor his notion that God needs us to provide music in Heaven.

“In Exodus 19, He invited everyone in the group to come up and hear Him speak for themselves. This was an opportunity to go beyond the anointing and taste of His glory for themselves. The children of Israel basically said, “Moses, you go talk to God and find out what He says. You can have the intimacy— just take some juicy pictures and bring the anointing back to us” (see Exod. 20: 19).” (Kindle Locations 760-763). Has this author even read Exodus 19 and 20? If he had, he'd see that what he's writing about those chapters is not what is said in them. Exodus 19:24 “24 And the LORD said to him (Moses), “Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you. But do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD, lest he break out against them.””

Finally, I want to return to what he wrote about the disciples acting like drunkards (they didn't, btw). This tells me that, when he talks about experiencing God's presence or the like, he's referring, at least in part, to the kinds of ungodly, blasphemous things that happened in Toronto and Pensacola, things like the blasphemous “drunk in the spirit” phenomena.

About the only thing this book proves is that this author has no right to consider himself a Christian teacher. This book is garbage, the author's sole interests are in bragging about himself and teaching his own made-up ideas. You'd be wise to find the nearest trash can, and chuck this book into it.

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--Is That Really You, God? by Loren Cunningham

hearing unreliable voices and getting the Gospel wrong

As an autobiography of Cunningham's life and how he came to start Youth With A Mission, and how the organization grew, the book is all well and good. If that was all it was, I'd likely have little real problem with it.

But it's not. Worked through it is the notion that there are things we can do to somehow hear God's voice, and ways of determining if what we're hearing (to a loose definition of "hearing") is really God or not. It is these things that I simply cannot buy into, because they simply are not biblical.

One example would be what he calls the Wise Men Principle. "This really is amazing, I thought to myself. It was like the Three Wise Men. They each followed the star--their individual perceptions of God's direction--and in doing so came together to be led to Jesus." (Kindle Locations 1165-1167). "What a great idea! Maybe, in fact, it was God's idea! If so, perhaps I could see the Wise Men Principle I'd just learned in New Zealand work in the lives of young people, where two or more people see the same guiding star at the same time." (Kindle Locations 1301-1303). The account of the magi following the star to Jesus can be found in Matthew 2, and you'll find nothing there or in other parts of the Bible which teaches this Wise Men Principle. The account of the magi was not recorded to tell us to follow stars, literally or metaphorically, but to show us that Jesus is indeed the King.

"I had come as a speaker, but it turned out that I was the one who was learning new ideas on this isolated island. The first came from the New Zealand kids themselves. They had a guidance practice that intrigued me. In their minds they would be "given" a chapter and verse from the Bible without knowing what the reference said; then they would consider whether or not that reading was a special guidance for whatever they were facing. "You'd be surprised how often God uses that as a way to speak," they insisted." (Kindle Locations 1135-1138). Can one even imagine Paul or any real Apostle telling the churches that God would lead them in such a trite, haphazard way? Or that they should read the Scripture in such a way? That isn't hearing the voice of God, that's closer to fortune telling.

Then, there's what I've seen referred to as the Magic 8-Ball way of reading the Bible. "I was sitting quietly praying with my Bible open to Hebrews. Suddenly the words of chapter 12, verses 26 and 27, leaped off the page. "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven...that those things which cannot be shaken may remain" (NASB, italics added). A rock hit the bottom of my stomach. "Oh no! I hope that doesn't mean the ship!" (Kindle Locations 1767-1770). Umm...no, Hebrews 12 had nothing to do with that ship, sir. It was written well before that ship had been constructed, well before you ever planned to make use of it. A look at the context of the verses in question would show you that.

"Yes, God had told us to get a ship, and repeatedly He had confirmed His guidance, using all the ways we had learned for hearing His voice. He used the Wise Men Principle; He used scriptures that He seemed to lift off the pages for us; He used provision of money and people; and that inner conviction--but we had failed in the way we had carried out His guidance. We had subtly turned from the Giver to the gift." (Kindle Locations 1827-1830). There are two things to be learned from this. First, these supposed confirmations are hardly confirmations at all. God can give all these go-ahead signs, but then pull the rug out from under their feet? Is that really God, period?

But instead of wondering if maybe these ways of getting confirmations were really sound, he resorts to the second thing to be gotten from this, what I think of as the Cheap Guilt Trip. A bunch of people who have been trying hard to determine if what they are doing is really what God wants them to do suddenly get broadsided by a guilt-trip of them taking their focus off of God? Is the really God, period?

But this brings up perhaps the biggest error Cunningham makes, an error in regards to the Gospel itself. "My calling was clear: to preach the twin character of the Gospel. Through Jesus Christ it is possible to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves." (Kindle Locations 2099-2100). "Jesus told us there were two important things to do. One was to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength--teaching people to do that is evangelism. The other command was to love our neighbors as ourselves--to take care of people, as much as is in our power to do. These were two sides of the same Gospel: loving God and loving our neighbor." (Kindle Locations 1003-1005).

Those commands, as important as they are, are not the Gospel. Those are commands, laws, things we must do, things we fail to do every day, every hour, every minute, every second. The Gospel is not a command, but the message of God's gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins through the sacrificial death of His Son Jesus Christ. One of the important aspects of the services of the Anglican church I attend is the confession of sins, where we confess "We have not loved you with our whole heart, we have not loved our neighbor as ourselves". It's not an excuse, it's a confession, a reality. For a good look at the division between Law and Gospel, please read The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (ESV).

And this is not just a matter of semantics. Of course, they let their focus get off of God, and they continued to do that even after their Cheap Guilt Trip, every day and often. When your gospel is a gospel of law, know going in that you're going to fail at it.

But the happy news is, the Gospel is for saved sinners as well as unsaved ones. As Paul said in I Timothy 1:15, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost"

In the end, I cannot recommend this book as a guide to teachings about hearing the voice of God. It's principles and techniques are without sound biblical support. Though they may tack a verse or two on to what they say about the principle or technique, when one looks at the passage they refer to, one sees that they simply don't teach what the principle or technique says. For example, the account of the magi coming to the Christ child does not teach the Wise Men Principle, Isaiah 30:21 says nothing about a "quiet inner voice". And, even more important, the Gospel is made into something we do (law), not something God has done for us (gift).

different qualities of revelatory words?

This is a response to an article in Authentic Fire, which can also be found online here. The article is an attempt to defend the notion that modern-day prophets do not need to live up to the Old Testament standard of perfection in what they say in prophesy, that they can prophecy incorrectly, that prophecy today is fallible.

It's a long article, and I'll not deal with all of it here. Parts of what he says, such as his attempt to see fallible prophecy in the account of Agabus in Acts, have been dealt with in this book.

To try to explain, Storms is responding to statements made that, if there are true prophets today, then why do we not view their prophecies as being as inspired as Scripture, why do we not add those prophecies on to the end of the Bible.

One things that Storms tries to posit is that there are various levels of revelatory words. One, possible the highest, is what he calls “Scripture-quality”, and then posits that there is at least one level of revelatory words that is of lesser quality, and that modern prophecy is at these one or more lower levels. His position is this—there were many prophets and prophecies given in the early church, the Bible even mentions specific people who were prophets, yet with only a few exceptions we do not have the prophetic revelatory words these prophets spoke. Ergo, these unrecorded prophetic words were of a lesser quality than those recorded in the Bible. Or to use Storms' own words...

My question is this: If such words, each and every one of them, were the very “Word of God” and thus equal to Scripture in authority, what happened to them? Why were the NT authors so lacking in concern for whether or not other Christians heard them and obeyed them? Why were they not preserved for subsequent generations of the church? I’m not suggesting this proves that these “revelatory gifts” operated at a lower level of authority, but it certainly strikes me as odd that the NT would portray the operation of the gift of prophecy in this manner if in fact all such “words” were Scripture quality and essential to building the foundation for the universal body of Christ.

One thing that a little thought made me realize was that even in the time before Christ's death and resurrection, there are examples of prophets about whom we have no prophesies.

For example, here is a few verses from I Samuel 19

18 Now David fled and escaped, and he came to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and lived at Naioth. 19 And it was told Saul, “Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.” 20 Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21 When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied. 22 Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” 23 And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

So, here we have an account of a company of prophets who were prophesying, and when King Saul himself came to them, he prophesied. Were these people true prophets of God? Considering that Samuel was in some sense their head, I think we can say that they were. Yet we have no record of what they prophesied.

Another interesting example would be from the Gospels. Luke 2 gives the account of the parents of Jesus taking their newborn child to the Temple, and there they encounter a woman named Anna, who is called a prophetess. Yet the passage in Luke gives no prophetic statement of hers.

So, are we to assume that, simply because these prophets' revelatory words are not recorded in the Bible, then they were of a lesser quality? That they were even fallible, even though they were still subject the Old Testament standard of having to be completely correct in their prophetic statements?

I would say, no. And I would go further and say that Storms' position simply doesn't hold up. There is no hint in the New Testament that prophetic words today can be of a lesser quality than those in the Old Testament.

Even the concept of varying qualities of revelatory words seems to be very questionable. Where is such a concept in the Bible? Where does God ever say that He speaks less clearly to some people than to others? Where does God plainly speak to one prophet, but another prophet has to make do with trying to interpret vague feelings? What happened to God's communication abilities, such that in the Old Testament He always spoke clearly to the prophets, but since Christ's death and resurrection He tends to speak in an unclear, garbled way, leaving the prophets to rely on revelatory words that they may get wrong.

Understand, I'm talking about the words themselves, not necessarily interpretations. Even the Old Testament prophets did not completely understand the things God was saying to them prophetically, you can read the last chapter of Daniel to see that Daniel did not understand everything being said to him. But even in that, Daniel plainly heard the words being said to him, and recorded them accurately.

So, I find Storms' idea of lesser qualities of revelatory words to not be supported by the Bible. It seems more like a supposition he has formed to support his notion of fallible prophecy, then something that is plainly taught or ever strongly hinted at in the Bible.

disturbing look at the prosperity gospel in Ghana

First, HT to Delight in Truth, which is where I first found this video.

This is a pretty disturbing look at how the prosperity gospel in being used and spread in the nation of Ghana.

The">http://vimeo.com/7196941">The Prosperity Gospel
from The">http://vimeo.com/user2335876">The Global Conversation on Vimeo.https://vimeo.com">Vimeo.>

death does not whitewash

Christian Leaders Mourn Loss, Honor Memory of Paul Crouch

I left a comment there earlier, but it is now gone. My comment was something along the lines that, while I give condolences to this man's family and those close to him for his passing, and hope that he found grace and repentance, the truth is Paul Crouch taught and spread the worst of the worst in modern heresies, bad theologies, and aberrant practices, and his life and 'ministry' are not thing to hold up as examples.

Although Charisma has, for some reason, seen fit to remove such a comment, that doesn't take away from the truth in it. Simply because someone has died does not mean that we can or should whitewash their lives. There may be a place for grieving with those who are grieving in this situation, but spreading fictions is only giving false hope.

There is little in the memory of Paul Crouch that deserves honor. How many people have been and still are hell-bound because they believed the false gospels spread by the false teachers on his station? How many people have lost their money because they gave it to some TBN teacher who promised them 10-fold or 100-fold from God if they gave until it hurts? How many thought they were going to be healed if they did whatever some TBN fake healer told them to do?

No, grieve for him and those close to him, but Paul Crouch was no hero. The main thing to gain from his life is what NOT to do, what NOT to teach. Perhaps the main thing one could mourn is that one who had such potential influence wasted it on robbing widows to fatten his own accounts, living in luxury while begging from the poor for even more.

book review—Manifesto for a Normal Christian Life by Bill Johnson

vain imaginations

In regards to the book itself, a good portion of it could have been left out, as it consists simply in Johnson repeating himself, even to the point of repeating the same stories. Even knowing that these are transcripts of speeches Johnson gave, one would assume that the editors would have done some work at avoiding such needless repetitions.

Concerning the contents, well, it's basically typical Bill Johnson—a bunch of made-up ideas he claims to have gotten from out-of-context Bible verses, which don't say what he says they say, all with the intent of boosting the egos of the people listening.

It could be said that Johnson's problems begin with how he says he reads the Bible. “It has not been given to us to try to assign the scriptures to particular seasons...The Bible is filled with rich promises. It is theologically irresponsible to take the great promises of scripture and ascribe them to a period of time for which I have no responsibility.” (Kindle Locations 361-363). This seems to be saying that the context of the biblical passage, who is being addressed and the context of the statement, are not important to Johnson. “If I could encourage you to do anything in your life it would be that, any time you have a problem, get into the Book and read until he speaks to you.” (Kindle Locations 837-838).

There is a way of reading the Bible that I've seen compared to the Magic 8-Ball toy, where you basically read until something “jumps out at you”. This is not a valid way of reading the Bible, and this seems to be something like what Johnson is recommending.

This reckless use of Scripture is evident through the book, when he bothers to use Scripture at all to support his ideas. “In Matthew 10: 8 we have this commission, one of the commissions that Jesus gave his disciples: ‘heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’” (Kindle Locations 155-156), and he tried to make it seem like this is something we should do today, without regard to either whom Jesus was speaking to, nor even all the instructions Jesus gave here. For example, Johnson doesn't touch on Jesus' command in verse 5 for the disciples to not go to the Gentiles or Samaritans, nor verses 9 and 10 where they are told to not acquire gold or silver for their journey, nor take a bag with them, nor an extra change of clothes or shoes.

“What was it about the shadow of Peter that could heal people? There is no substance to a shadow. Your shadow will always release whatever overshadows you, whatever you live conscious of, whatever you carry.” (Kindle Locations 175-176). The account of people trying to get Peter's shadow to fall on them is found in Acts 5:12-16, and you will not find any mention of a teaching like “ Your shadow will always release whatever overshadows you” in that passage. Johnson is simply making that up. Regarding the account in Mark 4 were Jesus slept during a storm at sea, he says “Do you know why he could sleep in a storm? Because the realm he was dwelling in has no storms.” (Kindle Location 1081). He even gives the passage in his book, and you will not find any such statement in the passage, nor anything like that even hinted at. Johnson is simply making that up. Again concerning that same passage, he writes, “You have authority over any storm you can sleep in.” (Kindle Location 1095). Jesus doesn't even come close to saying that, Johnson has to twist and change Jesus' words to make it seem like He's saying that to the disciples.

Of course, he doesn't limit his ideas to things he claims to have found in the Bible. “People ask me often about a lifestyle of miracles. How do you come into a lifestyle of miracles?... But I found out something. You need to take time to get alone with God, to get in a secret place with God and cry out to him.” (Kindle Locations 680-685). He offers not biblical support for such a claim, and the Bible does not teach this. “Nothing happens in the Kingdom until first there is a declaration. Everything hinges upon the simple faith of people who will make decrees.” (Kindle Locations 880-881). Johnson offers no biblical support for this statement, because the Bible doesn't teach that. This if Word of Faith heresy. “He always manifests himself opposite to his surroundings. He manifests himself opposite to the spirit of the day that has captured the affections and the attentions of a generation. Because he has a better way. He has a better solution. That means that when you live at a time when people are going broke, bankrupt, when there is financial crisis and chaos, and fear is spreading all around you, that’s the time God wants to prosper you.” (Kindle Locations 1245-1248). The Bible doesn't teach that, this is just Prosperity Gospel heresy.

This is only a small sampling of the ludicrous things Bill Johnson teaches in this book.

Where are the church leaders who hold this guy accountable, that tell him that his teachings are not biblical and that he should step down from his pulpit and actually study the Bible before he's allowed to speak before anyone again? It is a testimony to the sad state of the church today that Bill Johnson is considered a successful minister, when he has no idea how to properly handle the Word of God.

For better, far more biblical teachings, I would recommend The World-Tilting Gospel  by Dan Phillips.

book review--Glory Invasion by David Herzog

make it up as you go along theology


It's always interesting reading books like this. It's astonishing, really, the things some people who call themselves Christian teachers try to pass off as biblical teaching, and how those things are accepted with little to no critical thinking on the parts of far too many people.

This book, for example, is pretty much a book of made up theology. He doesn't look to the Scriptures to inform his views, but rather insists upon reading his ideas into the Scriptures. The results, it's easy to imagine, are rather bad indeed.

For example, he goes on and on about what he calls the "glory realm". However, the Bible says nothing about such a place, or the supposed need for any of us to somehow get into this "glory realm". Herzog, however, insists upon trying to read into a few different biblical accounts. "Peter lunged into the glory realm where his body weight did not make him sink but the water actually became solid enough for him to walk on." (p. 50). No account of that event says such a thing. "Both Elijah and Elisha walked and lived in the prophetic glory realm and when they spoke it caused Heaven and earth, kings and nations, to react and respond." (p. 83). Another claim that has no basis in the biblical accounts of these two prophets.

As bad or worse, he tries to use this "glory realm" to support his Word of Faith heresy. "When you speak from the glory realm you are actually allowing God to create that which you are speaking as you are speaking." (p. 74). Allowing God? Wow, arrogant much? And, of course, there is nothing like that taught in the Bible. "When we declare something under the direction of God, that thing is being created as we declare it."(p. 15). Again, not in the Bible.

And his ideas about sounds and words get absolutely loopy. "The walls of Jericho crumbled because people shouted—another amazing defiance of the law of gravity. What made the walls fall? The Israelites were told not to speak for one week. In this way they were conserving the power of the sound in their voices so on the day they released it their shouts would have greater power." (p. 54). The walls of Jericho because of sound waves? Seriously, if that's what you're teaching, you have no business calling yourself a Christian minister at all.

"Zacharias had the power to kill the prophecy in the same way it had come to life—by speaking while in the glory and allowing the opposite to occur, creating a disaster by negative declarations in the glory." (p. 76). Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist. None of this is taught in that account of the prophecy the angel gave to Zacharias. He did not have the power to "kill the prophecy" at all, he had no power to "allow the opposite to occur". This is just rank garbage.

Finally, he even recalls the time he tried to buy some kind of prophetic anointing. "I even approached her (Ruth Heflin) to sow an offering into her life asking God for a return with an increase of the prophetic gift that was on her life." (p. 79). You need only look at Acts 8 to see how evil such an act is.

I'll stop here, that's enough of this guy's garbage. This book is disgusting, vile, unbiblical, and no one who is a Christian should take it in any way seriously.

book review--Answering the Contemplative Call by Carl McColman

not very biblical

I received a free copy of this book from Speakeasy.

It's hard to escape the various flavors of contemplative practices out and about in the church nowadays. Whether its more refined versions of it like in this book, or the rough-and-tumble of the ways the New Apostolic Reformation folks do it, it's everywhere. Whether it's sitting alone doing mantra-like chants and lectio divina, like McColman recommends, or it's YWAmers practicing the supposed steps of prayer and intercession, then sitting around in a circle trying to get guidance from some inner voice, it's all the same and one.

The fact that none of it has much in the way of biblical support seems to be lost on all of these practitioners.

For the discerning Christian, there are plenty of things in this book that should cause alarms to go off. For example, while he makes a point of saying that he's teaching about Christian mysticism or spirituality, one gets the impression that the "Christian" part of that is much less valuable to him than the "mysticism" or "spirituality" part. "Saint Paul sees Christ on the road to Damascus. The Buddha achieves enlightenment sitting under the Bodhi tree. Mohammed takes the miraculous night journey of Isra and Mi’raj, carrying him from earth to heaven. And of course, Aquinas and Julian and Merton have their singular peak moments and their lives are forever changed." p 32. Experience trumps beliefs, one may well assume.

In fact, conversion seems to have become unnecessary. "He (Merton) also became increasingly interested in interfaith dialogue, and began to explore the points of connection between Christian monasticism and the spirituality of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism." p 24. And the author of this work is also involved in such dialogues.

And the Bible? Well, consider this. "Here’s a comment that Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a monk of the twelfth century and a renowned mystic, once made about nature—one I believe could just as easily be applied to any of life’s mysteries. “Believe me as one who has experience,” said Bernard, “you will find much more among the woods than ever you will among books. Woods and stones will teach you what you can never hear from any master."...Consider this: Bernard is not rejecting the kind of wisdom or under­standing that can be found in books or from a spiritual director. He just recognizes that nature—even the silence of “woods and stones”—is an even greater teacher. " p 7. If we are to believe that nature in superior to books, and the Bible is a book, would it be unfair to conclude that Bernard, and by extention this author, are saying that nature is a better teacher than the Bible? That God speaks better through woods and stones than throught the words He gave to the apostles and prophets?

"Jesus has been loved and accepted by the mystics, not as a way of appeasing an angry God, but as a joyful entry into the mysteries of love." p 77. Now, I can look in Scripture, and see passages which speak of Christ's death being a substitutionary atonement for us, to among other things appease the just anger of a righteous God directed at sinful rebellious humanity. For example, read the biblical book of Romans. I can't read the scriptures to find where Christ's death was "a joyful entry into the mysterities of love". Why bother with crucifixion, if that's all Christ was doing?

He engages in some shenanigans. "Jesus’s followers were called disciples, implying that disci­pline is an essential part of the Christian wisdom tradition." p 128. No problem with the statement itself, but when he tries to sneak in these contemplative practices, I have to ask where the Bible says that Jesus had the disciples sit around trying to experience God inside themselves.

"God’s Word emerged out of “the sound of sheer silence” (I Kings 19:12), and words of the Divine mystery have been emerging out of silence ever since." p 125. I'm calling shenanigans again. The prophet Elijah did not get a message from silence, he heard the voice of God, even if it was calm and gentle. The Bible nowhere says that God's language is silence. God used real words to communicate to real people so that they understand what He was saying to them.

Nor did Elijah hear a voice inside himself. The voice He heard was outside himself, outside of even the cave he had been in.

In his book Broken, Jonathan Fisk writes "The plain words of Holy Scripture are the antidote to the poisoned dish of Mysticism. Reading those words carefully and learning their context is to inwardly digest the faith that God is not only real but also gives us real, pure, true answers. God is far more generous to us than to force us to endlessly seek Him in the flurries of the wind and the palpitations of our hearts. He wants us to do far more than merely imagine what His will for us might be. He wants us to be certain." (Kindle Locations 510-514). When I read works by these modern-day NAR contemplatives, I'm simply appalled by how bad they are theologically. Something seems very wrong with the people who practice these things. When people put the voices they hear inside themselves above the words plainly taught in Scripture, then that's a sure way to get led astray.

I agree with Fisk, God cares for us far too much to make us sit around trying to hear some kind of almost-impossibly-difficult-to-hear voice inside ourselves, that can be easily confused with our own thoughts, and that may not even be the voice of God at all (and probably isn't). God has spoken, we have His words in the Bible. God can still speak, I think there are reliable sources who have had dreams and visions from God, even in modern times.

I simply cannot recommend this book, or the practices recommended in it. They are unbiblical, thus spiritually unhealthy. Stop looking inside your heart to hear the voice of God, because you have God's Word at your fingertips.

peter wagner: Jesus could have decided to sin

That certainly seems to be what Wagner is saying in this quote from his book "On Earth as it is in Heaven", emphasis mine.

A fresh look at Jesus’ temptation will remove any lingering doubts that Satan had acquired true dominion over the earth. What I am going to say now assumes that we believe the three temptations were real. They were literal, not just figurative. In each of the three, Jesus could have decided to sin, which, of course, He didn’t.


On Earth as it Is in Heaven (Kindle Locations 796-799).

This is more than a little bizarre. Jesus could have sinned? Really? Doesn't that mean the Jesus was less than divine? If Jesus could decide to sin, then that's essentially saying that God could decide to sin.

I think Wagner needs to consider his words a bit better, at the least. In fact, perhaps he should stop pretending to be a church leader, after that one.

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.

BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!

To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.

Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough

And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]

So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.

The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)


“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)

“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.

Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.

book review--Growing in the Prophetic by Mike Bickle

one reason the prophetic is a joke

Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.


For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.

I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.

Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.

And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.

But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.

One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.

All in all, this book is a theological mess.

he may as well admit that he denies it

Do I Deny the Resurrection?

There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.

For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.

Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...

As you might expect, this does not calm the questioners down. They accuse me of not understanding the question. I understand the question perfectly well. I think they are the ones who do not know what they are asking.

Translation: "Ah, yes, you silly idiotic people, how dare you expect me to actually answer your question!"

He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.

If I act hateful, or in fact, less than loving to my neighbor, I have denied the resurrection just as surely as my selling state secrets to China denies my allegiance to the USA...And I can believe whatever you want about what happened that Sunday morning, but if I am not using what power I have to help God bring the Kingdom into fruition, to help make it on Earth as it is in Heaven, I don’t expect you to call me a Christian.

So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".

In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!

See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.

And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.

james goll really needs to just stop

Those commands do not imply that we have to believe that our circumstances are fitting exactly with God’s will for us. We’re just supposed to be thankful. As we worship with words of gratitude, our sacrifice becomes a railroad track of faith and it can carry a payload of prayer:

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7).

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving (Colossians 4:2 NASB).

In other words, thanksgiving is the key to releasing God’s supernatural power. Even Jesus used this key. Look how He performed the miracle of the multiplication of the bread and fish (see John 6:1-13). First, He picked up the skimpy number of loaves and fishes in both hands. Then, “having given thanks” (John 6:11 NASB) and having lifted them up before God, He was able to distribute to the hungry thousands as much bread and fish as they wanted.

Goll, James W.; Dupre, Chris (2012-06-19). The Lost Art of Pure Worship (Kindle Locations 502-512)

In other words? How do either of those passages equate to Goll's "in other words"? Neither of them even come close to saying that "thanksgiving is the key to releasing God's supernatural power". Then, pointing to the time in John 6 when Jesus gave thanks for the food that was distributed to the thousands is rather weak. Jesus did many miracles, and there is no obvious practice that He went acted similarly every time. Nor does it hint that somehow thanksgiving is the ultimate way to get God to do something.

Yes, being grateful to God is a good thing, that's not being disputed here. But it's not what Goll wants us to think it is. Nothing in Scripture even hints that thanksgiving releases God's supernatural power, that's just silly.

Having read a bit of Goll's writings before, it's not like this kind of thing is surprising. I'm pretty convinced that he's one of those who doesn't so much go to the Bible to find out what it says and then adjusts his own thinking accordings, but takes his own ideas and speculations to the Bible and shoehorns verses and verse fragments to force them to fit those ideas and speculations. Thus, in order to claim that "thanksgiving is the key to releasing God's supernatural power", he simply finds some verses that mention giving thanks, and smashes them into the shape he wants, even if those passages don't.

So, yeah, someone needs to tell Goll to retire. Please, for the love of all of us, please, someone, do that!! I'm sure he's well-off, he's a Word of Faith false teacher after all, surely he has enough holy-hanky and miracle-selling funds stored up to live well for the rest of his days, so long as he avoids Benny Hinn miracle-selling crusades. But I assure you, James Goll has writing quite enough books to make his NAR apostasy influence last for many, many years. At some point, it's just too much. If he goes much further, he'll become a parody of himself, kind of like Bill Johnson.