[0]In the Name of Jesus Q & AJude 3 [41] tells us that we are to "earnestly contend for the faith...once [for all time] delivered to the saints." Christ declared, "Have faith in God," so there is no true faith without acknowledging the one and only true God. Paul declares that there is "one faith," and that fact exposes the folly of "people of faith."Dave Hunt Last month we noted that a major part of Paul's ministry was spent in disputing, reasoning, and persuading (Acts 19:8 [1]; Acts 19:26 [2]; Acts 28:23 [3]) in synagogues and market places (Acts 17:2-3 [4]; Acts 17:17 [5]; Acts 18:4 [6]; Acts 18:19 [7]; Acts 19:8 [8]), in religious schools (Acts 19:9 [9]), and wherever debates were held, such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:18-34 [10]). Paul tells us that we are to follow his example, so Christians should be earnestly reasoning with and persuading others of the truth of the gospel as the Lord gives opportunity. Friends, neighbors, perhaps family members are on their way to a Christless eternity. Let us try to help them! Time is short. Whether by death or the Rapture, we're all leaving this world soon. We also saw with equal clarity that the Bible does not promote ecumenism of any kind or any other compromise of the faith. We are to "earnestly contend for the faith," a clause that cannot be twisted to mean, "emphasize what we have in common and avoid controversial differences so that we can all work together for the common good." That may sound commendable, but it is not biblical and is shameless disobedience to our Lord's command. The early church made no alliances with apostates, heretics, or non-Christians, even for seemingly good causes. There is no time to waste and we must decide our priorities. Will we spend our time and resources in partnership with the world in political and social action, or will we preach the gospel and earnestly contend for the faith once for all committed to the saints? From Genesis to Revelation, we are instructed to stand firm, following the Lord with pure hearts, not turning from the narrow way. Christ's command to every Christian was and still is, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15 [11]). This is every Christian's marching orders. Earnestly contending for the faith does not mean arguing over moot points that are not essential to the gospel. We must be patient with differences of opinion on minor matters of doctrine and practice. Yes, Paul openly rebuked Peter to his face before the church at Galatia, but his rebuke concerned the gospel, which cannot be changed one iota: "I withstood him to the face...when I saw that they [the believers who had been led astray by Peter's compromising in order to placate the Jews] walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel..." (Galatians 2:11-14 [12]). We must stand up for God's truth and not compromise. Sadly, we have Christian leaders today who not only disobey but even dare to revise what God has clearly written in His Word! We cannot make what we think will be acceptable "small adjustments" to God's way of salvation. If we tamper in the slightest with the gospel, we are despising God's Word and jeopardizing the eternal destiny of souls! The unchanging and unchangeable "gospel of Christ [not the latest revision of it]...is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth [it]" (Romans 1:16 [13]). This is the only way of salvation. Jesus said that for anyone to "see [and] enter into the kingdom of God [i.e., be saved] he...must be born again" (John 3:3-7 [14]). Peter declares that we are "born again...by the word of God...which by the gospel is preached" (1 Peter 1:23-25 [15]). No wonder we must proclaim the gospel. Only in believing this Word from God can anyone be saved. Tragically, as we have repeatedly documented in these pages, the gospel is being tampered with and compromised by many who claim to believe and preach it. Passages of Scripture such as the above, which are crystal clear in the duty they impose upon every Christian, are being willfully set aside to avoid "offending" the unsaved. How can someone's hurt feelings be compared with an eternity separated from God in the torments of the damned? We have quoted John Hagee (Q&A, 4/08 [15] ) declaring: "I'm not trying to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith...trying to convert Jews is a waste of time....Everyone else needs to believe in Jesus...but not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity..." [The Houston Chronicle (4/30/88, sec. 6, p. 1)]. In stark contrast, Paul was absolutely certain that unless they believed the gospel, Jews, like anyone else, would be eternally lost. So concerned was he that he would have gone to hell in their place if that would have saved them (Romans 9:1-5 [16]). He declared, "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh....My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved" (Rom 9:1-3 [17]; Romans 10:1 [18]). Apparently, Paul did not know what Hagee knows, which, had he known it, would have removed Paul's concern for the salvation of Jews. One wonders when and how Hagee received this revelation that Jews don't need the gospel and whether he thinks the Bible ought to be revised in that respect. That would involve changing so many scriptures that I doubt it could be done. When Paul proclaimed, "The gospel...is the power of God unto salvation" he added, "to the Jew first..." (Romans 1:16 [19]). Christ commanded His disciples to "preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15 [20]), which surely must have included Jews. In fact, they were to "begin at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47 [21]), which Peter did obediently on the day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews (with maybe a few Gentiles among them) were saved. Although Christ's own words, as well as many other scriptures, plainly said that the gospel was for all mankind, the apostles were certain that the gospel was only for Jews. In order to persuade them to preach to Gentiles, the Lord had to give Peter the vision of the sheet let down from heaven with all manner of unclean animals in it (Acts 10:9-20 [22]). The language of Scripture is so clear that those who withhold the gospel from the Jews are guilty of willful disobedience. In addition to Hagee, there are other highly esteemed church leaders guilty of the same, among them apologist Ravi Zacharias. As the 2008 Honorary Chairman of the National Day of Prayer, Ravi composed a generic prayer suitable for anyone. It does not contain the name of Jesus, which was left out, we are told, "so as not to offend the Jewish participants." We have previously pointed out the unscriptural nature of a "National Day of Prayer," which, though led by Christians from the beginning, has encouraged non-Christians to join in by praying to their own god or gods. Can anyone imagine that when a disciple asked Jesus, "Lord, teach us to pray" (Luke 11:1 [23]), Christ included a generic prayer for all "people of faith" to whatever "higher power" they espoused? Let's test Ravi Zacharias's model prayer against reason and Scripture to see how hopeless it is to craft a prayer for all "faiths.'' It begins, "Holy Father...." Repeatedly, the Qur'an says that Allah (Islam's god) is not a father and has no son. Already, the Muslims are offended. The "Holy Father" to whom Ravi refers is the God of the Bible, who is called "the God of Israel" 203 times. The Muslims would be worse than offended. They would be highly incensed. Allah hates Jews, and Islam teaches that every Jew on earth must be killed before any Muslim can be resurrected. If that happened, it would be a great embarrassment to the "God of Israel"! He couldn't just change His name; He would have to admit to being a false god and Allah the true one. The God of the Bible is jealous for the honor of His holy name. To Moses He declared: "I AM...the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (Exodus 3:13-16 [24]). Jesus confirmed that this was God's name (Luke 20:37 [25]). But Islam opposes Israel, and Allah hates Jews. Islam teaches that what the entire world once understood to be the land of Israel was actually given by Allah to the Arabs/Muslims. As we show in Judgment Day [25] , this belief exposes the fraud of "Palestinian" negotiations with Israel for "peace." It reveals the fact that the trips to the Middle East by Bush and Rice, as well as by EU, UN, and Vatican representatives, are futile. The Islamic world has drawn the entire non-Muslim world into a false "peace" effort, which so-called Palestinians and their Muslim brethren hope will lead "peacefully," step by step, to the utter destruction of Israel and, finally, to the extermination of all Jews on earth. Ravi's prayer ends, "In God's holy name...." What does "In God's holy name" mean to Muslims and to millions of Americans who are non-Christians? The National Day of Prayer makes as much sense as Elijah calling apostates in Israel, who worshiped Baal and other false gods, to join with the followers of Yahweh in praying for "God's" blessing upon Israel! If the followers of various religions are praying to different gods (which they are), then what is being accomplished? Is this uniting America? Yes, but only in confusion and deceit. What about leaving out the name of Jesus from this model prayer in order not to offend Jews? Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded His disciples "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem..." (Luke 24:47 [26]). Nothing could have been more offensive to the Jews. Wouldn't it have seemed logical to the disciples to hold a meeting to discuss this command and to decide that using the name of Jesus--especially at that sensitive time just after the crucifixion--would be counterproductive and probably arouse hatred and maybe get them killed? No, the issue was not how to please the audience but obedience to Christ. In obedience to their crucified and resurrected Lord's command to preach in His name, the disciples boldly proclaimed the truth in the name of Jesus where that name was despised and where to obey their Lord would mean hatred, persecution, and even death. Without compromise, they indicted the Jews with having rejected and crucified Christ, though He dearly loved His brethren after the flesh and mourned over their unbelief. Peter did not preach a special gospel to the Jews. He declared, "Jesus of Nazareth...approved of God...by miracles and wonders and signs...ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain..." (Acts 2:22-23 [27]). There is reluctance today to state the facts as Peter did. "It wasn't the Jews who crucified Christ, but the Romans" is offered in evangelical circles in order to avoid giving offense to Jews. Peter was there. He knew the facts as no one living today could know them. Inspired of the Holy Spirit, he indicted his fellow Jews with having crucified God's Son. Of course, the Romans nailed Jesus to the Cross, but it was at the insistence of those, stirred to hatred by their rabbis, who cried, "Let him be crucified." Pilate objected, "Why, what evil hath he done?" But the mob "cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified...his blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:22-25 [28]). The truth is that in response to the haunting question posed in that old spiritual, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?" we must all, Jew and Gentile, confess with repentant hearts, "Yes, I was there. It was for my sins that Christ died!" Is the gospel for the Jews? Let Hagee and all others who have any doubts where Jews stand in relation to the gospel take note of Peter's specific language, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36 [29]). It was likely the next day, at a gate of the Temple and in the name that Ravi Zacharias purposely kept from Jewish participants in the National Day of Prayer, that Peter and John healed a man who had been a hopeless cripple "from his mother's womb" (Acts 3:2 [30]). They commanded him, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6 [31]). Arrested for this good deed and standing before the religious hierarchy, they were asked, "By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel...be it known unto...all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead...doth this man stand here before you whole....Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:7-12 [32]). The council commanded Peter and John "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:18 [33]). Tragically, it takes far less than that to stop some of today's Christian leaders from speaking in the name of Jesus; they do it on their own initiative for the sake of money and popularity. May God deliver us all from ever succumbing to such shameful motivation. The response by the apostles to this threat was instant and fearless: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20 [34]). The miracles being done in the name of Jesus through the apostles caused growing multitudes to believe on Him. The high priest and his cronies "were filled with indignation, and...put them in the common prison. But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go...speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life" (Acts 17:5-20 [35]). Meanwhile, another larger council was called, and officers were sent to the prison to bring the apostles before them again. The officers found that the prison was secure, the doors locked, but the apostles not there--they were obediently teaching in the temple. The apostles were brought again to the council and reminded of the warning they had been given not to preach in the name of Jesus. Peter responded, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29 [36]). They continued testifying for Christ and His resurrection. "And daily in the temple, and unto every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ" (Acts 5:40-42 [37]).The rabbis' reaction was to "take counsel to slay them" (Acts 5:17-33 [38]). The apostles were beaten and released after one more warning "that they should not speak in the name of Jesus." Did they obey men rather than God? No. They rejoiced that "they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." Centuries ago, Joshua challenged the people of God, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15 [39]). We are faced today with the same choice. To obey our Lord may be costly in terms of money, prestige, and influence--but the issue is really time vs. eternity, God vs. man. That should not be a difficult choice to make. When we at the Berean Call are denounced by critics for daring to disagree with popular Christian leaders, we simply point to the Bible and reply, "Check it out there!" TBC QuotableLuke 20:35 [40] 1. C.A. Coates, An Outline of Luke's Gospel The Baptist pastor's response is puzzling. He says "traditional Baptist Churches" are against same-sex marriages. Why not heed the Bible instead of Baptist tradition? Has Baptist tradition become a higher authority than God's Word? It is very clear that marriage was instituted by God and is to be between a man and a woman. No one has the authority to change what God has said, so what does he have to pray about! The word "marriage" is being corrupted to mean an ungodly and perverted "union" between two men or two women-and the world and the church are going along with this corruption both of language and morals. Homosexuals are pressuring the world and the church to accept as "normal" this perversion, which contradicts the marriage institution sanctified by God. Yet the court's ruling is seen as honoring "the sanctity of marriage and [being] against bigotry"! The followers of what they once dared to call "an alternate lifestyle" have managed to make it not an "alternative" but the new norm and even especially virtuous. It is a shame and disgrace that the world and the church could stand by while "Gay pride" parades are feted, when, in fact, if the world adopted this way of life, it would be the end of the human race. Homosexuals don't procreate, thus rejecting the very first commandment God gave: "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Genesis 1:28 [42]). Is their refusal to obey God something to promote or be proud of? The Pacific School of Religion rejoices, and the rabbi is happy, too, that religion is moving with the times-as though the Scriptures were not written by holy prophets inspired of God but were the product of the times and prevailing "culture" and subject to improvement. If this is truly the case, then of course they ought to change with the changing times. The gospel, however, cannot change. Those who accept, promote, or practice this rebellion against their Creator will suffer severe consequences, both in this life and in the "judgment" that comes "after this [i.e., upon death]" (Hebrews 9:27 [43]). Homosexuality has somehow attained a favored status in society. The court ruling was hailed as "good news for all Californians"-meaning that everyone who practices this perversion is not only normal but somehow laudably living on a higher plain than what the world has for thousands of years considered to be normal and natural. For centuries, homosexuality was known (and often prosecuted) as "the crime against nature"-and so it is. Now it's considered a mark of courage to "come out of the closet." Question: Which comes first, the nations starting to come against Israel more aggressively or the reconstruction of the Temple? Response: I don't think that either one of these two events depends upon or is related to the other. Nations have been aggressively trying to destroy Israel for thousands of years. That opposition has been fervently practiced in the UN for the past 60 years. Antichrist will be the world ruler when the Temple is rebuilt, and it will have been by his approval. There will probably have been a false peace brokered before Antichrist takes over the entire world. As a result of this seeming approval of Israel by Antichrist, persecution will have eased briefly only to return with greater intensity as Satan realizes that his time is short. Question: I just read about Tony Blair's interfaith movement to end religious conflict. The article says, "The Tony Blair Faith Foundation will fight extremism, organize faith groups against poverty and illness, and educate people worldwide about religions other than their own." Bill Clinton opened the event. Rick and Kay Warren are on the advisory committee along with Baptists, Muslims, Jews, and soon a Catholic Cardinal. How can Rick Warren, who claims to be a born-again Christian, be part of something like this? Response: To "organize faith groups" is just another variation on this same theme of "people of faith." Ecumenism must be one of Satan's favorite delusions because he uses it so often. This is ecumenism put to work in the "good cause" of a social gospel. Biblically, no born-again Christian should be involved. The social "gospel" agenda of Rick and Kay Warren, as evidenced by Rick's P.E.A.C.E. plan, is ripe for biblical compromise and unwittingly contributes to the development of what the Bible prophesies will be the Antichrist's one-world religion. Rick is determined to stamp out disease, hunger, poverty, and crime-a noble but impossible task that Jesus never gave to His disciples. Rick is mobilizing "people of faith" to do this. It is the old "social gospel" repackaged but now far more dangerous because of the ecumenical thrust. Jesus told us that our job is not to make a "better world" for our grandchildren to enjoy but to "preach the gospel" and thereby to call people out of this world for heaven. Question: Could you please interpret the meaning of Psalm 102 [44]? I was told to read Matthew 5:1-12 [45] and Ecclesiastes 1 [46] and 3. I truly would like to know your thoughts. Response: Psalm 102 [47] is titled "A Prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the Lord." We may each, Jew or Gentile, apply it to ourselves. However, it is primarily about Israel, the affliction she has endured through the centuries because of her rebellion against the Lord, the hope of her restoration, and the Messiah's Millennial reign from Jerusalem. Matthew 5:1-12 [48], of course, is a practical guide to Christian living here and now-but in view of the coming kingdom. The relationship to Psalm 102 [49] should be clear. Ecclesiastes 1 [50] and Ecclesiastes 3 [51] take a different approach. The key phrase in Ecclesiastes is "under the sun." If that is forgotten, one could imagine that death is the end of existence and we should get all we can out of this life, living for self to the max. Of course, the message is the exact opposite: that life "under the sun" has nothing lasting to offer, for all is "vanity and vexation of spirit." Solomon brings it all together in the last two verses: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments....For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 [52]). I think you can see how all of these scriptures tie together. Question: What about the popular idea that we must "plead the blood" over a situation or one's home, room by room? Response: The phrase "plead the blood" does not appear once in all of Scripture. The word "plead" is found 30 times but never in association with blood. Just before each meeting of the discredited "revival" at the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida, teams would pray over each seat and "bind the demons" that might be lurking in them. This is an unbiblical practice. The Bible contains no record of its ever being used by any apostle, prophet, or any other believer. Paul and the other apostles preached in many demonic places without once reciting this mantra. It is a vain practice that opens the door to much error, fanaticism, and spiritual bondage, needlessly giving attention to Satan and demons. Do not engage in it. Question: Jesus' healings in Matthew 23-25 [53] appear to be separated into different categories but under one heading, "all sick people." The problems are listed: "divers diseases...torments...those possessed with devils...those which were lunatick, etc. What is "lunatick"? Does it refer to a medical, or mental problem? Response: The different categories have no significance except to show that all were healed who came to Christ. The word "lunatick" occurs only twice in the Bible, both in Matthew: 4:24 and Matthew 17:15 [54]. It is the same as our word, lunatic, which means insane. In Matthew 4:24 [55], there seems to be no demonic involvement because "lunatick" is distinguished from "those which were possessed with devils." The Bible indicates that one can become irrational due to wrong thoughts, imaginations, jealousy, etc., and we are told to "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:3-6 [56]). Yet in Matthew 17:15 [57], it is made very clear that the "lunatick" in this case was demon possessed because "Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him." We are not dealing here with a medical diagnosis, because science cannot discern demonic possession. These verses would lead one to conclude that there probably are many persons today diagnosed as insane who will spend the rest of their days in a heavily medicated stupor, when all the time the problem is demon possession and they need spiritual deliverance. Unfortunately, a psychiatric hospital would not look with favor upon a Christian, even a close relative, coming in to cast a demon or demons out of a patient. In fact, such a person would be prevented from any contact with the patient. News AlertJohn 16:33 [58]) For those who are not aware of some incidents that shook us a bit here at TBC, it started with some bad news for Dave and me. We were told on the same day that we had cancer: his was in his prostate and mine in my colon. That was the initial report. Yet by God's mercy, the news got better. Dave's cancer was caught at an early stage and would be treated without surgery. My treatment, however, would require major surgery to remove a large tumor. Initial encouraging news came when tests indicated that it might be benign, although that was doubted by my surgeon's and oncologist's extensive experience with such a tumor. Dave's procedure went well but was not without some continuing struggles. He is also undergoing a slow recovery from a second hip replacement that has compounded his difficulties. Nevertheless, with the help of the Lord, he is making slow but sure progress. My surgery was very successful; moreover, a complete biopsy proved the tumor to be cancer free. I am deeply grateful for the Lord's continuing mercies. Although my recovery has hit a few bumps in the road, I'm hopeful that I'll be back at my desk by the time you read this in July. The goal is to be strengthened daily for a second surgery this fall to complete the reconstructive process. Thank you, one and all, for your prayers regarding these health issues, and please pray also that Dave and I, by God's grace, may continue to be fruitful and productive through the ministry of The Berean Call. Executive Director T.A. McMahon TBC ExtraEcclesiastes 1:9 [59]). Neither is there anything "new" occurring in sunny Lakeland; while the human containers have changed, the ancient doctrines dispensed from these "prophetic" vessels have not. The "new wine" being poured out at Bentley's nightly "Fresh Fire" meetings is neither new nor "divine" but is an intoxicating blend of showmanship, manipulation, and "spirits" from the fruit of neo-gnostic ("new knowledge") mysticism. Truly, the state of the church today is as the state of Israel when Jeremiah, the "weeping prophet," lamented, "A wonderful [appalling] and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so" (Jer 5:30-31 [60]). It is indeed a "wonderful and horrible" thing to view videos of Bentley's bizarre behavior-and of the wildly adoring crowds making eager and hopeful pilgrimage to the latest circus to hit Lakeland. The "wonder" of this phenomenon is not the alleged (or even actual) occurrence of healing and manifestations, but that thousands upon thousands of sign-seekers flock from around the world to "come get some" (in Bentley's words of invitation) of this "transferrable impartation," which is seemingly at his will to dispense. Gone is the humble power of prayer by the example of our Lord: "Father, if it be thy will." It has been replaced by the exaltation and power of man in prayer who summons, "I decree and I declare!" (with Jesus' name tacked on, of course). And, as in the days of Jeremiah, the priests of the Latter Rain are self-appointed "apostles" who "bear rule" by dispensing their own blend of neo-gnostic "enlightenment" while censoring biblical discernment. If one good fruit has come from Todd Bentley's "carnival," it is that the very power of the internet that has helped catapult this alleged "third wave" revival to worldwide acclaim has also enabled faithful watchmen (and women) to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Th 5:21 [61]). This Scripture stands in stark contrast to Bentley's "apology" for the tangled confusion of bodies on his platform as he recklessly "slays" sign-seekers from his angel-empowered pulpit while raucously shouting, "Don't even try to figure this out!" Gratefully, technology has allowed an increasing multitude to conduct their own testing of Bentley's writings, rantings, and ravings, which are, by the standard of Scripture, "weighed...and found wanting." A quick search on Google or YouTube turns up dozens, if not hundreds, of discerning believers' posting of video clips, Bentley quotations, and biblical commentary that expose the darkness that purports to be light (Matthew 6:23 [62]). This public trial-by-jury (a biblical principle) will be slightly hindered, however, by a defensive countermeasure: Bentley recently announced that all material deemed "too contoversial"-including his testimonies of meetings with angelic beings-is being extracted from his website. It appears that too many "fear-based" or "pharisaical" (terms used to deride those who are cautious or critical) believers were questioning his out-of-body encounters with angels of light, whose "new revelation" raises serious doctrinal concerns. Instead of standing firm on his convictions, this alleged prophet of God is simply yanking his "offending" material from public view to avoid causing "division" among those who are either too weak or "not ready" to receive higher knowledge that comes from his "hours and hours" of trancelike meditation. Believing to commune with Christ in this manner, Bentley has clearly succumbed to seducing spirits who leave him deceived, and deceiving others (1 Timothy 4:1 [63]; 2 Timothy 3:13 [64]). Similar evasive action was performed by Latter-Rain prophetess and avid Bentley supporter Patricia King, who also withdrew from her website "controversial" teachings on raising the dead and communing with [dead] saints, although she maintains, "I do believe that the Lord is divinely releasing visitation from The Great Cloud of Witnesses" (supposedly tangible, real encounters with spirits of departed biblical saints and loved ones). To strengthen one's "faith" for raising the dead, King has recommended practicing on roadkill (dead animals). She wrote, "I believe that a person can be raised from the dead and then saved." When confronted with Hebrews 9:27 [65] and other Scriptures, she did not repent or recant of any of these false teachings but simply stated, "I shared prematurely...too much at times, too soon, to some of the wrong people concerning [these] subject[s]." In other words, "It's not my fault you don't get it, but because your 'natural mind' can't receive it, I'll take it away...for now." It's not that discerning believers doubt the reality of spiritual encounters by these men and women, for fallen angels have been communicating with mankind in various forms since the Garden of Eden. Rather, a comparison of Bentley's and King's teachings and testimonies to Scripture raises serious concern over whether they have fully escaped the bondage of occultism from which they claim to have been saved. As the apostle Paul warned, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30 [66]). Furthermore, the popularity of a prophet or their teachings is no gauge of truth. In fact, Scripture foretells the opposite: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1 [67]). Believers who reject on biblical grounds these and other "revelations" are accused of quenching the Holy Spirit, and those who attempt to bring biblical correction, they say, have a "Jezebel spirit." (Bob Jones, spiritual mentor to many neo-prophets, says that if anyone speaks a negative word, they are guilty of witchcraft.) In truth, it is the LRR "zealots" who are claiming higher authority and "wisdom" than Scripture, which instructs discerning believers to "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2 [68]). While many ministers have mistakenly bowed at the altar of academia, the neo-apostles are no less elitist, having arrayed their networks against the mere "muggles" of evangelicalism. Ironically, while claiming to do battle with principalities and powers in the spiritual realm, they are in fact "kick[ing] against the pricks" (Acts 26:14 [69]) by persecuting those who stand firm on the "more sure word of prophecy," which, according to Scripture, excels even the eyewitness testimony of Christ's transfiguration (2 Pt 1:16-21 [70]). In pale and pathetic contrast to the blinding glory of God as witnessed then, the "best" manifestations that prophets of the Latter Rain Revival have conjured today is mere "glory dust" or "blue haze" or "scented oil" that descends upon their meetings. Surely, this is not the Shekina glory of God (as they claim), but is instead chicanery, sorcery, or some of both. Tragically, as we've seen, such ignorance and gullibility is a sign of the times: "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matthew 16:4 [71]). By enticing believers with "higher" and "hidden" knowledge of a "secret place" accessible by anyone who surrenders to "christ" in "meditation," prophets of the LRR fit Christ's description of those who enter "not by the door into the sheepfold, but [climb] up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (Jn 10:1 [72]). And with regard to the flock being rustled away "unawares" (Jude 1:4 [73]) this preoccupation with manifestations over manna indicates that the "insatiable hunger" of many who follow this movement is not a healthy appetite for the meat of God's Word but is, in reality, a lust for the forbidden fruit. Like the Israelites who grew impatient for the Word of God to come down to them, and like Benny Hinn, who shouted, "I don't need gold in Heaven. I got to have it now!" today's Latter-Rain "outpouring" in Lakeland is laboring to birth and build its own magical "Kingdom Now" utopia, whose "mascot" (if one were to be chosen) would also have ears-the ears of a Golden Calf. -Mark Dinsmore |