Curry Blake

[Messy]

I know one guy who went from Holland to the John G. Lake Bibleschool and he posted some real good stuff from it. Does he also teach there?

 

[TasManOfGod]

I know one guy who went from Holland to the John G. Lake Bibleschool and he posted some real good stuff from it. Does he also teach there?

Do you mean Micheal Brown-No

 

[Messy]

Do you mean Micheal Brown-No

No I meant Curry Blake, it was a stupid question, sorry, I guess he teaches there when it's his Bibleschool, but that was great material what he posted.

 

[Messy]

I can't watch the videos, but it seems like he does the same as Thorben Söndergaard, kickstarting people.
6 lesson - Kick-start your Christian life - The Pioneer School - YouTube

 

[Yitzchak]

Lets get a few things clear because your take on the whole thing is even adding to the confusion
First I was told that as Curry was affiliated with the NARzies this waved some red flags.
Now there is an obvious connotation there to NAZI's so I went searching the whole site without finding anything with even the slightest connection.
I even googled the "word" NARzies and found nothing on the entire web that made any sense.(which perhaps explains why I hadn't heard of it).
Even my questioning did not receive helpful responses
Now forgive me if I sound like I am sticking up for a worthy man of God but rather was trying to find sense in a whole lot of nonsense.

Peter Wagner and some others have identified themselves as the New Apostolic Reformation which some have shortened to the acronym NAR.

It has been a while , but there were several threads a while back on here debating about NAR. I think Rick Joyner is one of the more well known ministers who identifies himself with NAR. Another well known minister who identifies themselves with NAR is Dutch Sheets.They call themselves by that name because they consider themselves called by God to have a new Reformation of the church which involves a re establishment of apostles. But the movement has no official membership list and it is sometimes difficult to pin down who is NAR and who is not. Because even ministers who identify with the movement can be in agreement with some of what they teach , but not all of it. Not every person that identifies themselves as an apostle is a part of NAR , but some are.

NAR has radical ideas which is to be expected since they are trying to reform the church. Very few who know about them are neutral about them. People tend to be either for them or against them. They have a rather large following. As I said , Rick Joyner who leads Morning star ministries is a well known advocate of the movement.

My inclination is to be skeptical when someone accuses someone of being a part of NAR until I see evidence that they actually are a part of NAR. I have seen ministries labeled that way simply because they had a teaching that sounded similar or because they had someone like Rick Joyner come to speak.

But it is a real movement and there is quite a bit of debate about their Theology and what they stand for.

It is no way related to the nazi party. I think NARzies was an unfortunate misunderstanding in this case.

 

[Yitzchak]

Curry Blake has a series of teachings on the new man which I think might be interesting given the topic of discussion in a few threads on here lately.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Peter Wagner and some others have identified themselves as the New Apostolic Reformation which some have shortened to the acronym NAR.

It has been a while , but there were several threads a while back on here debating about NAR. I think Rick Joyner is one of the more well known ministers who identifies himself with NAR. Another well known minister who identifies themselves with NAR is Dutch Sheets.They call themselves by that name because they consider themselves called by God to have a new Reformation of the church which involves a re establishment of apostles. But the movement has no official membership list and it is sometimes difficult to pin down who is NAR and who is not. Because even ministers who identify with the movement can be in agreement with some of what they teach , but not all of it. Not every person that identifies themselves as an apostle is a part of NAR , but some are.

NAR has radical ideas which is to be expected since they are trying to reform the church. Very few who know about them are neutral about them. People tend to be either for them or against them. They have a rather large following. As I said , Rick Joyner who leads Morning star ministries is a well known advocate of the movement.

My inclination is to be skeptical when someone accuses someone of being a part of NAR until I see evidence that they actually are a part of NAR. I have seen ministries labeled that way simply because they had a teaching that sounded similar or because they had someone like Rick Joyner come to speak.

But it is a real movement and there is quite a bit of debate about their Theology and what they stand for.

It is no way related to the nazi party. I think NARzies was an unfortunate misunderstanding in this case.

It is what comes from the heart that defiles man

 

[Biblicist]

Lets get a few things clear because your take on the whole thing is even adding to the confusion
First I was told that as Curry was affiliated with the NARzies this waved some red flags.
Now there is an obvious connotation there to NAZI's so I went searching the whole site without finding anything with even the slightest connection.
I even googled the "word" NARzies and found nothing on the entire web that made any sense.(which perhaps explains why I hadn't heard of it).
Even my questioning did not receive helpful responses
Now forgive me if I sound like I am sticking up for a worthy man of God but rather was trying to find sense in a whole lot of nonsense.

It came as a bit of a surprise when you mentioned that you did not know about the New Apostolic Renewal, particularly as you have been on CF (and presumably the Pentecostal and charismatic forums) for ten years – which of course explains your references to Hitler. Leaving aside what the others have said about them on CF, I have certainly made reference to the numerous NARzies on countless occasions so I am really surprised that you have not been aware of this disastrous development within the charismatic movement.

Moving outside of this forum, the NAR has been one of the most spoken about developments of the past twenty years though NARzie distinctives are probably very little different to those of its predecessor the “Latter-Rain” movement which was condemned by the US Assemblies of God.

As for the name New Apostolic Renewal, this is an umbrella term that was coined by C. Peter Wagner which covers not only his own International Coalition of Apostles (ICA) of which Blake is a member [incorrect*], as it also covers the other competing ‘apostolic’ groups who have their own charters and agendas.

As for the term NARzie, this has been used by others over the years to describe those who are members of the NAR and of course the irony is not lost on us in that the NARzies often utilise similar techniques that are employed by other groups who seek to use power and even violence to obtain their objectives (Joyner’s call for the overthrow of the US Government). If we consider the statements that have been made by Joyner (an ICA member) calling for the US military to overthrow the US Government, then no one should be surprised that we see their methods as being little different to other groups who espouse violence.

[* Blake is a member [maybe the founder] of the International Apostolic Council.]

 

[TasManOfGod]

It came as a bit of a surprise when you mentioned that you did not know about the New Apostolic Renewal, particularly as you have been on CF (and presumably the Pentecostal and charismatic forums) for ten years – which of course explains your references to Hitler. Leaving aside what the others have said about them on CF, I have certainly made reference to the numerous NARzies on countless occasions so I am really surprised that you have not been aware of this disastrous development within the charismatic movement.

Moving outside of this forum, the NAR has been one of the most spoken about developments of the past twenty years though NARzie distinctives are probably very little different to those of its predecessor the “Latter-Rain” movement which was condemned by the US Assemblies of God.

As for the name New Apostolic Renewal, this is an umbrella term that was coined by C. Peter Wagner which covers not only his own International Coalition of Apostles (ICA) of which Blake is a member, as it also covers the other competing ‘apostolic’ groups who have their own charters and agendas.

As for the term NARzie, this has been used by others over the years to describe those who are members of the NAR and of course the irony is not lost on us in that the NARzies often utilise similar techniques that are employed by other groups who seek to use power and even violence to obtain their objectives (Joyner’s call for the overthrow of the US Government). If we consider the statements that have been made by Joyner (an ICA member) calling for the US military to overthrow the US Government, then no one should be surprised that we see their methods as being little different to other groups who espouse violence.

Please show me proof of this Perhaps you maybe confusing with "International Apostolic Council" which I believe Blake started and probably would not want to have any association with Wagner whatsoever.

 

[Biblicist]

Please show me proof of this Perhaps you maybe confusing with "International Apostolic Council" which I believe Blake started and probably would not want to have any association with Wagner whatsoever.

Yes, you're right and I was wrong, Blake belongs to the "International Apostolic Council" and not the "International Coalition of Apostles" which was the group that Wagner started. Having plowed through Blakes two websites, this rather frustrating process has spurred me on as I am struggling to find out what he/they believe. From what I can see, his organisation appears to be one of the NAR groups (though not connected with Wagner) and the title of his church which includes "Dominion..." seems to indicate that he is following the NAR line - at least on face value.

His website mentioned that they might send a statement of belief if requested so hopefully they will send one in the next day or two. Prior to this thread I had never heard of Curry Blake but I am certainly motivated to find out what he believes as it seems that there is nothing available in print.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Yes, you're right and I was wrong, Blake belongs to the "International Apostolic Council" and not the "International Coalition of Apostles" which was the group that Wagner started. Having plowed through Blakes two websites, this rather frustrating process has spurred me on as I am struggling to find out what he/they believe. From what I can see, his organisation appears to be one of the NAR groups (though not connected with Wagner) and the title of his church which includes "Dominion..." seems to indicate that he is following the NAR line - at least on face value.

His website mentioned that they might send a statement of belief if requested so hopefully they will send one in the next day or two. Prior to this thread I had never heard of Curry Blake but I am certainly motivated to find out what he believes as it seems that there is nothing available in print.

To find out what Curry believes I would suggest video #3 of the "Doncaster" series as this cover it well.

 

[Yitzchak]

Yes, you're right and I was wrong, Blake belongs to the "International Apostolic Council" and not the "International Coalition of Apostles" which was the group that Wagner started. Having plowed through Blakes two websites, this rather frustrating process has spurred me on as I am struggling to find out what he/they believe. From what I can see, his organisation appears to be one of the NAR groups (though not connected with Wagner) and the title of his church which includes "Dominion..." seems to indicate that he is following the NAR line - at least on face value.

His website mentioned that they might send a statement of belief if requested so hopefully they will send one in the next day or two. Prior to this thread I had never heard of Curry Blake but I am certainly motivated to find out what he believes as it seems that there is nothing available in print.

One question. I noticed you referred to NAR as the new apostolic renewal. I was under the impression that they refer to themselves as the new apostolic Reformation not renewal ? Do they perhaps go by both names ? Or did I get it wrong ?

Also with regards to Dominion terminology , it is much broader than just NAR. Yes. NAR adherents do talk about dominion as one of their prime mandates and have taught the seven mountains strategy for reforming society. But Christian involvement in politics encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs.Unfortunately in some prior discussions , some have jumped to conclusions based upon certain " buzzwords ". Not only are there several streams within the NAR movement which fall at various points on the spectrum between radical diehards and someone who has some agreement on a few of their points, but there are also those who either disagree with NAR or are historically totally separate form them who take positions on Christian involvement in politics and warfare.

The church which I was converted in was the conservative end of the Mennonite church which teaches pacifism as the only right course for a Christan and teaches a total separation of church and state where Christians do not even vote or hold office. But I would consider them the minority position and at the far end of the spectrum. There are other Christian denominations which have nothing to do with NAR which encourage their members to serve in the military and to vote and even to hold political offices. Involvement in politics or even in military force does not mean that someone is NAR.

I think we need to be clear on this when we discuss the subject because while NAR is a real group and they do have a large number of adherents globally , it does not mean that anyone who holds to a political viewpoint or a spiritual viewpoint which has some similarity to something NAR said is therefore a part of NAR. I hope this has settled down somewhat on here , but at one point it was so out of control that it was similar to McCarthyism where everyone and his second cousin was accused of being a communist.

I agree that there is some cause for concern about certain extreme viewpoints that NAR promotes. But I think that very few , even within NAR , would like to see a return to political and military rule by the church such as what Rome exercised during the crusades. I don;t think that Christians need to embrace pacifism and total separation of church and State as though that is the only right position which a Christian can hold and otherwise they will be accused of embracing dominion heresy.

I also think that sometimes , in our environment of free speech here in America , public figures often say things without thinking through all the ramifications of what they are saying. We have to decide sometimes whether what is being reported about a well known minister is accurate and if it is , then we must decide if it is an essential doctrine worth breaking fellowship over and worth condemning an entire ministry over it.

I recall when the NAR debates were going on on here , IHOP was accused of being in league with NAR and even though they posted on their website a very clear statement that they rejected dominion Theology , they were still accused of it repeatedly to the point where elaborate conspiracy stories were promoted suggesting that they were lying and that certain insiders that had left their group knew what the " real " story was. This despite the fact that Mike Bickle leads a prayer group at IHOP and has been in the ministry for decades and has never committed or advocated violence of any kind. But they insist he must be building up to it because certain " buzzwords ' were found out of the thousands of hours of his teachings on the Bible .

We should be careful to distinguish between Peter Wagner who calls himself NAR and publicly promotes it and those who say that they are not NAR and a critic wants to paint with a broad brush and say they are all in the same category. This kind of thing should not be encouraged.

An example of this kind of prejudice and sloppy accusations is how some people look at Pentecostals. Occasionally over the years , I have run across people who think all Pentecostals handle poisonous snakes and drink poisons to test whether they will be able to survive it. Or that all Spirit fileld people who believe in healing refuse any medical care for their children. or all preachers are out for people's money , etc.

I am not suggesting that we should be gullible. But I think we should give a ministry the benefit of the doubt in self identifying their own beliefs. There should be strong evidence before accusing a ministry of lying about their statement of beliefs and having a secret belief system that they are hiding.

So my starting position is this. If Blake does not mention or identify himself or his organization with NAR then we should accept that and not use a few buzzwords to place that label upon him.

I think that most would place in in the Charismatic category and as far as I know , he agrees with that. Beyond that , narrowing which specific stream he falls into , may be difficult and should be done carefully.

Just my opinion.

 

[Yitzchak]

I finally got around to listening to the first teaching video. Here is a few highlights.


His first major point is that his teaching focus is equipping believers to do the works , not in having one specially gifted minister healing people. He is there to train whosoever will to do the healing.He says it is all about Jesus doing the healing through believers and not about exalting one gifted person to do all the healing. The focus should be on Jesus , not a specific person.

He then has a short caution about staying balanced and not going off into an out of balance tangent.

His second major point is that he sees the scripture as giving two reasons for failure in this subject of healing. The first is unbelief which he says should not apply to any of those in audience since they are all believers. The second reason he sees is tradition. He says if we can get rid of man's traditions and get back to just the Bible , then we will succeed at healing.

He then gives another caution that absolute confidence in God's word can come across to some as arrogance and cause offend. He cautions to not mistake confidence that God will do exactly what he said he would do with arrogance. He says his confidence is in God's word , not in himself.

He mentions Lester Sumerall and Wigglesworth as men he looks up to.

He then tells several testimonies of miracles that happened in Africa where he ministered.

His third major point is that healing is in the atonement.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I finally got around to listening to the first teaching video. Here is a few highlights.


His first major point is that his teaching focus is equipping believers to do the works , not in having one specially gifted minister healing people. He is there to train whosoever will to do the healing.he says it is all about Jesus doing the healing through believers and not about exalting one gifted person to do all the healing. The focus should eb on Jesus ,not a specific person.

He then has a short caution about staying balanced and not going off into an out of balance tangent.

His second major point is that he sees the scripture giving two reasons for failure in this subject of healing. The first is unbelief which he says should not apply to any of those in audience sine they are all believers. The second reason he see is tradition. He says if we can get rid of man's traditions and get back to just the Bible , then we will succeed at healing.

He then gives another caution that absolute confidence in God's word can come across to some as arrogance and cause offend. He cautions to not mistake confidence that God will do exactly what he said he would do with arrogance. he says his confidence is in God's word , not in himself.

He mentions Lester Sumerall and Wigglesworth as men he looks up to.

He then tells several testimonies of miracles that happened in Africa where he ministered.

His third major point is that healing is in the atonement.

Thank you for taking the time to do that. i hope others will as well because I have found all his material edifying and thought provoking without violating the Word of God

 

[TasManOfGod]

Please show me proof of this Perhaps you maybe confusing with "International Apostolic Council" which I believe Blake started and probably would not want to have any association with Wagner whatsoever.

Actually I subsequently found that IAC was founded by John G Lake in early 1900s to enable sharing between like ministries. Seems like IAC predates anything Wagner came up with by about 100 years.
It is a wonder that anybody who studies the history of the Pentecostal movement didn't already know this.

 

[missmarple]

a few months ago I found curry blake on youtube and watched all his teaching videos, there were like 17 in a row where he was teaching in australia. It took some discipline to get through them all but it was well worth it. I cant say I agree with everything he says, but hey, when he prays for the sick they are healed, when I pray, well, lets just say I am hoping for more results as I am obedient to God to step out and pray.
after curry blake, i found someone named Dan Mohler, I have listend to him also, many hours of teaching. I like him even more and have been so changed by the teaching, my walk with the Lord is becoming more intimate and my love for Him is growing and I am more able to receive His love for me.

 

[TasManOfGod]

a few months ago I found curry blake on youtube and watched all his teaching videos, there were like 17 in a row where he was teaching in australia. It took some discipline to get through them all but it was well worth it. I cant say I agree with everything he says, but hey, when he prays for the sick they are healed, when I pray, well, lets just say I am hoping for more results as I am obedient to God to step out and pray.
after curry blake, i found someone named Dan Mohler, I have listend to him also, many hours of teaching. I like him even more and have been so changed by the teaching, my walk with the Lord is becoming more intimate and my love for Him is growing and I am more able to receive His love for me.

Yes he has a great style of teaching some very profound truths.
I will also check out Dan Mohler

 

[TasManOfGod]

Here is an interesting oerview of the man's ministry:

On JGLM

JGLM (main American website) and its General Overseer Curry Blake are not that well-known in the world yet. I’ll try not to write too much in this post because I’ve written quite a number of posts in the past 2 years on JGLM and Curry Blake’s teachings. Suffice to say that what this ministry teaches has transformed my life. I’ve been blessed by listening to a lot of great teachers like Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson and Andrew Wommack. They have definitely contributed hugely to who I am today and what I believe and do. But listening to Curry and his radical teachings two years ago brought my understanding of God and Scriptures and especially my identity and who I am in Christ to a whole different level. It challenged a lot of what I had been taught and a lot of what is being taught out there that subtly prevented me from understanding the fullness of who I am in Christ and who Christ is in me.

Probably the greatest thing that can be said of someone’s ministry is that it has impacted many young people around the world to move out into the streets and do street healing. This is because what Curry teaches about who you are in Christ and what is needed to see healing destroys a lot of the limitations (e.g. the limitation of the need for the “anointing” as you’re already anointed and He abides in you, or of the need for an “atmosphere” because healing is dependent on the Word not the atmosphere, or of the need for the “presence” of God because God lives in you and His presence is always in and with you, or of the need for a “Word of Knowledge” because you go by the eternal Word of God, or of the need to dig out the past to see what is preventing healing because the Word of God never teaches this, etc.) that the typical charismatic teachings have placed upon believers.

I love the idealism and radicalness in what Curry teaches. When you hear him, you think everything is possible in Christ. No “buts”, no “ifs”. He calls it as he sees it and he teaches it as the Bible says it. What the ministry teaches is definitely one of the most biblical messages I’ve heard. It’s simple and straightforward. There are a lot of “traditions” and made-made theories in the charismatic churches that actually don’t stand up to what the Bible teaches. Just take one example. I was taught and the majority in the charismatic church still teach that when ministering healing to someone and you don’t see someone healed, you may need to dig up the past and find out what is preventing this healing and get the person to deal with it. I don’t want to get too much into this issue, but no where in the Bible does it say we have to do it. Nor did Jesus nor anybody in the Bible who healed do this! That fact alone should make us question this practice. Yet, it’s very accepted in the charismatic circles. And this has a lot of practical effects on our faith.

If you (either as someone praying for the sick or as someone believing for one’s own healing) believe that something in the past could be preventing this healing, how can you have faith for immediate healing based on the Word of God? It’s very simple – you can’t. You get what you believe for. If you believe something is hindering a healing, you’ll go and address that first and dig those hindrances out before believing that the person can be healed. And thus in a very important sense, you can’t have faith for immediate healing there and then when you pray/command.

One of Curry’s famous quotes is, “The only hindrance to healing is that you believe there are hindrances to healing”. That’s revolutionary simply because many people do believe there hindrances to healing – unforgiveness, sin, etc. Yet what Curry is saying is that the only hindrance is the fact you believe there are. Actually, there are none. The Word says you’ve been healed by His stripes. And the Word talks about faith. In a sense, if there’s any hindrance to healing, it’s that you don’t believe that you’ve already been healed by Christ’s stripes.

If you believe something in the past is preventing this healing, your eyes is diverted away from what Christ did for healing and diverted away way from the power we have in Christ to perform healing as you start to dig up the past and focus on the person and his/her past. (Now, I do believe that digging out the past can probably help deal with the sick person’s faith so that barriers to faith can be gotten rid of so that the sick person can receive healing for him/herself based on his/her own faith – but why would we want to do that when firstly that’s not the model in the Bible and secondly an easier way is to keep our eyes focused on Christ and who we are in Christ and what we have in Christ and let revelation and faith arise to see the sick person healed?) As far as I know, in the Bible, there’s really only one main instrumental factor to seeing a person healed. With this ingredient, anyone can get healed. That’s faith, as the Bible says so many times. And it could be the faith of the person receiving healing or faith of the person praying for healing. Curry’s heart is to train disciples to heal the sick. The burden should be upon US to heal the sick (the disciples were rebuked when they couldn’t get the sick healed – the focus was not placed on the sick to have faith for their own healing), and not expect the sick to have their own faith. This is where Curry differs slightly from the traditional Word of Faith movement.

OK, I know I’ve dealt with quite a lot of issues in the above few paragraphs and there’s lots more than can be said about these issues which I won’t deal with here. The main thing that I’ve learned from Curry is that it’s about the revelation of what Christ has done and who we are in Him and what we have in Him (incomparably great power for us who believe – Eph. 1:19). This revelation builds faith, which is the only factor in any healing in the Bible – in fact, the only factor in receiving anything from God. It’s not about getting some special anointing or gift or about working up an atmosphere or digging up the past. It’s just about knowing who we are in Christ. That’s really the message of JGLM. And that’s the message that has transformed my life and many others.

Comes from here

 

[Biblicist]

Actually I subsequently found that IAC was founded by John G Lake in early 1900s to enable sharing between like ministries. Seems like IAC predates anything Wagner came up with by about 100 years.
It is a wonder that anybody who studies the history of the Pentecostal movement didn't already know this.

As a follow up to my earlier remarks about his apparent NARzie leanings, about 2-3 weeks ago I sent off an email to the US website asking them for a link to their core beliefs. A ‘Betty’ kindly forwarded a link to me and their section under “The Ministry” appears to display an Apostolic leaning.

The Ministry
"We believe that God has designated and instituted duly called and equipped persons to function as the overseers of the Body of Christ(the church) upon the earth, and that these persons are charged with the equipping and edification of the saints until such time as the church has grown up into the image of Christ. (Eph. 4:11-15; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3)"
​

As this paragraph spoke volumes, I asked ‘Betty’ if their organisation had any connections with Wagner’s Apostolic organisation or if they were independents. I tried to use some of the in-house terminology, such as with “who are you aligned with” but it seems that my second email may have been a bit too confronting as they have not replied to my question.

So, it seems that Curries ministry is aligned in some way with the various other “apostolic groups”.

Over the years I have come across a lot of short articles and remarks about Lake, but from memory, Lakes 'Apostolic' beliefs had never come up in discussion; it may be that Currie has adopted the early practice where many Pentecostals used the word 'Apostolic' to link themselves to early church practice, whereas Curry has seemingly shifted this to a more contemporary understanding similar to that of Wagners.

 

[TasManOfGod]

As a follow up to my earlier remarks about his apparent NARzie leanings, about 2-3 weeks ago I sent off an email to the US website asking them for a link to their core beliefs. A ‘Betty’ kindly forwarded a link to me and their section under “The Ministry” appears to display an Apostolic leaning.

The Ministry
"We believe that God has designated and instituted duly called and equipped persons to function as the overseers of the Body of Christ(the church) upon the earth, and that these persons are charged with the equipping and edification of the saints until such time as the church has grown up into the image of Christ. (Eph. 4:11-15; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3)"
​

As this paragraph spoke volumes, I asked ‘Betty’ if their organisation had any connections with Wagner’s Apostolic organisation or if they were independents. I tried to use some of the in-house terminology, such as with “who are you aligned with” but it seems that my second email may have been a bit too confronting as they have not replied to my question.

So, it seems that Curries ministry is aligned in some way with the various other “apostolic groups”.

Over the years I have come across a lot of short articles and remarks about Lake, but from memory, Lakes 'Apostolic' beliefs had never come up in discussion; it may be that Currie has adopted the early practice where many Pentecostals used the word 'Apostolic' to link themselves to early church practice, whereas Curry has seemingly shifted this to a more contemporary understanding similar to that of Wagners.

I see so on the basis of a series of "ifs" "maybes" and" possiblys" a definitive conclusion is reached . Sheesh