Discussion NAR when did it go wrong, what faults can you list?

[jiminpa]

It's an important part of their theology to suggest God is doing something new and special now, as that allows them to freewheel fast and loose without adherence to scripture.

And JiminPA, you're entitled to your opinions, but it appears to me that the word of God does not have the authority it should in your walk.

You cited scripture, but most of it doesn't say what you want it to say, and what does say what you want doesn't apply to the topic. If this were a high school debate where the only thing important is the volume of citations and not the relevance of the citations you would have won, but nothing you cited substantiates your accusations.

Look, if there's a problem with NAR, I would love to know it, but neither you nor anyone else has actually provided a scriptural basis for these accusations, not with scriptures as translated and in context, and applied to substantiated problems with the movement. It all boils down to some of you not liking what they are doing and trying to conform scripture to justify it, but that's not what the Bible is for. We should study the Bible for it to change us. If that is somehow lacking in giving the Bible authority, well, God will have to show me that.

It's not the Bible's authority that I don't recognize, and neither you nor anyone else gets to tell me that it means something other than what it says, in the full context of the whole Bible.

 

[Biblicist]

For those who choose to defend the distinctive teachings of the NARzie movement, they will need to first demonstrate where the NARzie core teaching comes from, where they claim that the Father is not only restoring the role of the apostle and the prophet, but that apostles in particular are supposed to be in charge of local congregations and they go as far to say that apostles are also to be in charge of churches within specific geographical regions.

If this challenge cannot be met, then their entire house-of-cards quickly collapses.

 

[jiminpa]

For those who choose to defend the distinctive teachings of the NARzie movement, they will need to first demonstrate where the NARzie core teaching comes from, where they claim that the Father is not only restoring the role of the apostle and the prophet, but that apostles in particular are supposed to be in charge of local congregations and they go as far to say that apostles are also to be in charge of churches within specific geographical regions.

If this challenge cannot be met, then their entire house-of-cards quickly collapses.

No, those hurling the accusations need to show the scriptural basis of those accusation. You haven't done so. You have shown that you don't agree with them, and declared your disagreement to be scriptural.

Fortunately, those in the NAR don't answer to anyone on this forum. No one here would make a very good God.

 

[Biblicist]

No, those hurling the accusations need to show the scriptural basis of those accusation. You haven't done so.

In any discussion where a given party inserts a set of teachings, doctrines or practices that have not been a part of Christian belief since the days of the Apostles, then the person who desires to present these new views is required to give evidence for his position.

Once you have demonstrated from within the Scriptures that apostles are supposed to be in charge of local churches and even geographical regions of the church then we can respond - such is life!

 

[jiminpa]

In any discussion where a given party inserts a set of teachings, doctrines or practices that have not been a part of Christian belief since the days of the Apostles, then the person who desires to present these new views is required to give evidence for his position.

Once you have demonstrated from within the Scriptures that apostles are supposed to be in charge of local churches and even geographical regions of the church then we can respond - such is life!

So first you acknowledge that the first disciples practiced the same structure, and then you demand that it be justified by scripture. Are you saying that the first disciples were heretics? I believe you called the NAR heretical for doing what now imply the early church also did.

Secondly, you made an additional claim that you have not substantiated. That such a structure has not existed since the early church.

Third, it's their fellowships, and without clear Biblical prohibitions they can structure however they want. I don't here of those in the NAR, running around telling everyone else that their accountability structures are wrong, so there's no reasonable need to create an issue.

 

[Biblicist]

So first you acknowledge that the first disciples practiced the same structure, and then you demand that it be justified by scripture. Are you saying that the first disciples were heretics? I believe you called the NAR heretical for doing what now imply the early church also did.

Here's where the NARzie movement first went astray, where it has confused (most likely this was intentional) the role of the Twelve Commissioned Apostles of Christ (plus Paul) with that of the ordinary congregational apostle.

Even with the Twelve, we do not see them being in charge of any particular local congregation, where the assembly in Jerusalem bypassed the Twelve by installing James (the brother of Jesus) as their first council president. As for Paul who was a prolific church planter, even he was careful in this regard, where as a directly appointed representative of Christ he could wield incredible power and authority but he only ever did so when he heard of serious events occuring within one of his church plants.

Secondly, you made an additional claim that you have not substantiated. That such a structure has not existed since the early church.

When it comes to the leadership of the local congregation the Scriptures are absolutely adamant that the final authority within each local congregation rests with the elders, not the deacons, nor with some supposed pastors and certainly not any apostles or prophets and certainly not with any NARzie understanding of the local apostle being equated with that of the Twelve (incl. Paul). Rome certainly attempted to install a regime where their bishops were supposed to inherit their authority from Peter but as with the NARzie heresy Rome's attempt to justifiy their own brand of authority has no foundation either.

Third, it's their fellowships, and without clear Biblical prohibitions they can structure however they want. I don't here of those in the NAR, running around telling everyone else that their accountability structures are wrong, so there's no reasonable need to create an issue.

Are you serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The primary NARzie celebrities spend an incredible amount of time telling everyone that their/our models are wrong and that their's is correct - that is really an amazing comment, you might need to catch up with what they have been saying for the past 20 years, particulary with Wagner and Joyner.

Third, it's their fellowships, and without clear Biblical prohibitions they can structure however they want.

Does this mean that they can worship Mary, call Muhammad a co-redemptrix and do what they want - please, be serious!

Edit: Spelling

 

[AGTG]

You cited scripture, but most of it doesn't say what you want it to say, and what does say what you want doesn't apply to the topic. If this were a high school debate where the only thing important is the volume of citations and not the relevance of the citations you would have won, but nothing you cited substantiates your accusations.

You're saying this, but it's not true. The scriptures I posted are clear and plain, and they defy the practices of this New Apostolic Reformation clearly.

 

[AGTG]

For those who choose to defend the distinctive teachings of the NARzie movement, they will need to first demonstrate where the NARzie core teaching comes from, where they claim that the Father is not only restoring the role of the apostle and the prophet, but that apostles in particular are supposed to be in charge of local congregations and they go as far to say that apostles are also to be in charge of churches within specific geographical regions.

If this challenge cannot be met, then their entire house-of-cards quickly collapses.

Isn't it interesting that this apostolic theory of theirs basically creates a lucrative pyramid scheme whereby they heap up followers who will faithfully tithe into their ministries?

 

[AGTG]

In any discussion where a given party inserts a set of teachings, doctrines or practices that have not been a part of Christian belief since the days of the Apostles, then the person who desires to present these new views is required to give evidence for his position.

Once you have demonstrated from within the Scriptures that apostles are supposed to be in charge of local churches and even geographical regions of the church then we can respond - such is life!

The doctrine is so wispy it's a joke. Their ideas are based upon readily confutable implications from the scriptures, and not plain scripture. They built this doctrine from the fact that Paul established a church in Asia Minor and that in one place of scripture he prays that his "region" of influence would be expanded.

From that we're supposed to allow these greedy, hypocritical guys to gobble up entire cities under their lucrative pyramid scheme!

Ihop was the first, and most bold about this. If you do some research, you will find that in the late 80's and early 90's when Paul Cain and Bob Jones were a part of their ministry, they went around to all the charismatic/Pentecostal churches in Kansas City under the guise of coming by just to preach.

What did they do at every church they went to? Oh, they gave a prophetic word. What was that prophetic word? That God wanted them to come under the authority of Mike Bickle's church.

Then they had the audacity to threaten congregations who would not "receive" this prophetic word that God would write "Ichabod" over the entrance of their church building (Ichabod means God has departed).

 

[Biblicist]

Isn't it interesting that this apostolic theory of theirs basically creates a lucrative pyramid scheme whereby they heap up followers who will faithfully tithe into their ministries?

It would be very easy to compile an incredibly long list of NARzie disasters, but all we really need to do is to point to the Todd Bentley fiasco of a few years back where his wickedness made the so-called NARzie round table look like a bunch of bumbling infants. To add to their embarrassment, individuals such as Rick Joyner continued for years to justify Bentley's wickedness which was nothing less than damage control to protect his own interests.

Considering how the Bentley fiasco has made these so called "enlightened" NARzie celebrities look so foolish to the Church and even to the world, this should have been enough reason to see the NARzie regime collapse into oblivion but for some odd reason their followers keep blindly walking the same tired and refuse littered pathways.

 

[AGTG]

This website has been documenting much of what the New Apostolic Reformation has been doing the last 25 years. There are a ton of articles, but it's worth digging through because there are tons of first-hand testimonies to what these ministries have been up to:

www.deceptioninthechurch.com

 

[Biblicist]

The doctrine is so wispy it's a joke. Their ideas are based upon readily confutable implications from the scriptures, and not plain scripture. They built this doctrine from the fact that Paul established a church in Asia Minor and that in one place of scripture he prays that his "region" of influence would be expanded.

From that we're supposed to allow these greedy, hypocritical guys to gobble up entire cities under their lucrative pyramid scheme!

Ihop was the first, and most bold about this. If you do some research, you will find that in the late 80's and early 90's when Paul Cain and Bob Jones were a part of their ministry, they went around to all the charismatic/Pentecostal churches in Kansas City under the guise of coming by just to preach.

What did they do at every church they went to? Oh, they gave a prophetic word. What was that prophetic word? That God wanted them to come under the authority of Mike Bickle's church.

Then they had the audacity to threaten congregations who would not "receive" this prophetic word that God would write "Ichabod" over the entrance of their church building (Ichabod means God has departed).

A lot of these earlier NARzie types merely rehashed the earlier latter-rain heresies (from 1948), which even the worldwide AoG banned within their ranks and continue to do so even to this day.

 

[Biblicist]

To be even handed, when people rightfully attack the NARzie understanding of church government, where they say that each church should be governed by pastors, this probably has even less support than the NARzie model as the Scriptures are adament that elders (plural) are to govern each local congregation. This means that those who believe in some form of pastor model of leadership, they have even less legs to stand on.

 

[AGTG]

It would be very easy to compile an incredibly long list of NARzie disasters, but all we really need to do is to point to the Todd Bentley fiasco of a few years back where his wickedness made the so-called NARzie round table look like a bunch of bumbling infants. To add to their embarrassment, individuals such as Rick Joyner continued for years to justify Bentley's wickedness which was nothing less than damage control to protect his own interests.

Considering how the Bentley fiasco has made these so called "enlightened" NARzie celebrities look so foolish to the Church and even to the world, this should have been enough reason to see the NARzie regime collapse into oblivion but for some odd reason their followers keep blindly walking the same tired and refuse littered pathways.

You've got to understand their thinking when it comes to a guy like Bentley, though. They know that anyone who can wow others with some supernatural power is like a cash cow (golden cow, more like it). Bentley is exceptional at manipulating people. Because manipulation is a hypocritical position to "minister" from, seducing spirits ala 1 Timothy 4:1-2 begin to work through their ministry.

People are wowed, the false revival starts to break forth, the money starts to roll in, and the pyramid scheme expands.

 

[Biblicist]

You've got to understand their thinking when it comes to a guy like Bentley, though. They know that anyone who can wow others with some supernatural power is like a cash cow (golden cow, more like it). Bentley is exceptional at manipulating people. Because manipulation is a hypocritical position to "minister" from, seducing spirits ala 1 Timothy 4:1-2 begin to work through their ministry.

People are wowed, the false revival starts to break forth, the money starts to roll in, and the pyramid scheme expands.

Yep, it does seem that the NARzie "round-table" saw Bentley's road show as being a great advertising ploy. I don't know if the timing by the NARzie round-table of Wagner, Joyner, Ahn, Johnstone etc with their ill-timed declaration of support for Bentley being supposedly the "latest and best thing from God" was the Fathers timing, where Bentley fell into a complete heap only two weeks later or not but the timing for his demise could hardly have been any better. The timing certainly allowed the Church to realise that these individuals were as frail as anyone else and where they obviously failed to hear from the Father regarding Bentley (which presumes that they were even interested with finding out in the first place).

 

[AGTG]

Yep, it does seem that the NARzie "round-table" saw Bentley's road show as being a great advertising ploy. I don't know if the timing by the NARzie round-table of Wagner, Joyner, Ahn, Johnstone etc with their ill-timed declaration of support for Bentley being supposedly the "latest and best thing from God" was the Fathers timing, where Bentley fell into a complete heap only two weeks later or not but the timing for his demise could hardly have been any better. The timing certainly allowed the Church to realise that these individuals were as frail as anyone else and where they obviously failed to hear from the Father regarding Bentley (which presumes that they were even interested with finding out in the first place).

God's word promises that He will confound the wisdom of the wise.

 

[jiminpa]

OK, I've spent too much in this thread already. If the scriptures mean something to you other than what they actually say, then there's really not much more to discuss is there.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So first you acknowledge that the first disciples practiced the same structure, and then you demand that it be justified by scripture. Are you saying that the first disciples were heretics? I believe you called the NAR heretical for doing what now imply the early church also did.

Secondly, you made an additional claim that you have not substantiated. That such a structure has not existed since the early church.

Third, it's their fellowships, and without clear Biblical prohibitions they can structure however they want. I don't here of those in the NAR, running around telling everyone else that their accountability structures are wrong, so there's no reasonable need to create an issue.

Does your church follow NAR apostles and prophets?

Also, under a NAR controlled government THEIR apostles would rule over all the churches.

Why not read some of their quotes.

 

[ToBeLoved]

OK, I've spent too much in this thread already. If the scriptures mean something to you other than what they actually say, then there's really not much more to discuss is there. Have fun with your gossip session.

lol. Bye.

 

[Biblicist]

It is always useful to refer to any available primary sources within a discussion and when it comes to the NARzie distinctives then Wagner certainly stands out as its primary proponent. The following article is from a Charisma Magazine article which was published in 2014. Wagner has certainly employed a lot of spin which includes in my opinion a fair swag of slight-of-hand where he has referred to various historical events but where he has placed his own slant on them so that he can prop up his odd assortment of teachings.

If you look at the first following paragraph by Wagner (taken from the later part of his article), you should be able to quickly see just how dangerous this movement is. Wagner’s position, which is a foundation of NARzie ideology, is that their apostles are not only to be in charge of a local congregation but incredibly he goes on to say that they are answerable to no one! In my opinion, when we come across anyone within our church who says that they are accountable to no one then we should quickly show them the door. Maybe if the members of the NARzie round-table back in 2008 where accountable to responsible leadership and not just to their fellow cronies, then maybe the Bentley debacle might not have occurred.

The following material comes from the Charisma Magazine article by Wagner and if you want to see the complete article you can use the following link:

http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/church-ministry/15676-where-are-the-apostles-and-prophets
"On the local church level, the new wineskin pastor is the leader of the church, not an employee of the church as he or she was in the old wineskin. If the church elders, for example, could hire a pastor, they could also fire a pastor. To keep the job, a pastor had to please the church. That partially explains why in America's two largest denominations, the Southern Baptists and the United Methodists, pastoral tenure averages only two to four years. In apostolic churches, pastoral tenure is much longer—frequently for life—because the pastor does not report to the elders; rather the elders are appointed by and report to the pastor".



"Church-growth specialist C. Peter Wagner evaluates where the apostolic/prophetic movement has been—and where it's going.

Most Christians know the Bible teaches that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). However, many have fallen into the erroneous supposition that after the early church was established, the office of apostle and the office of prophet were no longer needed.

It is true that the annals of church history over the past 1,800 years or so have had little to say about apostles and prophets. Why? The biblical government of the church largely had been laid aside in favor of a more bureaucratic, administrative and legal structure both among Catholics and Protestants.

In recent times, however, apostles and prophets have been resurfacing. They once again are taking their rightful place of leadership among churches that are on the cutting edge of the current exponential growth of Christianity in many parts of the world.

The best I can personally calculate, the Second Apostolic Age began in 2001.

In the early 1900s, not only did we see the beginning of the Pentecostal movement, but we also saw the first component of what I like to call the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) fall into place. That was the emergence of the African Independent Churches that had split from the previous generation of churches established by western missionaries. Since then, the independent churches have far surpassed mission churches in their dramatic growth.

The second NAR component was the Chinese house church movement that began in 1976. They experienced the greatest harvest of souls in a single nation in history.

In the 1970s, the Latin-American grass-roots churches began multiplying like mushrooms throughout Central and South America. Add the independent charismatic churches that became the fastest-growing segment of Christianity in America, and you have the main ingredients of the NAR.​

A Generation of Apostles in North America

1. Focusing on North America, I believe . . .
2. These were our pioneers . . .
3. Why did many of these movements led by World War II apostles fade? Some critics have made long lists of alleged mistakes, which I do not want to dwell upon. We must keep in mind that these pioneers had no textbooks on apostolic ministry, there were no role models to emulate, and associations allowing peer-level apostles to connect and interact were not yet contemplated. However, I would like to suggest that one of the most serious shortcomings of World War II apostles was their failure to align properly with intercessors and prophets. Let me explain how this defect was corrected over subsequent years".
​

When Wagner speaks of the WW2 apostles, he is referring to those who were invovled within the decadant latter-rain movement that started in Canada back in 1948. It is interesting that Wagner has chosen not to name this particular movement, where I have no doubt that he does not want to let his readers know that he is referring to a horrid period of time for the Pentecostal church. As with the latter-rain movement that created havoc within the Body of Christ during the 50's, the NARzie movement which is itself only a rehash of the older latter-rain movement, appears to be creating even more havoc, where the contemporary church runs the risk of being completely derailed by these celebrity snake oil salesmen.

I wonder how many have noticed in Wagner's last paragraph that he acknowledges that the Church has had no prior experience with the model that his is trying to impose onto the Body of Christ, where he even admits that their are no textbooks on apostolic ministry where I would add that even our textbook which is the Holy Bible does not give a hint about what Wagner is promoting.