What is the New Apostolic Reformation?

HomeFalse TeachingsWhat is the New Apostolic Reformation?

I’m often asked to assess what others teach. I do not do this lightly, but it is necessary. Before reading this page, or any of the pages about specific people, I recommend that you read What is a False Teacher?, which explains what the Bible says about false teachers, and why I would bother to research who they are and what they say. You may also want to check out a list of Bible Teachers I Can Recommend.

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a movement made up of a hundreds of churches and organizations around the world that call themselves Christian, but share a number of unbiblical ideas. Most NAR teachers are also Word of Faith teachers, another unquestionably unbiblical set of ideas.

Movements are difficult to analyze and assess. Because a movement has no central authority, there are no official statements, and there is no official oversight. Individuals involved in the movement may have widely disparate beliefs, so valid criticisms for some are invalid for others. Because of the variations in belief and practice in any movement, each church’s or individual’s involvement with others in the NAR must be assessed independently of every other. The only reasonable goal here is to expose the errors and excesses, providing a correction for some and a warning for others.

I see three paths for fairly assessing a movement like NAR:

  1. To look into the principles involved in the genesis of the movement,
  2. To critique what influential leaders in the movement have taught and written, and
  3. To examine the trends embodied in the movement.

New Apostolic Reformation Founding Principles

As with any movement, the NAR has had a variety of influences over the years. While not everyone in the NAR is Charismatic/Pentecostal, the movement is almost entirely in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. Based on the teachings of some of its prominent leaders, the NAR has strong connections to previous, troublesome, Charismatic/Pentecostal movements. Here are a few of the commonly-held ideas taught by prominent leaders in the NAR:

  • God specially empowered new intercessors in the 1970s, new prophets in the 1980s and new apostles in the 1990s. 2001 marked the beginning of the ‘Second Apostolic Age.’
  • Men and women calling themselves apostles and prophets are elevated to positions of leadership based on supposed God-given authority in the church.
  • These leaders are to govern the worldwide church. That is, all Christians everywhere are to be under the authority of these ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets.’
  • These leaders are supposedly given supernatural powers, including the ability to provide new doctrinal revelation.
  • Supernatural manifestations, from tongues to raising people from the dead to mass conversions to heavenly conversations with Jesus or Adam or whomever, are to be expected (and are claimed by certain leaders).
  • These powers are needed to establish dominion over the earth, as God supposedly instructed in Genesis. This is variously understood on a spectrum, from having influence over culture to actually ruling God’s Kingdom here on earth, in our time.
  • They believe Jesus cannot return until the church has dominion over the earth. This process will necessitate the martyrdom of many as spiritual warfare increases.
  • Many NAR teachers follow the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” in which God has supposedly commanded them to take control of seven areas of society: government, education, church, family, media, business, and the arts. When this has been accomplished, they say, Jesus will then be able to return.

Related people, movements, and theological concepts in the New Apostolic Reformation:

  • Beni Johnson (Bethel Church)
  • Bethel Church (Redding, CA)
  • Bethel Music
  • Bill Hamon
  • Bill Johnson (Bethel Church)
  • Bob Jones
  • Brian Simmons
  • Brownsville Revival
  • C. Peter Wagner
  • Cal Pierce
  • Cesar Castellanos
  • Ché Ahn
  • Chris Hodges
  • Chuck Pierce
  • Cindy Jacobs
  • Craig Groeschel
  • Dan Juster
  • Dan McCollam
  • Danny Silk
  • David Van Koevering
  • David Yonggi Cho
  • Dino Rizzo
  • Dominion Theology
  • Dutch Sheets
  • E.A. Adeboye
  • Elevation Worship
  • Ellyn Davis
  • Five-fold Ministry
  • Franklin Hall
  • G. Marie Carroll
  • George Warnock
  • Greg Surratt
  • Harvest Rock Church (Pasadena, CA)
  • Heidi Baker
  • Hillsong (Australia and worldwide)
  • Hillsong Worship
  • Ian Carroll
  • IHOP (International House of Prayer)
  • IMPACT Network
  • James Goll
  • Jane Hansen Hoyt
  • Jeremiah Johnson
  • Joel’s Army
  • John Benefiel
  • John Eckhardt
  • John Kelly
  • John Wimber
  • Johnny Enlow
  • Jonathan Welton
  • Judy Franklin
  • Jurgen and Leanne Matthesius
  • Kevin Gerald
  • Kim Clement
  • Kingdom Now
  • Kris Vallotton
  • Lance Wallnau
  • Larry Randolph
  • Latter Rain Movement
  • Lou Engle
  • Manifest Sons of God
  • Mark Chironna
  • Mary Banks
  • Mike Bickel
  • MorningStar Fellowship Church (Charlotte, NC)
  • New Life Church (Colorado Springs, CO)
  • Os Hillman
  • Patricia King
  • Paul Manwaring
  • Prayerwalking
  • Randy Clark
  • Ray Hughes
  • Rick Bezet
  • Rick Joyner
  • Robert Morris
  • Ron Cantor
  • Seven Mountain Mandate
  • Sid Roth
  • Spiritual Mapping
  • Steve Shultz
  • Steven Furtick
  • Stovall Weems
  • Sunday Adelaja
  • TBN
  • The Elijah List
  • The Passion Bible
  • Theo Wolmarans
  • Todd Bentley
  • Toronto Blessing / Brownsville Revival
  • Warfare Prayer
  • Warfare Worship
  • William Branham

You can read a lot about the New Apostolic Reformation on the Spirit of Error website. Holly Pivec co-authored a book on the NAR, has written for Biola Magazine and the Christian Research Journal, and has a Master’s degree in apologetics from Biola University.

My Conclusion

While I always try to be impartial, my previous research into groups and individuals colors my conclusions. I’m not anti-Pentecostal, but the excesses and abuses in the movement have given me pause. I see the NAR as only the latest in a long, long line of theologically error-prone leaders, false teachers, charlatans, and demonically-inspired grifters.

Many in the movement are quick to point out that there is an agreed-upon statement of faith in place, and that it is historically and biblically orthodox. While true, that’s often unrelated to what’s actually being taught. In fact, much of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement is characterized by ideas that are theologically questionable at best and, at worst, are simply lies. Most of the recent growth of Christianity around the world appears to be happening in Charismatic/Pentecostal churches, which I find disturbing… not because I’m a hater, but because most of the theologically awful stuff in my lifetime has been birthed and spread there.

Objections

  • As we see in Ephesians 2:19-20, the church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets mentioned in Scripture. Those who call themselves apostles and prophets today do so, in my opinion, foolishly. Some are only following traditions in their culture, and some are claiming authority for themselves that they weren’t given by God.
  • NAR “apostles” claim to oversee networks of churches, having spiritual authority over them. This has no basis in Scripture.
  • The primary function of the NAR is to establish God’s kingdom on earth (Dominionism). This has no basis in Scripture. In Genesis 1 mankind was given dominion over the animals, but there’s no indication that we have dominion over the earth itself, or over other humans. We have no New Testament instructions to establish dominion over our cultures. Instead, Jesus’ own words in John 18:36 tell us that His kingdom is NOT of this world.
  • NAR “prophets” and “apostles” claim to receive direct, continuing revelation from God. This can’t be substantiated, so we’re expected to take their word that it’s true. However: many of those supposed revelations are unbiblical and/or extrabiblical, which proves that they’re not from God. Instead, we see in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scripture is sufficient for all.
  • Those in NAR churches are expected to submit to the leaders as having more spiritual authority. This is in direct conflict with what we see in Scripture. For example, in Acts 15:23 we see the apostles and elders calling themselves “your brothers.” In 1 Peter 5:1 we see Peter, obviously an apostle, calling himself a “fellow elder.” We have no indication in Scripture of the kind of spiritual heirarchy that the NAR is based on.

See the complete but incomplete False Teachers List

Disclaimer

What matters is what the Bible teaches, and whether those who preach and teach in Jesus’ name are teaching falsely. Don’t comment or email to tell me that I’m “just wrong.” It’s a waste of your time and mine. If you have something to say, include Scripture. I am far from perfect, and I can be wrong… so I don’t do any of this lightly, and I’m open to correction.

Don’t bother telling me how this person or that person helped you. It’s a waste of your time and mine. Nobody teaches lies and falsehoods all the time. In researching these topics, I’ve heard a LOT that I appreciated, and have been inspired by even those who are otherwise far from the truth. The number of times someone is right is irrelevant to the question of whether they also teach lies. We should appreciate anyone who teaches us the truth, but that doesn’t mean we should uncritically follow them when we see significant problems in their lives, in their ministries, and in their teaching. Neither your opinion nor mine matter here.

If you can provide evidence that one of these people has recanted their false teaching, please let me know. I would love to amend their article to show that they have changed what they teach.

Finally: false teachers are not our enemies. If they’re not saved, we should pray for their salvation. If they are saved, we should pray that God will lead them to teach only the truth.

See also: a list of Bible Teachers I Can Recommend


Join me on Substack! Join me on Substack!

Buy me a Coffee
Bible Reading Checklist
Visit Awesome Christian Music

Comments

All Comments are held for moderation. Your comment will appear after it's approved.

24 responses to “What is the New Apostolic Reformation?”

  1. Tony Graham says:

    I believe that pentecostalism is the main problem with this and many other groups. I spent 14 years in pentecostal churches but near the end of that time I saw some very strange stuff happening. I decided to study the scriptures relating to tongues ( languages) more carefully and although it took a couple of years , I’m a slow reader , I started to get a clearer picture of what happened in Acts 2. Of course this is my picture and is quite different from all the other Christian interpretations. I had been reading your discussions about the sabbath and am impressed with the way you handled all the questions and opposition. Can I start by asking what you believe happened on that day . Can be a very brief summary to start with. Thanks for your time.

    • Tony says:

      Tony:

      Thanks for writing! While there are many good things about the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, solid biblical theology is not usually among them. I spent time in a couple of Pentecostal churches, and one of the pastors from the first church is my son’s godfather… so I’m not a stranger. Like you, I studied the Scriptures relating to tongues. Our pastor gave us a 4-page handout explaining the doctrine, and we looked up every verse and thought carefully about it all. When we took our results back to the pastor and explained that not one of the Bible verses supported the typical Pentecostal conclusion – that the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues – he agreed.

      That’s shocking. Not ONE of the Bible verses actually said what they believe… yet they believe it, they preach it, and they practically insist that people who don’t speak in tongues aren’t actually saved. That part directly contradicts Scripture, yet I heard it again and again.

      What happened on the day of Pentecost? Like Acts 2 says, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages. The visitors to Jerusalem heard them speaking in a number of different languages and were amazed. This attracted a lot of attention, and Peter used the moment to preach the gospel to people from around the world. Doesn’t seem complicated. =)

      • Tony Graham says:

        Thanks for your reply. Your brief summary is what I read in scripture also. When I started my study I soon came to the conclusion that the languages they spoke were their native languages. There was nothing solid in the scriptures that would have me believe they spoke in languages they did not previously know. The comment made by onlookers ‘ behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? ‘ was an assumption and an incorrect one. A reasonable assumption though looking from the outside. The happenings over the previous 3 years would have been common knowledge to most inquiring minds in the city. This Galilean rebel Jesus and his followers most likely meeting regularly in the temple would have been a good regular news item or gossip! Also his crucifixion. Luke 13:1 , my assumption though, is that Pilot having become frustrated with a bunch of Galilean zealots sent his soldiers into the temple and slaughtered them while they made sacrifices. Probably a memorable event still in the minds of many citizens. I do believe they were in the temple, not an upper room, and the scripture I read supports this. I don’t believe that out of 120 odd followers that they were all Galileans. Over Jesus 3 year ministry there would probably have been a good percentage of Jewish believers having come into the city for feast days that decided to stay and follow Jesus. Then after Jesus death and resurrection a lot would have returned to their native lands. A good plan executed by the Holy Spirit to spread the good news around the world. I also interpret them speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance to mean they spoke one at a time, not all at once. Having just been filled with the Holy Spirit their understanding of scripture previously learned would have taken on a whole new dimension. I’m sure you have seen countless times how a new convert can get very excited about their revelation of the Truth and their enthusiasm to share it.
        Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians had always bothered me as some of it didn’t make sense to me around the discussion on languages, but it slowly became clearer as to what he was actually saying when the above interpretation of events had settled in my mind. I will stop here otherwise it will get very long but am keen to hear your comments and discuss further. I can expand on my reasons for this interpretation of events from scripture also. I am also willing to admit to being wrong if indeed it can be shown from scripture that I am. Look forward to your reply. Thanks.

        • Tony says:

          Tony:

          I’m sorry for the delay… it’s been a busy week!

          I would suggest that there may be a flaw in your assumption about how many there were. In chapter 1, we see the eleven choosing Matthias to replace Judas, and they became 12 again. [EDIT: this is incorrect. The 120 nominated two men.] In chapter 2, we see that “they were all together in once place.” There’s no transition to the 120, and it seems unlikely that that many people would fit into an oikos. That’s a dwelling, not the temple. Then, when the crowd heard them, they asked whether they weren’t all Galileans. I agree that we can’t necessarily take this as true, just because they asked it… but Galilee is a region. If the crowd from all over the known world heard 120 people speaking in known languages, it would make more sense that they would talk about them being Jews, rather than talking about them being Galileans. In v14 Peter stood up with the eleven and addressed the crowd. No mention of the 120. Then, in v37, the crowd spoke to Peter and the other apostles. In context, it sounds like only the 12 were involved from start to finish.

          What do you say?

  2. Lee says:

    Hi! I can I jump in on this? First, you may be interested to know that New York Theological Seminary has begun a degree program for charismatic and Pentecostals to give the more solid theological base, something that has been needed. Clearly the Scriptures do not say anything like speaking in tongues is the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The theology behind that has been wrong, you are baptized in the Holy Spirit when you believe. But being gifted by the Holy Spirit may be at some later time. That’s all pretty straight forward. You can’t just dismiss that a miracle happened in Acts 2. Luke clearly treats it as a miracle and it has consistently been the doctrine of the church that it was a miracle. People want to play with that and make it mean whatever they want it to mean, but the plain reading is that the disciples spoke in languages Thant were unknown to them declaring the things of God. We know the disciples, we know where they were from and, yes, they were Galileans. I think I have a new way of understanding this that you might find interesting. I think it was part of and a sign of the undoing of the division among men that began at Babel. It doesn’t seem to have happened again. But at that moment, everyone there was able to understand the message the disciples were declaring. Paul will go on and explain more that the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile had been abolished. But I think Acts 2 speaks even more deeply to the undoing of what God had to do at Babel. That Jesus was meant for all the nations and all the peoples. So … what do you think?

    • Tony says:

      Lee:

      Of course you can jump in! Thanks for taking the time. I agree with your assessment: it’s all pretty straightforward. I like your parallel of Pentecost to Babel, where our pride created division and confusion and the Holy Spirit brings clarity and unity. Makes sense to me!

  3. David says:

    Peter, James, and John were Pentecostal. Just because someone calls themselves something doesn’t mean they are. Many people call themselves Christians, but they do not know Him. To allow false teachers to skew our view of an entire denomination is cheap. Kenneth Hagin may call himself Pentecostal, but the apostle Paul would have condemned him immediately and told him that he wasn’t.

    • Tony says:

      David:

      You make a good point. As I’ve said above, there are many good things about the Pentecostal movement. As you’ve said, Paul – and anyone else familiar with the gospel – would immediately condemn the bad theology and abuses that are unfortunately too common. I wonder what Paul might have written in a letter to a Pentecostal church.

  4. Darrin says:

    “I think it was part of and a sign of the undoing of the division among men that began at Babel. It doesn’t seem to have happened again.”

    Acts 11.

    Peter explains his decision to go among the Gentiles in Caesarea, and the fruit of that choice:

    15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts.11.15,Acts.11.16,Acts.11.17&version=NIV

    We are not told many specifics about what happened, but a couple of phrases stand out:
    — In v15, there’s the assertion that “the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us,” seems to establish that what happened in both places was the same; I think it notable that there’s NOT an “except they didn’t speak in other tongues as we did” disclaimer anywhere
    — In v17, Peter reaffirms that what happened among the new Gentile believers in Caesarea was the same as what happened in the Upper Room.

    Again , in Acts 19 we see a Pentecost redux take place among some at Ephesus who had believed on Jesus, and baptized in water, but had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit; not even of his existence.

    6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts.19.6&version=NIV

    It is from these subsequent pentecost-like events that charismatic and pentecostal churches extract their reason that these signs must have been intended to carry forward to new believers as the Church advanced. I’ve seen it happen for real, but in general I think they TRY TOO HARD to force the Hand of God. Also, I have found charismatic congregations generally less, uhh, “wacky” (?) than some of the Pentecostal scene I’ve come among aver the years, as if being “charismatic” is a sort of stepping away from some of the Pentecostal extremism; like tossing out the bathwater without losing hold of The Baby.

    [An interesting sidebar, and one sure to provoke, uh, “conversation” is how there was, at Caesarea, no span of time between the people believing unto salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit, but there was a gap for the believers at Ephesus, who had been in faith for some time before Paul laid hands on them. Anyone for a second blessing? I’ve become a both/and subscriber in that specific regard.]

  5. Tony says:

    Hi Tony. You suggested there was a flaw in my assumption about how many there were on the day of Pentecost. You said that there was no transition from the 12 to the 120. The transition is already made in chapter one. Read Acts 1:15. You said that OIKOS is a dwelling, not the temple. It can be a dwelling but can also mean the temple. Jesus used this word when he said My house shall be called a house of prayer. He was referring to the Temple. A simple word search will tell you all the places that the word OIKOS can be used for.
    A lot of New Testament scripture warns us about deception that will come into the church. So to Cut to the Chase, as the time is short , the pentecostal and charismatic tongues is a deception and anyone who speaks it and promotes it is being deceived by the devil. Definitely not recommended!

    • Tony says:

      Tony:

      Thanks for writing back. Your argument has merit, of course. We can’t, however, be more precise than the text allows. If the text doesn’t say, then we can’t say. I’m sure you would agree.

      As I pointed out, OIKOS does mean a dwelling. Jesus does use that word in Matthew 21:12 to refer to the temple. However, He’s not the speaker. He’s quoting from Isaiah 56:7, where God speaks of the temple. Quite literally, the temple WAS God’s dwelling… so calling it ‘my house’ is entirely consistent. If you can find any New Testament passage where the temple is called ‘a house’ rather than ‘the temple,’ you may be on the right track. Otherwise, the accumulation of passages that speak of the temple using HIERON instead of OIKOS suggest otherwise. Doesn’t that seem right to you?

      As for the question of who “they” are in each passage, Luke doesn’t differentiate very precisely. We have to look at the context to see who is who. Look at Acts 1. Jesus gave instructions to the apostles he had chosen. That would undoubtedly be the 12, not 120… else choosing a replacement for Judas would round out the 120. We know he filled in the 12th spot, so “chosen” is the smaller group. Jesus says that THEY would be baptized with the Holy Spirit, receive power, and be witnesses. They were addressed in v11 as “men of Galilee,” which says that this wasn’t the larger group, which presumably included men NOT from Galilee, and also some women. In v12-14, “they” still appear to be the 12.

      In v15 we see the 120. They nominated two men.

      In 2:1 we see “they” were all together. Who were they? The text doesn’t tell us directly, does it? However: Jesus’ words in Acts 1 were spoken to the 12, so it seems best to assume that what happened in the house in 2:3 was happening to the 12, and that the house was a regular house. Jesus didn’t say that they, along with 100+ other people, would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus, in 1:4-5, mean “all of you, my followers” or “you, my apostles”?

      I don’t really have a huge problem with your interpretation, Tony. It just doesn’t seem to fit the text. To make it fit, we have to make assumptions that go against the plain reading of the text. If you assume “the house” means “the temple,” you need some textual warrant to make the assumption. There isn’t any. If you assume that “they” who spoke in tongues numbered 120 rather than 12, you need some textual warrant. I see none. You assume that those who heard were wrong about them being Galileans… but that isn’t found in the text itself.

      Do you see why I can’t yet agree with you? It’s not that your argument isn’t plausible. It seems plausible, on the surface. The problem is that you’re not deriving your argument from the text itself.

  6. Renee says:

    I’m not a Bible scholar but believe I know what the central theme of the new testament is and that is pretty much John 3:16 but people add so much to it that I would like an expert explanation. Yes back to pentecostal beliefs. I just started going to a pentecostal church. It’s a new church and they don’t believe that you have to speak in tongues to be a Christian but there’s some other strange theology and I am so conflicted with many things of this “pastor”. Like you can lose your salvation which is called backsliding. So you never have the confidence that your salvation if in fact is real or credible. How can people feel peace with that and who draws the line as to what qualifies that you’re saved again. Also just weird comments like meditation is mostly satanic! Also like already mentioned “tongues is preferred by God”, like a higher level or something but to me it is one of the spiritual gifts and God gives you certain ones that He wants you to have. That is something I was actually taught. Also just some “out there ” beliefs on healing. That’s another topic I would love to be instructed in. One more this pastor who is rather new to the faith and chooses to get a business degree instead of attending seminary and being biblically sound was instead taught by a previous pentecostal church how to be a pastor. And he’s occasionally rude and sarcastic to me and sometimes targets me. Sorry so many questions. I thirst for the truth.

    • Tony says:

      Renee:

      Thank you for your comment! I’ll address each point individually.

      Losing your salvation is an in-house debate. Some Christians believe that you can be saved and then be unsaved. Some Christians believe you can’t ever be unsaved. Having grown up in a tradition that teaches that we can, I’m familiar with the idea. Having been a licensed minister and being a theology nerd and attending (currently) a church that teaches we can’t, I’m also familiar with the other side of the debate. If you want my thoughts, you’re welcome to them. I would not consider this – on its own – an issue worth dividing over. We can – and should – have fellowship in spite of different viewpoints on this question.

      Being at peace is important. I hear you. For those from a tradition that teaches we can’t lose our salvation, one might feel that way. I suppose the uncertainty you speak of would be worse when it’s accompanied by an extreme form of unbiblical teaching that focuses on what’s commonly called “Christian perfection.” I never felt such uncertainty growing up, as I never felt – and was never taught – that simply sinning would break my relationship with God. That is a tragic and unbiblical way to think, and it’s foreign to my experience. I likely had as much peace as my brothers and sisters from other traditions, or more… but I wasn’t concerned about becoming unsaved in the next few minutes. What I’m trying to say is that one can have a biblical perspective, believe that one can lose their salvation, and still have the peace of mind that comes from understanding how gracious God is, and patient, and forgiving. It’s generally less of an issue for individuals, and more of an issue for people who like to compare their own beliefs with the beliefs of others. Speaking of comparison: those who think they can lose their salvation have an equally-erroneous view of those who think they can’t… that it’s a license to sin. We do see that in the extremes, but not in the everyday lives of followers of Jesus.

      Meditation is often seen negatively in various traditions. This is not an uncommon idea among the various groups in the ‘holiness tradition.’ They want to avoid anything that will endanger their relationship with God (which is good), so they tend to be more cautious than some others. Most eastern forms of meditation are about clearing your mind, thinking nothing, and becoming one with the universe. It’s certainly religious in nature, as most have practiced it throughout history. Biblical meditation is basically the opposite, where one thinks deeply about important things, and especially about God and Scriptural ideas. When one sees these as opposite ends of a spectrum, it makes sense they would want to avoid one kind, and seek the other.

      Tongues is a topic that often generates more heat than light. Having attended more than one Pentecostal church, this is something I’ve spent time on. The idea that everyone who is saved will speak in tongues is, without question, unbiblical nonsense. There’s also no question that tongues is given a bit more weight in Scripture than some other gifts. However: the idea that one would elevate another person on the basis of their gifts is entirely unbiblical. We all should want whatever gifts the Holy Spirit wants to give us, and we should all use our gifts as He intends: for the building up of the Body of Christ. There should be no pride involved. Unfortunately, in my experience, too many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches allow nonsense and abuse to go on in every church service. I caution people to stop worrying about which gifts you have… to simply ask God to give you what He needs you to have so you can accomplish the tasks He has for you to accomplish, and leave it at that. We should focus on giving, not on receiving. So many focus on studying the gifts without also thinking about wise ways to use those gifts. That’s a self-centered approach, and the opposite of what Jesus taught.

      Healing is where the conversation often turns ugly. Why? Because so many have built an unbiblical foundation for their faith on top of false beliefs about healing. Any honest reading of the New Testament reveals that healing sometimes happens, and sometimes doesn’t. Any honest assessment of what God will and will not do includes the fact that Christians die all the time, from natural causes and diseases and accidents. The most prominent errors about healing come exclusively from the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, which is where pretty much 100% of the NAR and Word of Faith charlatans are. While I wouldn’t separate from any individual believer who is in error about healing, I could not worship long-term with a local congregation that teaches that our physical healing is paid for in Jesus’ atonement. The rest of their theology is almost certainly going to be off-base as a result.

      Credentials are important… kind of. There’s nothing wrong with pastors not having theology degrees. Many around the world, and most throughout history, have not. I place great value on such education, but not on the degrees. Many of the men and women I took theology classes with have walked away from the historic Christian faith. Some are now atheists. Some are heretics (I say that in a technical sense, not as a personal attack). The degree simply points to having completed a certain group of classes, and has nothing to do with one’s actual beliefs or practices. The credentials that matter are found in the New Testament. Anyone with those credentials is qualified to teach, and anyone without them is not. It’s that simple. Christians – including those in vocational ministry – should never rely on their own authority, but on the authority that comes from teaching responsibly from Scripture, where we find the gospel that was handed down once for all.

      Targeting is a mixed bag. Personally, I would never target anyone negatively from the pulpit… only positively. In a small group setting, where people know each other well, I might do a little teasing from time to time… but never to anyone who might be hurt or embarrassed, and never in the presence of those who might misunderstand. Fellowship can often include an admission of our foibles, but never in a demeaning way… and personal correction should always be done in private. If what your pastor is doing bothers you, he may not realize it. I would suggest simply pointing it out to him (in private, maybe with one friend). I might say something like this: “Pastor, I feel uncomfortable when you single me out and say negative things. I realize you might not know that’s how I feel, so I thought I’d let you know that it makes me very uncomfortable.” His response should be to apologize, and to change his behavior. Be patient with him, but don’t allow him to negatively affect your relationships with others in the congregation. That IS a reason I would separate from someone.

      Thirst for truth: is awesome. I sincerely appreciate your questions, and the opportunity to try to be helpful. I’m available if you want to chat more, even for simple things. That’s part of what it means to be in God’s family. If you belong to Jesus, you belong to me… so don’t hesitate to reach out.

  7. Tami Van Thof says:

    Any thought on the revival that is going on in Ashbury Kentucky. NAR, true revival,, some of both?

    • Tony says:

      Tami:

      I’ve been loosely following the story on Twitter for the week. I can’t say from a distance how much is “real revival,” of course… but my opinion doesn’t matter. Let’s be cynical and say that 5% of those involved are making commitments to follow Jesus. That’s great news. I hope it’s far more than that, but each person there will have to tell their own story.

  8. George says:

    Please look at Awsome Church in australia rydalmere nsw

    Pastor name is Gary Costello he is a prosperity word faith speaker demanding wealth money signs miracles wonders. Can u ad him to the list his fake and foods kennith Copland and jessie duplantis

    • Tony says:

      George:

      I will add your church to my list of places to check out. In the meantime, you should leave. The things you say are being taught are not the things that churches should teach. They’re lies, not the gospel. If your pastor follows Kenneth Copeland and Jessie Duplantis, he follows false teachers. If he teaches what they teach, he too is a false teacher. Do not stay there. Do not leave quietly.

      At the same time, remember that these people are not your enemies.

      Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12

      Pray that these leaders will repent and turn to God. Pray that those who listen will seek the truth. I’m praying for you right now, that you will be able to find a congregation close to you that preaches God’s Word, as it is written, with no lies mixed in. Let me know how I can help.

  9. Clare says:

    Tony, I’ve read where you believe there is an event called Baptism in the Holy Spirit separate to Salvation. Then I read you don’t really believe in tongues. I was wondering what the manifestation is when one experiences Baptism in the Holy Spirit if not tongues. Water Baptism is quite obvious. Could you clarify what your beliefs are on this subject? I would appreciate your take on this. Thanks.

    • Tony says:

      Clare:

      Um… I don’t know where you read these things. Can you point it out for me?

      • John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit and with fire. That is, as I understand Scripture, how we’re born again. This isn’t separate from salvation, it IS salvation. After this baptism, we may be filled with the Spirit again and again – as He wills it, not as we will it – to enable us to serve.
      • I believe in tongues. I don’t believe that everyone who claims to speak in tongues has been given the gift of tongues by the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference. Paul wrote that not everyone speaks in tongues. I have relatives who were taught, at their church, how to speak in tongues… then they left, after reading what God says in the Bible about spiritual gifts. They are not taught by men, they are given by God… distributed as HE decides.
      • Since you brought it up, water baptism is a ceremony. It was a Jewish ceremony for around 1000 years before Jesus, and Jewish Christians baptized converts to Christianity in exactly the same way. Salvation does not depend on water baptism, it depends entirely on Holy Spirit baptism, which comes only from Jesus.

      Does that clarify? I’m certainly happy to provide Scripture for each of these things, should you need it. Let me know. Thanks!

  10. Matxi5 says:

    You say that Apostles or overseers don’t exist but aren’t you just describing what a Bishop is and I don’t think you have a problem with Bishops. And I think this was the goal of the movement to keep churches organised although I may be wrong.

    In my experience all the “apostles” mean is either a bishop or a missionary they just picked the wrong word.

    Also you point out a lot of false teachers and I agree they may have dangerous doctrines but are they going against the CORE OF CHRISTIANITY like the gospel. I just find a lot of criticisms are valid but not central like the Methodists holding to entire sanctification.

    I’ve read through a lot of your reasons but a lot of them are quite minor or at least not major which I feel has a problem in my eyes.
    For example would you say that if someone says God really wants to heal people that they are now a heretic. You also say that if people says that a reason someone did not get healed is unbelief they are a heretic.
    1. That doesn’t go against the CORE Christianity
    2. Jesus didn’t do healing in some cities due to unbelief
    3. Some say God always wants to heal especially at my church and it’s easy to see how they got here. Jesus healed everyone and the only main times he didn’t heal was due to unbelief. But I still don’t see how they are heretics and how it goes against the CORE especially since it is so easy to get to that opinion. Now god promising wealth now that is very dangerous but is someone a heretic because they got jesus promises wrong. The catholics ventrate Mary but no one calls them heretics.
    Calvinists believe god only calls some people.
    Methodist believe we can be entirely sanctified.
    Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration
    Some Christians believe God doesn’t heal but no one calls them a false teacher but as soon as someone says God always wants to heal and unbelief can block healing they become a Heretic.

    Why can Christians disagree on all the above but as soon as god wants to heal everyone then that’s considered heresy.
    Or someone calls a bishop a apostle and then they immediately become heretics.

    • Tony says:

      Matxi5:

      Thanks for writing to me!

      No, I don’t say that overseers don’t exist. That would contradict clear passages of Scripture. Here’s what I do say: those who claim to be apostles in the same way that Peter and John were apostles are claiming for themselves what God has not claimed. Anyone can say they’re an apostle. Anyone can say they’re a prophet. God has not left us alone, unable to know who is true and who is false. The test of a prophet is whether they’re ever wrong. If so, they do not speak for God. The test of an apostle is the same as the test for a teacher: if they contradict what God has said, or invent things God hasn’t said and teach them as truth from God, they’re a false teacher. Those who claim to speak for God, and those who claim to hear from God directly, cannot contradict God and avoid the charge of being a false teacher. Everyone should know the difference between truth and error.

      No, missionaries aren’t apostles. In Acts 1 we see Judas being replaced. The criteria for being an apostle: you had to have been there for Jesus’ earthly ministry. You had to witness Him, resurrected. Matthias met the criteria. The only exception was Paul, who met Jesus after His resurrection and was taught and sent by Him personally. There are no apostles other than those who were there at that time. The church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. It’s not being built today, it was finished long ago.

      You make a good point: it’s not enough for someone to simply be wrong, or for me to simply disagree with their doctrine. That’s not how we judge false teachers. We don’t judge them on secondary matters, like whether they speak in tongues or baptize babies. There’s a huge difference between being in error and being a false teacher. I wonder whether you read What is a False Teacher before you commented, like I asked you to. At times, this isn’t an easy process. Too often, it’s blindingly obvious.

      No, I’ve never called anyone a heretic for saying God really wants to heal people. You’re arguing with what I’ve never said. Those who claim that God wants to heal every Christian are teaching falsely, and we have ample evidence for it in Scripture. That’s the difference. God will definitely cause some to be rich. God will definitely heal. What God won’t do, as we see in His Word, is cause every Christian to be healthy and wealthy… even if those Christians really, really want it. Even if they declare it in faith every day. Even if they claim what think are God’s promises to them. Paul had a physical problem… likely several. Timothy had a physical problem. Epaphroditus and Trophimus, are also examples. Nobody told Paul and Timothy and those other guys that they weren’t healed because they lacked faith, or that healing was guaranteed in the atonement and that they should ‘make visible what is invisible,’ like some false teachers claim. That’s an invention, spread by Word of Faith teachers and a lot of New Apostolic Reformation folks. It’s a lie.

      By the way, a lot of people DO call Catholics heretics for the way they venerate Mary. Not internet randos, either. Serious theologians. Roman Catholics teach that Mary takes part in mediation between God and man, which directly contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5. A lot of Catholics believe that salvation depends on her… and that her suffering alongside Jesus at Calvary makes her “Co-Redemptrix” along with the Son of God. This isn’t really a secondary matter, is it? Lots of Catholics are born again… but it’s not because the RCC teaches strictly biblically. It’s in spite of their errors, and it’s that way in many places.

      I hope we can agree on this: you and I and everybody else should double-check what we hear against the Scriptures. That’s what the Bereans did, and they were commended for it:

      Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. Acts 17:11

      We should do no less. Pointing out a false teacher should never be nitpicking over in-house debates. When Benny Hinn said there are NINE members of the Godhead, he wasn’t talking about something inconsequential. When Myles Munroe said that God, not having a body, is “illegal on the earth” and is dependent on us to do anything here, he wasn’t engaging in a friendly debate. He was concocting false doctrine of the highest order. I’m more than happy to discuss, brother to brother, any issue you’d like to discuss. Our differences on secondary matters should never divide us. What should divide us are direct conflicts about the nature of God, the nature of man, and how one can be saved. Believe it or not, Calvinists and Methodists and Lutherans and most every other Protestant group agrees on those things. False teachers don’t.

      Let me know what you think, my friend!

  11. Matxi5 says:

    My pastor believes God always wants to heal Christians which I have disagreed with him although he only believes this and doesn’t teach it or tell people they did not have enough faith to be healed.
    Also you said it is umbilical to say healing is in the atonement yet Mike Winger believes that yet he doesn’t believe it will always happen in this life. How can you say something is unbiblical when YOUR recommended teacher teaches it.
    Also how is WOF any worse than entire sanctification or praying to Mary or Catholics calling everyone heretics. Or baptismal regeneration or transubstantiation. My point is what about this doctrine is different to the others not that I believe it but are they ALL HERETICS I don’t know. I think we need to have more compassion on those who believe it.
    Also when I had NAR described to me they just said it was basically either a bishop or a missionary. I am purely curious about these things.

    • Tony says:

      Matxi5:

      Thanks for writing back!

      >> Also you said it is umbilical to say healing is in the atonement yet Mike Winger believes that yet he doesn’t believe it will always happen in this life. How can you say something is unbiblical when YOUR recommended teacher teaches it.

      I see why this might be confusing. It’s unbiblical to say that the atonement provides for the healing of every believer in this life. That’s the stuff of false teaching. To say that we will be fully healed after we die is another matter entirely, and Winger – along with tons of other biblical teachers – say the same. I’m sorry to have written so poorly that it sounded like a contradiction.

      >> Also how is WOF any worse than entire sanctification or praying to Mary or Catholics calling everyone heretics.

      Good questions! Entire sanctification is an in-house debate. Like healing, some believe it should happen to every believer in this life, and some believe it will happen at the moment of our death. It’s a secondary matter… a disagreement over the timing of God’s work in us. Praying to Mary, when you boil it down, could be a serious problem or not. Someone can be wrong about whether saints in Heaven should be asked to help us. That’s a secondary matter… a disagreement over details we lack. Of course, praying to Mary for salvation won’t do you any good at all. In that case, it’s a primary matter and should be called false teaching. As for Catholics calling everyone heretics, that too is a primary matter. The question of how one is saved is of ultimate importance, and any teaching on this issue that doesn’t match what we read in the New Testament should absolutely be called false teaching.

      As for the Word of Faith movement, some issues are primary and some are secondary. The foundational teaching of Word of Faith theology is definitely a primary issue. I’ll lay it out for you:

      Faith is a force. Words are the containers of that force.
      God spoke ‘faith-filled words’ to create the universe.
      We are little gods. We are not in a different category… we are the same as God.
      Because we are little gods, we can speak “faith-filled words” and change reality itself.
      We are not dependent on God’s power to speak things into existence. God uses this ‘law,’ and we can use it to do the same things He does.

      I could find you dozens and dozens of quotes that say exactly these things. This is the ‘law of attraction,’ which isn’t a law at all. It’s nonsense. We are not little gods. We are not God’s actual children, as if we shared all of His attributes. We are His creation… and when we choose to trust Him with our lives, He adopts us into His family. His nature and our nature are not the same, but the Word of Faith teaches the opposite. As with most false teachers, Word of Faith teachers demote God and elevate man. This is definitely a primary issue. I don’t know of any serious thinker who would claim that the doctrine of entire sanctification is heresy. It should be blindingly obvious that the Word of Faith movement is heretical at its core. No, not every word they say is heresy. Every false teacher also says many true things… but that doesn’t erase the heresy that does exist.

      You and I definitely agree: we do need more compassion for those who believe the Word of Faith doctrines. That’s why I say we need to pray for them. That’s why I’ve written all of this stuff: people from around the world kept writing to ask whether this guy or that guy could be trusted to teach God’s Word faithfully. Because I’ve watched these false teachers for decades, I knew the answer to some of those questions… but nearly every week someone writes to ask about a teacher I’ve never heard of. I can either ignore their cries for help, or I can do the research and give them my best response. When the New Testament addresses false teaching, there are two groups involved:

      False teachers, and
      those who believe them.

      I have compassion for those who are deceived. That includes both groups. False teachers are not my enemies. We wrestle – we do wrestle, don’t we? – not with flesh and blood, but with the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. False teachers may be wolves in disguise, which makes them perpetrators… but they too are victims. They believe the lie that they will get what they want by taking advantage of others. Compassion is the right response, but compassion does not pretend. Jesus had compassion for the lost, but He still pointed out their sin. We should follow His example.

      >> Also when I had NAR described to me they just said it was basically either a bishop or a missionary. I am purely curious about these things.

      Most people, including those who are IN an NAR church, don’t know much about the NAR. At first glance, it looks like just another slightly different way of doing church. When you understand the foundational beliefs, the view changes. With the WOF, people will say, “What’s wrong with believing God wants to heal people?” Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, except that that’s not what the WOF is all about. When you understand the foundational beliefs of most of the NAR folks, the view also changes. At its core, NAR leaders teach that Jesus cannot return until Christians take dominion over the ‘seven mountains’ of culture. By our obedience or disobedience, we control God’s plan. If we succeed, Jesus can return. If we fail, Jesus can’t return. The problem with that should be obvious: the Bible doesn’t say that, so it’s just made up. When we add to that the idea that these self-described prophets and apostles are supposed to personally rule over the church on earth, it becomes pretty apparent that we should question the claim. I could say that God wants me in charge of the church, but I couldn’t back it up. NAR apostles make the claim, but they can’t back it up either.

      Let me suggest that when ANYONE makes ANY CLAIM about what God wants, but can’t back it up with a clear reading of Scripture, we should be very, very skeptical. In every case that I’m aware of, such claims are a clear sign of either current or upcoming heresy… and the shipwreck of the faith of those who follow.

      At no point do I think you should believe me, my friend. Check it out. Make sure I’m not blowing smoke. You might start with an interview of Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett, who are considered experts on the NAR. Don’t believe them, either… just use their info as a starting point for your own research.

      I’m here to help, so don’t hesitate to reach out at any time!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Go to top