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

[jiminpa]

God said to Jonah; “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
How exactly is that a false prophecy?

How is it not?

Jonah 3:4Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 Then on the first day’s walk, Jonah began to go through the city, and he called out and said, “Forty days more [remain] and [then] Nineveh will be overthrown!”

 

[StanJ]

How is it not?

First of all, the Amplified is more a paraphrase plus commentary so it is not a direct formal or functionally equivalent translation.
Secondly, God did tell Jonah what to say, so Jonah can't possibly be a false prophet if God told him what to say.
Thirdly, throughout the Bible, God always accepts repentance when expressed and given, to prevent his judgment. For the same reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they did not repent. If they had repented God never would have destroyed them.

 

[jiminpa]

First of all, the Amplified is more a paraphrase plus commentary so it is not a direct formal or functionally equivalent translation.
Secondly, God did tell Jonah what to say, so Jonah can't possibly be a false prophet if God told him what to say.
Thirdly, throughout the Bible, God always accepts repentance when expressed and given, to prevent his judgment. For the same reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they did not repent. If they had repented God never would have destroyed them.

The Amplified is a translation, not a paraphrase, and what you call commentary is translator's clarification, which is nothing at all like commentary, which usually tries to explain why the Bible means something other than what it actually says.

Notice that I said "technically." By strictest application Jonah did not pass the test of a true prophet, (Deuteronomy 18:22), which is precisely the point. People like to apply the strictest test to those they have an ax to grind against, but are exceedingly merciful to those they like. Jonah spoke what God told him to say, but his word did not come to pass. Technically, he was a false prophet, but really he was a true prophet.

 

[StanJ]

The Amplified is a translation, not a paraphrase, and what you call commentary is translator's clarification, which is nothing at all like commentary, which usually tries to explain why the Bible means something other than what it actually says.

Real translations Translate and use either form of equivalency or functional equivalency. In the case of the Amplified it uses neither. It is based on the American Standard Version and as such does not represent a true translation. They may refer to the Greek and Hebrew text to add their amplification but in that regard, as far as I am concerned, it is a paraphrase and as such should be treated as one. I could post a few articles from scholars in that regard but as you seem to have made up your mind I'll just let you make up your own mind and pursue it on your own.

Notice that I said "technically." By strictest application Jonah did not pass the test of a true prophet, (Deuteronomy 18:22), which is precisely the point. People like to apply the strictest test to those they have an ax to grind against, but are exceedingly merciful to those they like. Jonah spoke what God told him to say, but his word did not come to pass. Technically, he was a false prophet, but really he was a true prophet.

Because Jonah was not prophesying here, he was warning of impending doom unless Nineveh repented. He was preaching, he wasn't prophesying.

 

[jiminpa]

Real translations Translate and use either form of equivalency or functional equivalency. In the case of the Amplified it uses neither. It is based on the American Standard Version and as such does not represent a true translation. They may refer to the Greek and Hebrew text to add their amplification but in that regard, as far as I am concerned, it is a paraphrase and as such should be treated as one. I could post a few articles from scholars in that regard but as you seem to have made up your mind I'll just let you make up your own mind and pursue it on your own.

Because Jonah was not prophesying here, he was warning of impending doom unless Nineveh repented. He was preaching, he wasn't prophesying.

There was no "unless" in Jonah's message. Jonah spoke a direct, specific message from God about a future event. I don't know what other qualification you want for prophesy. The event Jonah declared did not come to pass.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There was no "unless" in Jonah's message. Jonah spoke a direct, specific message from God about a future event. I don't know what other qualification you want for prophesy. The event Jonah declared did not come to pass.

So how about the sign of Jonah that Jesus was going on about?

 

[jiminpa]

So how about the sign of Jonah that Jesus was going on about?

What's that got to do with Jonah's prophesies being accurate? Again, I want to state that I understand that Jonah was not really a false prophet, and that I am aware that God used the prophesy that was not going to come to pass to bring Nineveh to repentance.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What's that got to do with Jonah's prophesies being accurate? Again, I want to state that I understand that Jonah was not really a false prophet, and that I am aware that God used the prophesy that was not going to come to pass to bring Nineveh to repentance.

I was just bringing the thesis back to Jesus

Also keep in mind that one of the marks of a true prophet in the Old Testament times at least was that their ministry resulted in people repenting.

 

[unfinishedclay]

Looking at the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, when and how did it go wrong? Can you list faults and false teachers? Can it come good? What damage does it do? What good things remain in it?

They name call. If people oppose them holding up the Bible as evidence that questioning is needed, some are called Jezebel. If people point to NAR teachings as having heretical points, people are called heresy hunters. If people leave their fellowships looking for sound Biblical teachings, people are called church-hoppers.

 

[catherine777]

It would take far too long to list where and how this movement has gone wrong but in my opinion it was never anything of God in the first place. Any movement that counts among its members Todd Bentley, is dead before it starts. Firstly there is no New Apostolic age. The last Apostolic age died out when John the Apostle died after writing Revelation. Revelation is the last Revelation the church ever received and it was the last Revelation that Jesus Christ ever gave. It depicts what will happen with the church and tribulation and closes up with Jesus' Millennial reign and the establishment of the new Heaven and new earth and New Jerusalem. There is no new revelation after that because the Book of Revelation contains all the body of Christ needs to know. I have been a Pentecostal believe her for over 45 years and I am increasingly annoyed and perturbed by all the false teachers that our faith continues to attract.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/newapostolic.html

Wellthen your view is very limited...because through out church history after death of apostle John has been many men and women of God who had been functioned in apostolic and prophetic office and who has been die for their understanding. I recommend to read to you Robert Heidler Chock Pierce Apostolic churches arising where is told about history of apostolic centres that is mentioned in Bible and in church history.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Wellthen your view is very limited...because through out church history after death of apostle John has been many men and women of God who had been functioned in apostolic and prophetic office and who has been die for their understanding. I recommend to read to you Robert Heidler Chock Pierce Apostolic churches arising where is told about history of apostolic centres that is mentioned in Bible and in church history.

Good choice. Let's all ask Chuck Pierce about NAR.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

There is an "Apostolic Church" like there is "Assemblies of God" and I doubt it is NAR.
Is there an authority that is heeded that is NAR?
I surely disagree with cessationism, and to some extent respect apostolic succession and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Revival is a good thing. There were saints then the preachers throughout the centuries. They sought God and were revived from mere motions and theology to spiritual life. They were like springs in the desert.

So 20th century revival and building up from teacher to evangelist to prophet to apostle seems a good idea. If it serves God, He will use it. Church planting is the role of an apostle. It will not cease until the dark time when no one can work, but then Jesus returns and rules and even then it may have another form of use.

 

[RodofMoses]

In short, if you're reading this thread and are unsure about what this is all about, don't worry too much about what's said on the internet. Draw near to Jesus in deep intimacy, as His Word promises that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. And if He will guide us into all truth, surely He will show us what does not line up with His truth..

Above is my favorite part of your post because its so true. Christians should not listen to the slander or watch EDITED clips of something others say to try to make them an offender. The only way to properly discern a minister is to read their material or watch their (full) videos for yourself and make a decision based on actually hearing their full teaching yourself (NOT listening to someone else's "opinion" of them). I'm not going to learn about Jesus properly by listening to an atheist rant about Him, and we aren't going to get a balanced view of a teacher/minister by listening to some wingnut slag them. We gotta go to the source.

 

[Biblicist]

Above is my favorite part of your post because its so true. Christians should not listen to the slander or watch EDITED clips of something others say to try to make them an offender. The only way to properly discern a minister is to read their material or watch their (full) videos for yourself and make a decision based on actually hearing their full teaching yourself (NOT listening to someone else's "opinion" of them). I'm not going to learn about Jesus properly by listening to an atheist rant about Him, and we aren't going to get a balanced view of a teacher/minister by listening to some wingnut slag them. We gotta go to the source.

A good source of information (as with videos) as to why the NARzie movement is best avoided has been provided by leading NARzies such as Todd Bentley and Rick Joyner, just to name two. Joyner in particular has produced numerous videos, articles and a few books which many of us have had the opportunity of viewing.

 

[AGTG]

Above is my favorite part of your post because its so true. Christians should not listen to the slander or watch EDITED clips of something others say to try to make them an offender. The only way to properly discern a minister is to read their material or watch their (full) videos for yourself and make a decision based on actually hearing their full teaching yourself (NOT listening to someone else's "opinion" of them). I'm not going to learn about Jesus properly by listening to an atheist rant about Him, and we aren't going to get a balanced view of a teacher/minister by listening to some wingnut slag them. We gotta go to the source.

You're wrong, though, because overwhelmingly the NAR movement has profited mightily through mass media such as the internet, television, DVD sales, books, etc, etc.

Jesus said, "With the measure you mete, it will be measured unto you."

They have profited from promulgating their delusional, demonic doctrines through mass media, then they are fair game to be exposed through the same means.

 

[LinkH]

I don't know if there is a consistent criteria for labeling a group or individual as part of the NAR.

But it does seem to me that certain groups and individuals that get this label have a very loose and fuzzy definition of what an 'apostle' is supposed to be. Plenty of 'movers and shakers' in the church and society operate in gifts other than apostleship. Having a large following does not make one an apostle. being the head of a denomination or fellowship of churches does not make one an apostle. Being fatherly does not make one an apostle. Paul was a father in the sense that he won new believers to Christ and brought the gospel to previously unreached people (along with his coworkers). he was a father in the gospel, not just a father-figure. The passage from I Corinthians quoted about 'not many fathers' is about this type of fatherhood.d. We should expect many men in the church to have a fatherly nature. I John addresses 'fathers' in one passage. Many elders should have a fatherly nature. That is not a unique characteristic of apostolic ministry.

What we do see in the Bible is that the 12 were called 'apostles' when they were commissioned to be sent out to preach and do miracles in one Gospel. They are called apostles upon return from their journey in another Gospel. Acts starts calling Paul and Barnabas 'apostles' after they were sent out by the Spirit in Acts 13. They went around preaching, which resulted in the formation of New churches. They also appointed elders.

Paul and his coworkers, according to II Corinthians 10, had a measure of rule that extended to the areas to which they had introduced the Gospel. They wanted the Corinthians to help them go to unreached regions so that they might expand their measure of rule.