I am often reluctant to publish posts that are critical and also anonymous, but this one had the kind of irenic, humble spirit we strive for in confrontation and the author had very good reasons not to attach his name.
NOTE: The author requested a response from MBTS and Jason Deusing has given an unequivocal and clear response. We are grateful for his clear, biblical, and gracious response.
The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary administration continues to have serious and substantial concerns over the teaching, practices, claims, and reputation of the International House of Prayer of Kansas City and its leadership-and has no affiliation whatsoever, public or private, with IHOP-KC.
Jason G. Duesing
Provost
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
I recently sat down to breakfast with the pastor of a small church in my neck of the woods. The reason for our meeting was that his congregation of 60 people had just voted to leave the Southern Baptist Convention, our state convention and our local association. As a neighboring pastor, I wanted to understand better why he led his church to make this decision, and play the role of a peacemaker if I could. I did not know this man well, and so did not know what to expect. What I found was a humble man who did not strike me as fanatical or contentious in any way, but rather a man who was genuinely burdened for the state of the SBC. The primary cause for his concern was the growing influence in the SBC of a movement known as the “New Apostolic Reformation,” perhaps best characterized by its unofficial, flagship institution – The International House of Prayer in Kansas City.
Space does not suffice to launch into a detailed critique of IHOP. And, besides, many others more informed and educated than I have already done so. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I would point you to apologetics websites such as carm.org, gotquestions.org, and standupforthetruth.com. Nevertheless, for those not familiar with IHOP, allow me to summarize the concerns outlined in these sources: 1) IHOP practices Gnosticism – the belief in “hidden knowledge” that is made available to select people through prophecies, visions and dreams. For instance, IHOP has designated “prophecy rooms” where people can go to receive these special revelations. 2) IHOP teaches the exercise of “contemplative” or “centering” prayer. This method of prayer, with its roots in eastern mysticism, teaches the emptying of the mind through the repetition of certain words or phrases, and training oneself to find “the presence of God within.” 3) IHOP worship times are a practice in the bizarre, if not demonic. Songs are often comprised of hypnotic, rhythmic, chanting. Participants demonstrate extreme “manifestations,” including uncontrollable laughing and violent thrashing. 4) IHOP has an extreme over-emphasis on the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, to the point of receiving criticism even from fellow Charismatics. For instance, one speaker at their upcoming “One Thing” conference claims in his conference bio to have raised the dead. 5) The origins and founder of IHOP are directly tied to the doctrinally aberrant “Kansas City Prophets.” 6) From a sociological standpoint, IHOP has many characteristics of a cult. A simple Google search turns up scores of personal testimonies of individuals who have experienced manipulative, controlling and abusive behavior at the hands of IHOP leadership.
Now, what does all this have to do with the SBC, and my particular state convention? In the days prior to our state’s annual pastors’ conference (held in conjunction with our state convention’s annual meeting) both my neighboring pastor and I were dismayed to learn that the CEO of IHOP had been invited to preach and appear on a discussion panel concerning revival. Once at the event, we were further dismayed to be chided (by another non-Southern Baptist on the program) about why we should be more accepting of IHOP. This was not the only point of concern with the conference, but the largest. My fellow pastor drove home from the conclusion of the conference with a heavy heart, feeling he had lost his convention.
At this point, perhaps some would say this pastor overreacted. However, his feelings were further validated a short time later when he learned the president of the Southern Baptist Convention would be a featured speaker at IHOP’s “One Thing” conference at the end of December – the same conference mentioned above, with the man who raises people from the dead. Can you understand his concern? Can you understand mine?
Again, did my brother pastor overreact by leading his church to leave the SBC, state convention and association, without first attempting to work through these concerns, or address them through formal channels? From the outside looking in, I think one could reasonably make that argument. Speaking for myself, I would have loved a chance to visit with him before the decision was made. But, ultimately, that is not my call to make, nor yours. As Southern Baptists we believe in the autonomy of the local church, and so we must respect the decision made by this congregation to act on its convictions and part ways. Regardless if one agrees with their decision or not, I hope that we can acknowledge the validity of their concerns.
Based on those concerns which I share, I would like to present four appeals to my fellow Southern Baptists:
1) I appeal to President Ronnie Floyd not to speak at this event. I have no reason to doubt Dr. Floyd’s motives in speaking at IHOP’s “One Thing” conference. I have never heard Dr. Floyd speak when he did not preach the true gospel. He wants people to be saved. Furthermore, Dr. Floyd has a passion for prayer and revival that is commendable. However, the negative in this case far outweighs the positive. By speaking at this conference, Dr. Floyd is lending the weight, credibility, and in some ways – the approval – of the SBC to the IHOP movement. How many youth and college pastors will bring their students to this event in the future because, “Ronnie Floyd spoke there; it can’t be too bad!” How many of those young people will later attend IHOP as individuals and be exposed to its unbiblical doctrine?
2) I appeal to the leadership of the state pastors’ conferences, and the SBC Pastors’ Conference, put some form of accountability in place that protects the doctrinal integrity of your conference. To be clear, my state convention had nothing to do with IHOP being represented at our pastors’ conference. In the case of our state, the pastors’ conference is a totally separate entity from the state convention. Nevertheless, the pastors’ conference uses state convention resources (including the venue) free of charge, and thus I believe some kind of accountability to the state convention must be in order.
3) I appeal to the leadership of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City to make its position clear on where it stands on the IHOP movement. MBTS is strategically positioned to speak truth regarding this unbiblical movement which it finds in its own back yard. There is no doubt that MBTS students are being caught up in IHOP, and subsequently taking its false teachings and influence into the pulpits of local churches. I believe the seminary has a responsibility here.
4) I appeal to individual Southern Baptists who have concerns over the “New Apostolic Reformation” and IHOP movement to make themselves heard in a Christlike and respectful manner to their denominational leadership on the national, state and local levels.
Finally, please do not construe anything I have said to imply that everyone involved in IHOP has negative or evil intentions. To the contrary, I think many of the people in the IHOP movement are genuine followers of Christ who are simply misled. In many cases, we would do well to emulate their passion for prayer and enthusiasm for revival. But, as one man has said, “Those most enthusiastic about revival are not always the best to lead it. Enthusiasm often comes with lack of discernment.”
This is off my radar but more than Ronnie Floyd addressing should be established. Ask RF about it and get an answer. If there is a definite Midwestern seminary connection, let’s see it. If the state convention is involved, let’s see that. If someone with the informal pastor’s conference made a decision, ask them about it.
Looks like enough to be concerned about.
Thank you for addressing this. I have seen the notice of Dr. Floyd being scheduled to speak with IHOP and have personally tried to make contact with him through the President’s office and through his church staff but without success.
This is an alarming association with the New Apostolic Reformation movement which is loaded with heresy.
Please continue to sound the alarm.
Yes Scott, as an SBC pastor in MI, I am very concerned about Floyd’s association with the IHOP and the NAR movement. I agree with your comment.
I vouched for Floyd so I was a little disappointed by this. I hope he uses discernment.
Also, you said, “I have never heard Dr. Floyd speak when he did not preach the true gospel. He wants people to be saved.” Thats noble, but I’m sure IHOP wants people saved too. I’m sure even Mormons want people saved. I don’t think we can select leaders based on emotion. This is the problem when we have such a divide between doctrine and practice.
Over all, great article! This was much needed. Lets be honest, the “Good Ol Boy” system is alive and well in the SBC, so I’m glad someone was willing to address this without fear.
Truth is I was not a huge Floyd fan and was fairly involved in the campaign to elect someone else. But Ronnie Floyd has impressed me greatly. He ran the best SBC annual meeting I’ve been to in a long time last year and his speech at MBTS a couple months ago was stirring and thought provoking. Powerful.
So, having started out his term trying hard to STOP him from getting elected, I’m now a big fan of his presidency.
I’m not a big fan of his choice to speak at IHOP. But you know what, I’ve made some mistakes too. So have you. I think very highly of Dr. Moore, but haven’t agreed with everything he has done. We can respect someone and still disagree with him.
That is one thing I liked about this article. It was a model for constructive criticism and engagement.
I am not thrilled that Ronnie Floyd is speaking at IHOP, but I remain thankful for the ministry of this man and for his service to the SBC as president. One disagreement doesn’t nullify that.
I do too, and I probably wouldn’t have said anything if it was someone who was more orthodox that I agree with. IHOP just makes me way to uncomfortable.
Dave, I’m sorry. Didn’t mean to blow up. It just frustrates me because it seems like it’s always the Anti-Calvinists who bring up Calvinism while we are trying discuss other things.
Rick, if you don’t mind, can we discuss the SBC in relation to heterodox people and organizations? We can save the discussion of the SBC in relation to orthodox and Gospel believing organizations for another time. That way we can stay on topic here.
Thanks.
Why do people get so up in arms about pancakes?–oh, wrong IHOP.
Anyway, my first thought when reading this is, “Oh. Fun.” Mainly because I pastor in the same area and am friends with the president of the pastor’s conference in question where the IHOP connection was made. I’ve even been up to IHOP with him–let me say: it’s very far from my cup of tea.
But…
(1) On the one hand I get the concern. The leadership of IHOP is a breed of charismatic that the vast majority of Southern Baptists, including myself, are not comfortable with; and I think we do need to show wisdom and discernment in any dealings/intermixings with them. However, with the people I know, the people I’ve met, my brief experience at IHOP, and research I’ve done, I would not from the other angle attach the ideas of “demonic” to the place or movement as a whole. Would that mean there aren’t demonically controlled individuals who go there or are involved?–not necessarily, but we could probably say the same thing about the SBC and our churches when you look at the lack of love, the bitterness, and the divisiveness that inhabits certain hearts and meetings. Still demonic, just not in a flashy way.
Why I say I wouldn’t apply it to IHOP as an organization would be that when you get to the core of the gospel they hold to, it is the Biblical gospel, at least with everything I’ve seen. But I would say that their understanding of the Spirit and gifts is quite Corinthian–i.e. immature in that they seem to desire the flashy to the point of improper manifestations. When it came to the Corinthian church, Paul didn’t call that demonic, he just said that they needed to spiritually grow up and have more wisdom (discernment).
(2) Also as a current MBTS student, there’s been nothing in my three-year experience with the school to indicate any reason for concern about “students…being caught up in IHOP, and subsequently taking its false teachings and influence into the pulpits of local churches.” So as a student there, practically life-long western Missourian, and pastor not far from the metro–I’d be quite curious where that concern came from.
(3) Am I going to personally involve IHOP stuff with my church or am I in any hurry to make a return visit to their facilities? Nope. Do I think the gentleman who led his church away from the SBC, etc., overreacted? Yes. But not so much for what I’ve already stated above, but for the fact that I don’t think IHOP has or is going to have that big of influence in the SBC, MBC, MBTS, or what have you. Here’s why: (a) It’s not presently there; (b) those who are more involved in it are few and far between; and (c) yes, Floyd speaking at their event might spark some interest (and if I personally knew Floyd I’d probably say to him, “Not the wisest decision”… then again we have several SBC guys who appear on TBN and I have a bigger problem with TBN than IHOP…), however, if we’re engaged in discipling our people like we should and teaching them discernment, then they’ll be able to parse it out; and (d) to go with (b) I’m guessing it will be a long time if ever that we have another president of the state’s pastors conference who connects in with IHOP, and thus won’t be having another speaker from there.
All of that said, on a personal note, when it comes to IHOP part of me thinks: Why do the charismatics tend to get all the cool stuff?–I mean, at their core they aim to be a place of 24 hour prayer and worship. What if we had a big Southern Baptist place like that–a place where we could go have the prayer and the worship, but without the more “bizarre”???
I wondered who would make the first pancake joke.
Oh, Mike, you are wonderful. Thank you for saving me so much time! I wrote to Dr. Floyd recently to thank him for coming to Onething. This will be our family’s third conference. Two of my children will be wearing ministry vests and praying for people who come forward at the end of the services.
Wow, Gnosticism? Really? I have encouraged people that I am praying for with verses in much the same way I have seen done at IHOP. Yes, there are people that go too far with it. How is that different from so many people in our churches who give their own opinions all the time as if the Lord was leading them?
#2 & #3 are just not true. Mike Bickle’s prayer book has more emphasis on keeping good prayer lists than anything else. Read it! The music in the services is the same music we sing in our little SBC church here in Iowa. My kids have the IHOP worship leaders’ music on their phones and listen to it all the time. They are excellent. Look up Justin Rizzo’s “Found Faithful” for a sample.
Look, every single service is available to watch in full on the internet. The prayer room is streaming live right now. I have spent hours in there. It is just a prayer meeting. Do cults stream everything?
Yes, it is charismatic. Yes, there are crazies. I always say that the charismatics get the crazies and we get the lazies. The extremes ends of the spectrum tend to end up in certain places.
All I am asking is that you don’t go to other internet sites to make your judgment. Watch the streaming; watch the services yourself. There is a rather long line of people in my small town that would love to line up and tell you all about what’s wrong with our little church and “what they did to me.” Offended people are easy to find.
I know from conversations with Dr. Allen over the years that he has serious concerns about IHOP and that there is no affiliation whatsoever between IHOP and MBTS.
While it has been a little over 5 years since I was a student at MBTS, I feel comfortable saying that the number of students attending MBTS who attend IHOP on a regular basis, can be counted on one hand. Remember, for an SBC student to keep SBC rates, they must be active attenders of a SBC church. This would include the pastor of said church actually signing a form saying the student was an active member. There simply is no danger that SBC students are taking IHOP teachings into SBC churches.
As far as non-SBC students go, they are free to do as they see fit. Hopefully, the theologically solid education they are receiving surpasses whatever gobbilygook they are picking up at IHOP. I would not want to start telling non-SBC students where they can go to church in order to attend.
So when it comes to IHOP…I really do not see what you want MBTS to do. I suppose they can take some of the Evangelism teams away from going to places like the Somali enclaves in KC. Or from helping local churches go door to door sharing the gospel. Clearly IHOP is more a danger than sharing the gospel to the community right?
What exactly do want MBTS to do? Tell me? Mr Anonymous, I am here in KC myself…What do you want me to do?
IHOP has less “pull” in the KC area than you think. And while not theologically sound at all, they are not even close to the danger that you seem to make them out to be. There is A LOT better work for the professors and students at MBTS to do than to go after IHOP.
It’s our fault because we elect Presidents and VPs of pastors conferences who really aren’t in touch with what the pastors want. The whole top down government of the SBC breeds this kind of nonsense.
I am concerned with many of our SBC associations over the past few years: very cozy relationships and even partnerships with the Gospel Coalition, James MacDonald, C. J. Mahaney, the Acts 29 Network and now IHOP.
Whenever we “bridge” to other evangelical groups, each espousing slightly different doctrines than our own, we lose a part of our Southern Baptist identity. We should stop doing this and just be ourselves. These weird partnerships are not making us better or stronger. They are making us worse and weaker.
James McDonald is a southern baptist — did you miss that?
Todd, Harvest Bible Fellowship is considered non-denominational.
Not since a few months ago…
http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2015/09/sla5
Oh no, it’s like there’s something called Christian unity or something.
I can, and do, have Christian unity with people in other denominations. That doesn’t mean I have to blur the lines and gladly receive them into my own.
And yes, I realize many of these people are now Southern Baptists. If IHOP becomes Southern Baptist, I will continue to feel like we have a very porous denominational boundary.
Most people I know in Acts 29 are SBC and so are many of TGC. This is honesty a pretty ignorant statement. All of those are orthodox gospel believing institutions. IHOP I would say is not. Also, I would hate for the SBC to isolate itself from other gospel denominations. We are not the only ones doing things right.
Rick has, I think it is fair to say, advocated a fairly strict isolationism among Southern Baptists. We should have only SBCers (or almost exclusively so) speaking any our conferences, etc.
I think that is a mistake, but I’m not sure that denominational isolationism is germane, though it is certainly more so than anti-Calvinism.
We should evangelize anyone and go anywhere to evangelize (hence even engage in evangelistic ways with heinous groups). But in terms of partnering, we should be careful that we not be seen as giving the sense that we are blessing those who hold serious heterodox views.
Frankly, I’m most concerned that a rep of IHOP was asked to speak at the MBC Pastor’s conference. I was really surprised at that.
This is why I think I’m basically sitting the fence on this: Like I said above, I’m friends with the guy who was prez of the PC and most of the guys I run with in my area are friends with him, too. So there’s a sense of where he’s coming from and why even if I wish on some things like this he would show discernment in a different manner.
Of all the people I know he is the most dedicated to prayer, most impassioned about revival and renewal, and among the most evangelistic. Honestly, I wish there was a way to bottle those traits and use them on myself and most other people I know. He’s also solidly SBC. But I would say that the passion at times can override what I would consider wise discernment in situations like this.
That said, the people he has invited to various events he heads that are from IHOP are not random strangers to him. They’re people he knows and they’re people who share his passions. He realizes that there are some sharp divides between the SBC and IHOP on the issues of charisma; but in his relationship with these people, knowing what they believe, etc., they’re not “first order” issues. And I wouldn’t classify them there either.
To me, quite uncomfortable second order issues, yeah–but not first.
So if he and I were in reverse roles with the MBC PC, would I have invited someone from IHOP–uh, no. But he didn’t do it because they’re IHOP, he did it b/c he sees the person as a Jesus-loving, friend and brother in Christ, who shares his passion for prayer and renewal.
So take that for what it is…
What you said about the man who invited the IHOP speaker is what another person told me in a private conversation last night – that he is a wonderful man of God with a great heart for Christ.
That’s the rub in these things – the heart for discernment is great but also the passion for Christ.
Rick, I know you hate to miss a chance to take a shot at Calvinists, but this is two different things.
You are complaining about Orthodox theology you disagree with. The issue here is heterodox theology.
I wouldn’t have any trouble if we were discussing Assemblies or PCA or any other orthodox denom. We are speaking of a heterodox group here.
Probably not the time for an anti-Calvinist discussion, so I’d like to nip this in the bud.
Let’s stick to the topic. Anti-Calvinism isn’t the issue here, okay?
Thats the thing Rick doesn’t seem to see. I recommend the arctic “Theological Triage” by Al Mohler too him, but seeing that Mohler is a Calvinist he probably wouldn’t even considering reading it an option.
Like you said Dave, we are talking about Heterodoxy. Rick blurs the lines way too much all because of those dirty Calvinists.
For the record, I have read Mohler’s theological triage piece many times, attempting to compare it with Scripture. It’s an interesting philosophy, but I don’t completely buy into the existence of a clear and biblical basis for it.
Also, for the record, I never mentioned the C word at all, just various autonomous groups that lie outside of the SBC organizational structure, that have been crossing the permeable membrane to become part of us.
Apart from your considerations of doctrine, which are noted, I am primarily addressing the nature of our organizational mergers, for which there appears to be no good mechanism for control.
As much as I hate to bring up the sore subject of immigration, perhaps we need to suspend the acceptance of outside groups into our denomination until we can figure out what’s going on.
Isolationism is not healthy for our denomination. We are a small piece of God’s family and shunning the rest of the family is not only bad for us, but an insult to the Christ who redeemed us all.
There is this autonomous group called Connect 316 which met at the SBC last year. I’m not sure but I think Jerry Vines, who has served in very high positions in the SBC, had some sort if affiliation with them. You should perhaps check them out and see if such an autonomous group should be partnered with.
I would say Isolationism is not good. One day, all of use will be together before God in worship. Presbyterians, Acts 29, SBC, and others.
Mike,
Connect 316 is composed of people who are already Southern Baptists. Yes, it’s autonomous, just like our SBC churches. But unlike Acts 29 or The Gospel Coalition, every officer and every board member of C316 is SBC. That’s a different arrangement from these “outside” SBC groups.
So, autonomous is not really the word, I suppose, since all of our churches and state conventions and associations are autonomous.
It’s really a distinction between pure SBC groups vs. SBC/non-SBC hybrid groups. The point is that the SBC is a denomination without borders. IHOP may find a way to sneak in under the big tent. I hope not, because I agree with most on this thread that they should not be welcomed into the SBC.
To put The Gospel Coalition and Acts 29 in the same category as IHOP is grossly irresponsible. The problem that the average SBC member has with TGC and Acts 29 is that they are Reformed and typically don’t hold to the same eschatological or systematic beliefs. .. IHOP participants crawl around on the floor barking like dogs and claim that “holy fog” and gold dust falls from the sky…. so the equivocation is irrational.
To reiterate, the comparison being made is not about doctrine at all. Not. At. All.
It is with the reality that these organizations are autonomous and outside the control of the SBC. That is, they establish their own budgets, elect their own officers, set their own agendas, etc.
When we open the doors and let them in, we are bringing in more than just their theology. We are bringing in their leadership, their methodology, etc.
Once again, the important distinctions being made relative to their theology are fully acknowledged by me. Three people have now said it, and I knew it to begin with—I really don’t need to hear it from a fourth, because it is simply not the point I was making at all.
My point has to do with the organizational autonomy and our partnerships with groups *outside* of the SBC who then become *inside* of the SBC. On that issue, and that issue alone, there is a legitimate comparison to be made.
Rick,
Are you saying the SBC has opened the door to outside groups?
You mentioned: “very cozy relationships and even partnerships with the Gospel Coalition, James MacDonald, C. J. Mahaney, the Acts 29 Network and now IHOP.”
The Convention has opened doors to these groups? The Convention has made partnerships with these *outside* groups?
And somehow they are now *inside* groups?
How is what the Convention did with these groups any different than what it has done with Connect316?
You have me lost brother as to just what you are talking about.
“How is what the Convention did with these groups any different than what it has done with Connect316?”
Mahaney used to be outside. MacDonald used to be outside. The officers of A29 and TGC are not entirely SBC. That’s the critical difference. C316 is a group of SBC people being led by SBC people. We’re a group within the convention already.
I’m not talking about salvation doctrine here. I’ve been talking about organizations and borders and denominational identity. Still, I think Dave wants us to move on from this topic.
Again, I hope we don’t embrace IHOP churches in the SBC. On the primary point of the OP, I am in complete agreement.
Guys, I really wanted to avoid this becoming another Calvinism debate, after Rick raised the issue. It’s not a Calvinism-focused post. I’d really like this NOT to be an Calvinism/anti-Calvinism thing. Let’s stick to the topic, okay?
One issue, a major issue, not mentioned is that the leader/founder of IHOP is a wicked and vile false prophet. We seem to not care much anymore if people say, “thus sayeth the Lord” and then it turns out it was a demon speaking to them but we should care. IHOP is a cult.
Thank you Chris for bringing up the elephant in the room. All should read the Prophetic history documents on his teaching website MikeBickle.org. Mike Bickle teaches that Bob Jones prophesied over him to found this movement. Bob Jones claimed to meet with Jesus Christ, Angel Gabriel and Angel Michael. Bickle claims these and 22 other Prophecies were given to confirm the IHOP mission. The bottom line is that if these visions are from God, we should be joining IHOP and Buckle’s movement. If they are a lying spirit that Bickle and the rest cannot rightly discern, we must reject the movement for what it is – Deception. I say this with great anguish because my sister teaches children at IHOP now. She and her husband are godly people, but none-the-less, deceived. Buckle teaches that 80% of the manifestations he has seen are false claims attributed to the Holy Spirit, but he refuses to call this blaspheme. He is willing to accept the false to see the genuine – see his Perspectives on manifestations talk. Furthermore, he states that he rejects NAR beliefs, but he deceptively teaches a more subtle form of the same doctrine. I do not think we should judge the organization by the many in lower levels of leadership. We must judge it by the doctrines and actions of the primary leaders. The paradigm of the Bride of Christ is inserted thought Scripture wherever there is prophecy or “end times” events. This focus reorients the perspective of the adherent to a degree that the gospel can be distorted. They also believe the Church must initiate the judgement of God by its prayers. Jesus won’t return until the bride is purified and prayed to the point of calling Jesus to us. So he cannot come at any moment. Only after we pray him down. Let us not read secondary sources. See the error in their own words.
Zach, I am grateful that Chris brought this up as well. What is truly astonishing (but not really surprising as the years go by) is that two crickets are louder than other SBC leaders about this appearance by Mr. Floyd.
Its bad enough that Ronnie had to form a political apology as his introduction, which made as much sense as when Bonnke spoke in gibberish (“tongues” using that same ole “I should have bought a honda utterance”)…what a sham and display of evil.
I guess some think it is just nice to be a part of such a powerful movement.
Wow! A definite low moment for SBC leadership in 2015.
The statement that the MO Baptist paper, Pathway, published that Mr. Floyd made while at the One Direction Conference was certainly degrading to baptist everywhere. He essentially said doctrine/creed/conviction just keeps us apart from other non-agreeable positions. We ought to just throw out our convictions and hug everybody. Maybe the SBC really wants to hug Benny! Or Sid! Or Pete! (Oh wait, we already did hug Pete. Lifeway publishes his book.)
Lifeway is also sponsoring Joyce Meyer.
When our leader and our publishing arm go off the tracks and nary a peep is heard, I fear the end of the SBC, as we know it, is just around the bend.
Gary,
Do you have a link to that speech?
thanks
I do not. I’ve only been able to see the long quote MoBap Pathway printed.
My suspicion is that no right leaning SBC site will link it. This whole issue/controversy is being downplayed majorly.
I propose a question; Is this why (SBC sin-ness) our missionary arms are fading fast?
We are turning our backs on our first love.
Gary,
If pastor Floyd did say similar to what you put out:
“He essentially said doctrine/creed/conviction just keeps us apart from other non-agreeable positions”, then why would God honor us with Kingdom results?
Gary and parsonmike, the collective efforts of the SBC certainly has lost its saltiness. Being in Nashville and around the SBC scene here for the last 30 years, it is no secret why the efforts are sub par at best. Yet, the opportunity for the SBC to be a distinct and not exclusive voice in the wilderness, again, still exists. It does take leadership that is not afraid of telling the truth and returning to a ministry minded focus,…not a marketing, shiny object theology. IHOP-KC is the opposite of what is needed. It is exactly what men of God need to expose, not embrace. When Paul exposed this same mess at “One” Corinthians, he was doing his fellow Saints a great service.
An effective rebuke is sweeter than a compromising hug any day of the week!
Chris,
Why do you suppose we haven’t heard any rebukes?
As far as Nashville and being around the SBC scene, I have no idea of the ‘why’ you speak of is.
Do you think there might have been a large outcry if Mohler had gone to IHOP instead?
Thanks for the question parsonmike,
The Psalmist answers the SBC leader in this way;
4:18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.
19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
They do not know over what they stumble.
20 My son, give attention to my words;
Incline your ear to my sayings.
21 Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.
22 For they are life to those who find them
And health to all their body.
23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
26 Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left;
Turn your foot from evil.
The reason for no rebuke is that the gaze of leaders these days are to the “right and left”, not straight in front. I’m afraid that the “shiny object” syndrome is more important than right doctrine has been during the last 50 years. Its hard work to rightly divide the Word, and it takes discipline to look directly ahead. I think the SBC has to get back to good ole hard work, and then the leaders will emerge. The SBC ship is a hard one to get back on course. Some think she is leaning in the right direction, but she will take many more folks working hard to get the new headings as she continues to list out to sea. In other words, there is no one really there that can effectively rebuke the President as he looks for shiny objects to the right and to the left.
Do you think the earlier [ongoing] doctrinal squabble between C’s and Trads is helping tamper down any doctrinal rebukes?
“Do you think the earlier [ongoing] doctrinal squabble between C’s and Trads is helping tamper down any doctrinal rebukes?”
parsonmike, not really. Those type of squabbles are actually pretty tame, surface, and make for good Theological Hermeneutic 101 courses. The struggle to know where the sovereignty in salvation rests is a rather basic understanding of God’s Word.
What is more important is to preach the gospel, explain the gospel, and keep moving forward. The Holy Spirit is entirely capable of maturing and growing Christ’s church as folks are engaged in demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit on a daily basis.
Chris,
Thanks for you reply.
For some it doesn’t seem tame.
I heard one young man lost his job for listening to the Dividing Line.
[I heard it on that show]
Thank you so much for writing this! I, too, am extremely concerned about Dr. Floyd speaking at OneThing. I have tried to contact him to no avail. I wish someone who has his ear would plead with him not to do this.
And for anyone who has any doubt that IHOP is a demonic organization, please see the resources listed at the end of this article: http://wp.me/p1qdEF-1oN. This is not just some run of the mill charismatic group. It is most certainly NAR and very dangerous.
I noticed Francis Chan another frequent speaker at SBC conferences is also speaking at the IHOP conference along with Ronnie Floyd.
Chan is not an SBC officer.
I totally agree that the Missouri Baptist Convention should have some role in “vetting” speakers at the pastor’s conference even though its a separate entity (whatever that means). As a recently appointed member of the executive board for the MBC, in light of this post, I plan to find out what our process is for this.
Most pastors conferences have some level of autonomy. Obviously, during the CR, we loved autonomy. I remember 1979 when the Pastors Conf was promoting Adrian Rogers while the people onstage did everything they could to oppose him.
Some level of autonomy is good. The problem is that the pastors were “asleep at the wheel” and elected a man who would bring heterodox speakers. We need to be more careful.
So, Spencer, I fully agree with your CONCERN, but I don’t think having a convention-controlled PC is necessarily the answer.
When Ronnie Floyd’s participation in the IHOP conference was circulated in Facebook and the blogosphere over a month ago, I sent an email to him from his website asking him to reconsider speaking. As an SBC pastor of an autonomous church, he has the freedom to speak where his elders and church will allow him–as he is accountable to them. But as the elected President of the SBC, he represents me and my church and our entire SBC family. What concerns me is his lack of discrenment. I dont’ think for a moment that he’s ignorant of IHOP’s theology. So to me it’s not an issue of his not being aware. This is concerning how many people have tried to contact him with no avail. I didn’t receive even a form email response.
I’m somewhat out of the Bible belt loop out here in Colorado, but I keep hearing more and more accounts of pastors and churches considering leaving the SBC because of issues like this.
If we can’t even get an email response back from our elected leaders, how will this change?
A friend, one who is pretty theologically savvy, messaged me last night about this article. He said his first response was, “Why is Dave upset about pancakes?”
I’m not sure that outside of the Midwest or the discernment blog circles, the KC prophets or IHOP are that well known.
No here in MI, the New Apostolic Reformation and the IHOP are very well known and are as powerful and pervasive as the Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel movements. I would say that in metro Detroit, they have great influence.
“I’m not sure that outside of the Midwest or the discernment blog circles, the KC prophets or IHOP are that well known.”
Exactly right, this is the first I have heard. I was thinking pancakes and fried chicken when I first saw the title.
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Duesing and Dr. Allen for clarifying the position of MBTS. For the record, I never meant to imply there was any affiliation between IHOP and MBTS. My only point was that there is a danger of individual MBTS students/graduates becoming involved with IHOP. (Which has happened.) I think it is helpful for these students to know where MBTS stands. And I am very grateful for the statement that was made.
Speaking from the perspective of a former state pastor’s conference president, I was given the charge of raising the money, booking travel arrangements and lodging for the speakers, plus serve as host. I appreciate the autonomy given me to choose the speakers I desired. People may make recommendations but everyone needs to be understanding if the confernce president does his own thing after doing so much work, mostly alone.
Most would bristle if informed by a non-Southern Baptist Pastor what Southern Baptist should do.
No one has the right to tell Dr Floyd where he may preach except his church leadership. He serves as our president on a volunteer basis. We can make no demands on his speaking engagements. His speaking at IHOP is a different issue than an IHOP person speaking at one of our conventions.
I am hurt that we as Southen Baptist have lost our Baptist distinction. I wish this trend would change but I don’t see that happening.
I am Southern Baptist and do not want to abandon our distinctives in any way. But I think we are strengthened by being challenged by good speakers from other parts of the gospel-faithful Christian world. Plus, we can impact the rest of the world when we are involved in it.
When we push the limits, as here, it becomes problemmatic. finding that right balance will not be easy.
Dave, to the most insignificant, least informed pastor in the SBC it appears we are far closer to limit pushers than we are isolationist. Just off the top of my head, IHOP and SDA have been invited to Southern Baptist events in the last year.
I was more comfortable when we were cautious of ecumenical activity as a convention as opposed to the “come on down boys the water is fine” mentality we have today.
Dean
Well said, especially the last paragraph!
Well said….
Everyone has different tastes, but the state and national convention pastor’s conference are really a flop anymore. Devoid of the former inspiration that we used to have. We have traded men of God like Dr. W.A. Criswell for all of these cool hip guys sitting on a bar stool. Give us back the men of God who were who used to take us up to knock on heaven’s door. Get rid if these hipsters who keep telling us, “You guys are so old fashioned and out of touch, get out of the way! Please continue sending money, though.”
Not overly familiar with IHOP. Admittedly, my comment may be based on ignorance more so than facts.
I would that someone would clearly specifically & precisely spell out what’s disqualifying about IHOP from a biblical perspective that’s makes it out of bounds for Dr. Floyd to preach at their meeting. The fact that they have some worship practices & mannerisms that go outside of the SBC comfort zone is not in and of itself disqualifying, unless those practices specifically contradict Scripture.
To attack IHOP without providing the documentation & Scriptural analysis/arguments for what makes them in error, is much more sinful and disqualifying than anything Dr. Floyd speaking there. An anonymous attack that does not lay a Scriptural foundation or evidence that IHOP is practicing theological or biblical error is simply an adhominem attack against the integrity of Dr. Floyd & IHOP. That’s is shameful, sinful, and beneath the dignity of SBC pastors. At least be man enough to document your claims as oppose to just asking us to take your word for it. It appears to me that this is just a case of charisphobia run amuck. God’s Kingdom is not limited to Southern Baptists.
No one in the SBC has the testicularity to call out FBC Dallas pastor and David Jeremiah for their support of Donald Trump. Nobody is writing anonymous letters asking these two pastors to not associate with a race baiting, casino owning, thrice married, admitted womanizer, female demeaning and handicap mocking xenophobe. Yet, you want to attack Dr. Floyd for preaching to a group of sincere believers who hungry for the Kingdom of God? Pleeeeeeease!!!!
The racism & corpse like worship in many SBC churches is probably far more of a concern to God than the non-Scriptral based attacks on IHOP & by extension Dr. Floyd.
Dr. Floyd’s dialogue on race with NBC pastors demonstrate that he’s willing to go where conservative SBC pastors have refused to go. You can’t pray for revival & keep God limited to an SBC box. A careful study of the 1st & 2nd Great Awakeninga would reveal some behaviors & practices similar to what’s alleged has taken place at IHOP. Certainly these type of practices took place at the Azusa Revival. Maybe God simply moves outside of ways SBC people are comfortable with. Today’s SBC would reject & be uncomfortable with the first hand accounts of revival practices recorded by the Baptist historian Morgan Edwards-if I’m remembering his name correctly.
We need to simply pray for Dr. Floyd & let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill. If Dr Floyd restrictied his preaching schedule to places where worship practices were 100% pleasei to God, he’d preach nowhere.
A few years ago, some of my dear friends who are IMB missionaries had to confront the damage left by IHOP in their area of ministry. It was not a good situation.
Yes, Ronnie Floyd has the freedom to preach “wherever he wants” as a local church pastor accountable to his elders and congregation. But as an elected President of the SBC, it comes with the terrority and it may be an “unwritten rule”–but he represents Southern Baptists. In the media, he speaks for us in that position. His participation in the IHOP event may have been approved by his elders and congregation, but that still doesn’t speak to his wisdom and discernment in doing something so controversial. In his desire to see a Third Great Awakening, could he be so focused on revival at any cost that this has clouded his judgment on what true biblical theology is. Do we want a revival that looks anything like what IHOP is importing around the world?
The whole world simply does not fit into a White SBC cultural box. The SBC may never see revival if it has to come on their terms & limited to their cultural worship practices & preferences.
Would someone please explain with documentation where IHOP is biblically in error. Thanks.
I agree with your assessement. I did not mention anything about race, culture, or a box. I mentioned the theological error of IHOP.
https://carm.org/ihop
Dwight, and anybody,
Did yowl at the links Michelle posted from her blog….
http://wp.me/p1qdEF-1oN
Parsonmike,
Just read your link to Michelle’s post & her link to the NAR article.
Michelle makes the bold announcement that “IHOP is …demonic.” She then states that the following occurrences take place at IHOP meetings, I assume to bolster her claims that IHOP is demonic: ‘holy laughter’…faith healing, crawl around on the floor barking like dogs…get ‘drunk’ on the Holy Spirit, go into spasms & convulsing when ‘possessed’ by the Holy Spirit…weird signs and wonder type things…”
What makes anything that she mentioned biblically or inherenly “demonic”? These manifestations have been associated with the 1st & 2nd great awakenings. Google it. It is easy to verify this. I must admit the “crawl around on the floor barking like dogs” is beyond my comfort zone…nor would I appreciate or approve of that happening in a worship service that I’m in charge of….but, who am I to say that’s to do so is demonic? What the demon came out of the boy in Matthew17: 14-21, we don’t know for sure what is behaviors were like in the process. None of the things Michelle mentioned proves that IHOP is demonic. Because they all don’t fit my comfort zones, that doesn’t make them demonic. We don’t know how the Gadderene demoniac behaved when he was being delivered. I am still waiting on someone to explain biblically what makes IHOP in error. To call something “demonic” that may be Holy Spirit led and blessed, leaves open the one making the demonic charge to being guilty of blasphemy. I would tread lightly on making such this far, unsubstantiated claims.
Additionally, the barking incident may have been a person undergoing a mental breakdown or an isolated incident. It would be grossly unfair to tar & feather this movement by this incident if that’s not a ordinary practice of IHOP. I’ve pastored 38 yrs. I’ve seen on ’bout 3-4 occasions persons experience a mental illness breakdown during worship. Their behaviors can be quite bizarre. But, to characterize one’s worship by such isolated incidents would be immensely inaccurate & unfair.
Dwight,
Oh yes. To characterize a ministry by occasional “isolated” incidents, would be unfair.
To ignore the reports [I’m not saying the reports are accurate, I just don’t know], but to ignore them and yet put a stamp of approval on a ministry where these occurrences are reported to be regular and widespread would be against truth and the Kingdom.
The problem is that dissenters can lie, so actually getting to the truth of the matter would take more than just reading or seeing such reports. And although videos can be doctored, they are a strong indication of what is actually happening.
Dwight,
I watched the videos and a few others.
These people are not claiming deliverance from demons, like the Gadderene demoniac you mentioned, but rather this is part of their worship service by believers.
My pastor says often that you become like the God or god you worship. Romans 1 tells us:
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
So when men and women are REDUCED to acting like animals, a degrading of themselves, when our goal as believers to be more like Jesus Christ, not more like ignorant animals, its not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the work of demonic spirits.
Parsonsmike,
A. Is this a regular worship practice for IHOP, and if so, how would you know that?
B. If so, it would be a serious error, but, wouldn’t SBC churches that don’t allow Africans/African Americana to be baptized; inter-racial couples to be married; exclude racial minorities from policy making leadership positions & pastoral ministry; embrace Donald Trump; and believe that God assigns persons to hell without them having a choice in the matter….wouldn’t those be equally as aggregious theological errors that would disqualify an SBC president from speaking there?; if that’s how we are going to determine or vet such decisions? Point being you could find an element or slither of theological error with almost every congregation, as with the 7 churches in Revelation with but one exception. Even if your characterization of the “barking” incident is true, should that be a disqualifier for an SBC preacher, preaching there?
Dwight,
A.] I don’t know if it is regular or not. But it would be an error to endorse this ministry without first finding out, since the reports and the videos seem to make it out to be a regular or often occurrence.
B.] Before I get to the examples you gave, I am not suggesting that brother Floyd not speak there. Maybe he has checked it out and found the reports mentioned to be in error. Or maybe he is going to speak there and rebuke them. Pastor Floyd does not answer to me and so I leave him to our gracious Master. For all I know, he might be walking in obedience.
As to these: [lettered by me for convenience]
“[a]don’t allow Africans/African Americana to be baptized; [b] inter-racial couples to be married; [c] exclude racial minorities from policy making leadership positions & pastoral ministry; [d]embrace Donald Trump; [e] and believe that God assigns persons to hell without them having a choice in the matter…”
You ask: “wouldn’t those be equally as aggregious theological errors that would disqualify an SBC president from speaking there?”
I don’t know what the parameters are for an SBC president in deciding where to speak.
AS to the theological errors:
[a] Most certainly is egregious.
[b] Most certainly is egregious.
[c] Most certainly is egregious.
[d] Not a theological error, but an egregious position, IMO.
[e] Those who think we are assigned to hell without choice are simply Biblically wrong. Sin is a choice and when we choose to sin, we assign ourselves to hell. The wages of sin is eternal death. We earn hell.
Salvation on the other hand is a gift, chosen by the Giver.
My point, Pastor Dwight, was to raise the yellow flag of caution, not the red flag of condemnation. I simply asked if you and others had looked into the offered information.
Personally, after viewing several videos, and reading several transcripts [one by the Rolling Stones magazine], i am sickened by the activities that SEEM to be happening there on what SEEMS like a regular basis.
My available response, besides asking questions, is to pray for them, and Dr. Floyd.
“Salvation is a gift chosen by the Giver”? Absolutely. But, doesn’t that gift also have to be recieced by the receiver?
Dwight,
if you want my answer, email me at bygrace4012@yahoo.com
Dave prefers we don’t debate such things off topic.
Or submit a post to dave and when and if he publishes it, I will be glad to answer.
Pastor Dwight,
I have personally attended two Onething conferences and dozens of Ihop services over the years. I have attended their Friday night, Saturday night, and Sunday morning services when I have visited Kansas City. I have been in their prayer room at least a dozen times and stream it regularly into my home. I have also watched dozens of services on the web stream (I love their worship leaders, but do not always stay on for the teaching.)
I have NEVER heard anyone bark like a dog. My son once heard a group of people laughing in a side room at the prayer room facility. I have seen some pretty good dancing from a few people, heard a few random wails during prayer time, and I have had people pray for me when I was ill. I have heard singers singing in “tongues,” but rarely hear tongues in their services. I have never heard a tongue interpreted.
It is pretty standard Charismatic stuff. There is a “prophetic history” they talk about a lot. It is all there to read at Mick Bickle’s website, not hidden at all. I know I am just sharing my “experience,” but I’m really getting tired of all the “regular barking” accusations on here. Wow.
Cathy,
Thank you for your report.
i think only one person actually made the “barking” accusation.
I simply reported what I saw and read and I also added the caveat that dissenters are not always reliable ‘reporters’.
Cathy M.
Thanks so much for this first hand report. I figured as much without being there. This is a big to do ’bout nothing. It has peeked my interest though. Perhaps if I’m able to attend the Onething Conference, it would enable me to do as you’ve done here, give a credible first hand report. Hysteria seems to be driving this post and comment thread. That’s so unfortunate & so unChristlike.
Pastor Dwight,
The conference sessions are all streamed online. The schedule will be out closer to Christmas. You’ll be able to watch the whole service with Dr. Floyd. Just google Onething Conference 2015. Blessings!
Thanks for this info. Sometimes though, being in the atmosphere makes all the difference in the world.
Let’s be more like bereans and less like slanders of the brethren.
From SBC and IHOP own sites on their stated beliefs.
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
http://www.ihopkc.org/about/statement-of-faith/
A man went to heaven and was being shown around by St. Peter. St. Peter proceeded to give him a tour of clouds occupied by various Christian groups gathered together, opening the doors to each to show the great rejoicing. Oh, what a demonstration of joy as believers from all nations and tribes worshiped together!! At the next cloud, he didn’t open the door but instead put his forefinger to his lips in the hush motion and they both tip-toed past. After a good distance, the man asked “What was all that about !?” “Those are the Southern Baptists”, he explained; “They think they are the only folks here.”
That’s silly. Southern Baptists will not be the only ones in heaven – it’s fair to assume that a few independent Baptists will be there as well.
😉
I don’t care for pancakes.
I’m a Southern Baptist and proud to be one. Warts and all the SBC, is the place to be. I contend that the BFM2000 is a biblical and Kingdom unifying document – one I’m proud to affirm.
I do object to speakers who are outside of orthodox evangelicalism speaking at official SBC events. This includes the “Word of Faith” movement and “strange fire – charismatic chaos” groups like IHOP and I think it’s (at minimum) unwise for elected SBC officers (and other leaders) to identify/partner with these groups.
I like to hear and learn from fellow orthodox pastors, teachers and speakers be they SBC or not.
Tarheel,
“outside of orthodox evangelical mainstream”
Where is the evidence that IHOP fits that description? If the SBC embraces MaCArthurs “Strange Fire” unbiblical doctrine…shouldn’t they codify this, so that those of us who are continuationist know we don’t belong in the SBC? Who determined that IHOP was outside of orthodxy? Whose orthodoxy? Again, not fitting into the SBC White cultural box and not limiting yourself to SBC worship preferences & practice does not make a group unorthodox.
I just read a dissenting voice to IHOP.
He was quite irenic about it.
Turns out he didn’t like their end time belief that people were going to Hell.
He believes all will be in heaven, even those who die as unbelievers.
Just because some people complain about a ministry doesn’t mean they are correct about it.
Videos can be edited. Cut and pasted.
I only know about IHOP from online testimonies, and these range from good to bad. What the truth is, I d not know.
The question is:
How accurate is the OP?
The post by anonymous paints a bad picture of IHOP.
Since he doesn’t have first hand knowledge, did the reports he referenced have first hand knowledge and how reliable are they?
How can we have a reasonable discussion if we do not have reliable information?
Parsonsmike,
Amen!!!
Mike: I add my amen.
I did not say that continuationlism is necessarily outside of orthodoxy. It can be, but not necessarily so. IHOP seems to be based on the links to thier theology that have been posted in this thread.
I understand that it is your opinion that Dr. MacArthur takes an unbiblical stance in “strange fire” – As you know I do not agree with you on these issues and happen to think that (while I do not agree with all of his conclusions) JM is largely correct when it comes to much of the word of faith movement, etc… afoot today. His cautions are necessary and important.
I stated my opinion and you stated yours. It is OK with me that we disagree. Disagreement does not have to mean we can’t be friends. I still like you, and hope to get to hang with you again someday.
For the record, I do not reject all continualists as being unorthodox.
Actually, that is one of the issues here. There are some on the “discernment” front who lump all non-cessationists together as extremists and heretics. This was the tactic of Phil Johnson and Dr. Mac at “Strange Fire” – unfortunate and divisive. There are some in their camp who take their views to the absolute extreme. If you believe God still leads today, you are a mystic. If you don’t buy into their view, you don’t accept the sufficiency of the word.
It can be a pretty harsh treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ.
“If you’re not a cessationist then you’re a mystic”
“If you’re a Calvinists then you believe everyone is a robot”
“If you’re an Amillennialist then you’re falling into liberalism”
“If you’re an Arminian then you believe in work based salvation”
This type of rhetoric and mischaracterization needs to end if we are going to ever have a meaningful conversation.
Tyler, where do you live?
We need to hang out sometime.
DFW Metroplex. You’ve got my email, let me know whenever you’re in the area 🙂
I was hoping you were a Missouri boy. We are planning a KC area get-together sometime in the Spring.
To be clear – I’m not one of those “some”.
I think JM’s cautions are worthy and important and should not be dismissed out of hand – but I agree if taken to extreme it can be overly divisive.
Not everyone can be that fortunate. Otherwise God’s state would be overcrowded.
I was wondering if that was progressing. 🙂
Well I am happy to hear not all non-cessationists are heretics, I am I the non-cessationist category. 🙂 Whew!
I’m wondering if there is ANYTHING in ihop doctrine that would prohibit them from actually joining the SBC if they wanted to…BFM doesn’t prohibit charismatic practices…If I had to guess, I’d wager they have female pastors…but I’m not familiar enough to know. 🙂
My point is that we tend to think of SBC Identity as something narrow, when in fact it is quite broad. Any number of existing non-denominational churches could become SBC without any alteration whatsoever. AND, sbc doesn’t even REQUIRE BFM2000 affirmation at all…as Far as I know, the main excluders in the last 20 years have been (a) female pastors) & (b) affirmation of homosexuality.
Wow!
Thier “Prophetic history” teachings *should* preclude them. This is Joseph Smith stuff.
http://blaiseforet.com/2015/03/10/why-i-left-ihopkc-and-how-i-was-treated-when-i-left-my-story/
I read this, I had not heard of ihops prophetic history, and it was certainly worrisome …
However, you have proved my point, unless you know of documents that I don’t…
1. It’s not immidiatly clear which part of the BFM this conflicts with.
2. It doesn’t matter because BFM agreement isn’t even required.
So it seems while an ihop person would have difficulty being hired at a seminary, or appointed as a missionary, an ihop church faces No barriers to sbc cooperation.
I’m just asking here, maybe someone else knows something I don’t.
I agree with Andy Williams. There is no boundary or border currently in SBC life capable of keeping IHOP churches out of our convention—no matter how regularly or irregularly their members may or may not bark like a dog in public worship services.
Although I may prefer to draw the denominational lines a bit differently than many Voices readers, perhaps we can at least agree that lines should be drawn SOMEWHERE in some manner.
The SBC is a broad tent, but it does have some walls somewhere, right?
Sometimes I bark like a dog to make my granddaughters to laugh.
David 🙂
LOL. I wondered where were you.
lol
Andy’s point is salient. The only reason I know for a church being denied membership into the SBC is acceptance of homosexuality, female pastors, and not contributing to the CP. These are not even concrete as we have had females pastor SBC churches and no action taken. We have become weak, extremely weak on maintaining what we have determined to be Baptist distinctives based on Scripture.
I guess part of my point is that it seems that it’s not as if we have any guidelines now that we aren’t following, but rather that we simply don’t have any…
We have the BFM which guides hiring practices and missionary appointments, but has basically no bearing on member churches, other than a “this is what we as a group believe, but you can disagree with some parts and still be part of our group.”
I suppose it’s similar to our Local Baptist church telling people be we believe in eternal security, but we’ll let you join the church even if you don’t….but you can’t be a pastor. 🙂
There is no “Baptist Police,” though I joke about them from time to time. The SBC being non-hierarchical and its churches autonomous, it does not police its church or do anything to enforce conformity. The only enforcement we have is felllowship.
If you think a church is not in partnership, (the exception to this is the recent homosexuality issue) you challenge their messengers at the SBC. That’s really the primary means we have.
In the past, local associations, being more local and in tune with what was going on in churches, we more likely to enforce conformity to BF&M. The problem is that we get sidetracked on issues that are not violations of the BF&M, so we lose the ability to speak on the actual BF&M.
Plus, when our churches don’t discipline, it’s hard for our associations to do it.
Dave, the BF&M is broad in certain places and open for interpretation. In other places it is so narrow that two interpretations are not possible. For instance, and we have had this discussion, baptism is described in concise, narrow detail. Baptist know the Biblical mode and meaning for baptism. Yet we receive members from churches that practice paedobaptism, baptism by sprinkling, and baptism from congregations that teach baptism is necessary for salvation and we do not Biblically baptize these individuals who have had an alien baptism.
The BF&M is crystal clear in every version that baptism is a prerequisite for participating in the Lord’s Supper. I have read a high percentage of churches no longer teach or believe this when serving the Lord’s Supper.
The BF&M is clear that the office of pastor can only be held by a man. I am familiar with several SBC churches who have called women in the role as pastor and no action was taken.
My point is not that we need a “Baptist police.” My point is I am saddened that the Baptist distinctives that were once held dear enough to place in the BF&M are no longer dear enough for our churches to practice. I know how the convention works. I am not advocating forced practice of the BF&M; I am stating sadness because so many today plainly disbelief statements that are NOT open for any other interpretation.
Plus, Dean and Andy, our BF&M is MEANT to be a generic document. It is mean to allow Calvinists and non-Calvinists, people of all eschatological stripes, people on varying points on the spiritual gifts spectrum, etc.
An SBC church should hold to basic Christian and Baptist doctrine, but its meant to provide a wide range within that.
I realize this, and in general think it’s fine. We just need to realize how things work when we “Call on” the “SBC” to take some action. We have to either accept things the way they are, or work toward having the SBC processes re-worked to require BFM confomity (which as we found when people started talking about open and closed communion, would be very hard, and would likely mean re-writing the BFM itself).
Short of that, there not much or the national SBC to do about any of this. Individual associations, churches, entities, and leaders are all left to make their own decisions:
-One person chooses to withdraw from the SBC because of percieved closeness with ihop…another person chooses to go speak at the ihop conference…most of us choose neither.
It would appear that “IHOP Churches” seeking affiliation with the SBC would be disingenuous to the first Amendment of the BFM on Scriptures.
“…for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
There is no additional apostolic basis of understanding beyond the scripture. Bickle is known for having and expounding on his visitations advancing a form of apostleship and eschatological requirements. Exciting for Bickle, yet dangerous for the church.
1. I don’t see what you’re pointing to here…you quoted a scripture, not the BFM.
2. Are you referring to ARTICLE 1? I don’t think the BFM has “ammendments”.
3. I don’t see the BFM saying anything like: “There is no additional apostolic basis of understanding beyond the scripture.”
4. Churches can disagree with the BFM and still be SBC.
yes.. meant Article 1. You can tell how much I follow the doc.
The first article, as it describes scripture, demonstrates that there is not additional apostolic basis beyond what is written in the scripture. Bickle tends to play outside this understanding with his visions and explanations, and eschatology.
And I agree with your number 4…. All I am saying is that they…those churches that may want to be SBC, would not necessarily agree with Article I.
Tarheel,
Blaise Foret was upset with IHOP’s prophetic vision because it had Jesus coming back and people going to hell. He believes everyone will go to Heaven, even those who die as unbelievers.
Partial testimony leads to assumptions.
Maybe their “Prophetic History” teachings are bad, but unless you read them yourself, you are just taking some ones word for it.
He was also upset that PH is being taught at IHOP in addition to scripture – thus denying both inerrancy and sufficiency.
Tarheel,
Not actually disagreeing with you on this, but simply pointing out that Blaise interprets Scripture differently than the orthodox way, so how is his testimony credible?
He’s one of many out there who detail the “apostolic authority” and cultic nature of the teachings at IHOP.
Tarheel,
You make a point.
But we a person on this thread testify from a different perspective.
Who should we believe?
How can we judge when we have limited info? or differing ‘takes’?
Or to borrow from the Joel Rainey just-posted post, Gilles said:
“GL: First, information should always come from multiple sources, and those sources should be compared and contrasted. We live in a world where we have access to American, British and European, Asian and Middle Eastern news sources. If you only listen always to what you want to hear you can never form an intelligent, informed opinion. You just believe to only one voice which may not be as open as they say they are. We need all those sources of information (different point of views) to form a….what is the English word I am looking for?” [depth -is the word]
Tarheel,
Thank you for at minimum exposing a little more about this emotional, mystical teaching.
Bickle has taught some bizarre things over the years to play on the emotional, narcissistic side of immature Christians and unfortunately appears to be successful in his rhetoric. He is persistent none-the-less. His is a dangerous path that skirts on along on the path of the gospel and then plummets into emotional nonsense that leads into error… The Apostle Paul approaches this in his second letter to the Corinthians we know as chapter 10.
One guy wrote this of his teaching from “Songs of Solomon”……
“Mike Bickle’s campaign to teach Christian youth spiritual intimacy with his “Bridal Paradigm” carrying a muted warning “not to think about kissing Him on the mouth” is like a father sending his daughter to the prom with a seductive gigolo and hoping they don’t kiss. Tragically, this is exactly what is happening as parents send their youth to Bickle’s conferences to learn how to become intimate with God. The method of growing in intimacy with the true Jesus is to read about what those who knew him on earth have to tell us and believe what they wrote. We come to know the “Jesus come in the flesh” through the words of those who walked and talked with Him. As we come to understand and believe, we love this true Jesus seeing His death on our behalf and the love that He demonstrated in coming to save us. Through the words of His apostles we have true fellowship, we change and we become conformed to His image. The apostle John was not kidding when he wrote of the true Jesus in 1 John to warn us of defective teaching.”
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”
Chris & Tarheel,
If someone would bother to listen to hundreds & hundreds of our cd’s, they would no doubt find reasons & room for pause. I’m yet to hear a “smoking gun.” Would someone please level & specific allegation of theological/biblical error espoused by Bickle that’s not supported by Scripture. This “prophetic history” allegation in no more or no less than the equivalent of a Baptist History class, or requireing ones staff to know the history of that ministry and the influencers and words that were said at the birth of the ministry. You all are really going way out of the way in an attempt to discredit IHOP. Why?
It’s not uncommon for Confederate flags to be posted & celebrated at some SBC church functions in the south. Where’s the outrage against that. Many SBC churches have couples living together without marriage license in the pews each Sunday and as church members; Where’s the outrage against that? Many people support Trump’s Muslim ban, and his building a wall & splitting up the families of immigrants; Where’s the outrage against that?
No matter the context, if it is wrong for Dr. Floyd to speak at IHOP, then it was wrong for Dr. Mohler to speak at The Morman Tabernacle; Where’s the outrage against that?
Pastor Dwight, I have heard teaching from IHOP on end times. I just checked with my daughter, who recently took a course from their university on the end times, and asked her what she had been taught about “preconditions” for Christ’s return. She said:
Every nation reached with the gospel
A believing remnant in Israel to fulfill Jesus words of Matthew 23:29 (Psalm 118)
I did read the Blaise Floret post. It sounded to me like those pastors had reason to be concerned about him and the path he was going down.
Dwight,
Do you know what the Prophetic History is?
If so, please tell us. For the reports read about it sure *SEEM* to point to a playbook the church must do to usher in the end times.
Now that may be harmless or even good doctrine.
So if it is, please inform us.
But if you do not know what it is, and it seems that you do not since you equated it with a Baptist History class. Such a class deals with the PAST. Like in the PAST history of Baptists.
But from what I have read, this IHOP Prophetic History speaks to what will happen and what must happen in the near future, so much so, that young people are being encouraged to forgo college to spend their 20’s bringing about this ‘History’.
What do you actually know about it?
And if you know not much, I would caution you, dear brother, not to defend it against honest questionnaires of it.
It’s all right here: http://mikebickle.org/resources/series/38
Thanks Cathy for the info.
Dwight,
Since I am believe that spiritual gifts MAY still be viable today, but in my limited experience with those who use the sign gifts have seen nothing but unbiblical actions, I have a natural skepticism about the people who claim to use sign gifts.
But you are someone who claims Biblical use of the sign gifts, if not just you, but in your church and in your circle.
I’m not posting this to argue if sign gifts are still viable today.
Rather, I think that if your goal is to promote the Godly use of such gifts, that it seems that when you seemingly give carte blanche to a group like IHOP, it doesn’t promote those gifts, assuming they abuse those gifts.
Since you seem to be the ‘point man’ here on Voices for the sign gifts, let me ask you to be willing to condemn the irresponsible acts of some people who claim to be speaking God’s Word, and to have comets and earthquakes and tornados and angels streaming across the skies as validating their prophecies, and so forth.
This is but a small sampling I have learned from a very short reading and watching of the link Cathy shared.
There is so much error in what IHOP itself has written or put into video that I have not the time, or the typing speed, to detail the errors made in the short time I have looked at their own publications.
Whether sign gifts are viable today or not, this group, by IHOPKC’s own words, shows that they are abusing them beyond the pale.
Parsonmike,
I appreciate you taking the time to review those materials. Not sure yet if I can make it, but, I really want to go to the conference to experience 1st hand what IHOP is all about. If they promote or affirm crawling on the floor rooting like a hog, or barking like a dog, I categorically denounce that behavior.
Now as to whether or not an IHOP speaker saw comets, earthquakes, tornadoes etc., I can’t really say with authority whether or not they really saw that.
Here is what I do know. While driving from Arkansas to Fort Worth the summer or fall of ’81 while yet pastoring in Pine Bluff & commuting to SWBTS, ’bout 9am one morning after the sun had come up & it was very clear, almost suddenly darkness covered the earth & it started to rain very heavily. So much so, I needed to pull over & wait out, but in order to make a class later that day, I needed to keep driving. The rain & darkness was so heavy & murky, I was forced to drive very, very slow. But, I remembered Jesus facing a similar situation while on board a ship. I remembered how he responded. I decided to pray to The Lord & ask Him to clear up the weather so that I could resume to a normal speed & make my class.i know it sounds unbelievable, but I would not lie about this. The weather records in East Texas probably will verify this. Just as almost suddenly as opposed to gradually the earth darkened & the heavy driving rains started to falling ’bout 9 or 9:30 am, that’s how fast the heavy rains & darkness cleared up that day. And it happened within a very short proximity to my asking the Lord to clear up the rain. Coincidental? Maybe. But, I was so moved by seeing God answer my prayer as I believed He’d done, ’till I then pulled over to the side of the road, got out of the car, lifted my hands & prayed to the God of heaven a prayer of praise & thanksgiving. What you described ’bout the comets & galaxies & earthquakes is not beyond the power & workings of the God that I know & read about in the Bible.
Please give me another example of error, and preferably with Bickle’s teaching. And if it’s truly error & does not line up with God’s Word I’ll say so. I believe that we are biblically commanded to do so.
Parson Mike,
What you are reading at that link is not all that extraordinary in Charismatic circles as far as dreams, visions, and prophecies driving the ministry vision. If you were to look at Charisma magazine, GodTV, and books published by Destiny Image, then you would see more of this kind of prophetic focus.
My point in continuing to post here is just to show that it is all out there. They are not hiding or dissembling what they believe. You can buy the “prophetic history” DVD! You don’t have to read what other people are writing about it or follow links to “carm.” It’s all on their own website. Their prayer room is streaming live right now and will be all night long.
Dwight,
I have looked at enough of IHOP stuff.
I have no need to convince you. If you desire to know what they teach, you can read and examine their online PDF’s and videos.
If you don’t know what they believe, good sense dictates that you don’t defend them.
Cathy,
I certainly can’t dispute your statement. Mt experience with such organizations is quite limited.
But no matter how many [or few] ministers claim to be prophets with God’s Words coming out of their mouths, I will still see that as quite wrong, unless of course they are quoting the Bible, which is not what is going on here.
And that they claim natural disasters and comets as signs of answered prayer does not make sense. For example, the comet would have flew by, whether they prayed or not.
My opinion is that they are terribly deceived or they are charlatans.
Parsonsmike,
Inasmuch as you & others are quick to label IHOP doctrinally suspect or indeed in error, the burden of proof & Christian ethics demand that you back up the allegations with facts. All I asked for was for one indisputable, undeniable theological or biblical doctrinal error taught by Bickle or one authorized by their
ministry. You couldn’t provide one. And that’s fine.
I agree with Cathy M. Charismatics believe in a God of Miracles, a Supernatural God, who is intervenes in the affairs of man, according to His will. Calvinist refer to “A Big God.” Like charismatics, Black Baptists also believe in a a mighty God who specializes in things that are impossible. We don’t limit God by western rationalism. We don’t place God in theological boxes or systems. We let God be God. This seems to be the belief system & practice of IHOP. Because you may find some persons who’ve made some questionable statements at IHOP, inasmuch as Bickle is the chief spokesman for their ministry, it’s important that we discover if he has spoken error. I’d hate to be held liable for every statement that have been spoken from my pulpits over the past 38yrs that I’ve pastored.
Dwight,
I’m afraid that it is Bickle that is putting God into a box, not the other way around.
All Pastors make mistakes (Lord knows I do)…yet again, that is not what is being discussed. Bickle’s entire system though is not based upon supernatural (only masked by it). It is based upon natural actions that require God to respond, and unfortunately creates forms of idolatry. Emotions should not be confused with Charisma.
I’m still not sure why Ronnie would move that direction. Maybe he does see the ministry as something special, and wants to be a part of what is happening at IHOP. I’m also sure that many Pastors whole heartedly encourage him to do so.
I have listened to a wide extent(hours sometimes) to IHOP’s worship service, I have not seen the things described here.
I have heard beautiful worship songs that are playing all night long, intercessory prayer 24 hours and unless a video can be produced that shows otherwise, I just don’t buy that they bark like dogs etc. Like anything on the internet, stories are just that. Stories meant to harm one’s reputation. May it is because I am Baptist and a non-cessationist that I am more open, but I have not seen or heard anything that would cause me alarm.
Again, if proof, such as audio or video proved otherwise I too would reject it. I do hear singing and praying in tongues, but I am not one to have that as a cause of division.
In my almost 60 years of living, I have experienced too many things that were unexplainable to put God in a box of just sitting idly by. I do believe He is intimate with us and as we need it, He does send angels to rescue us, or provides supernatural intervention. I can’t explain why I am still alive after so many times I shouldn’t be any other way. I am thankful He does, but do not blame those who do not believe as I do.
Debbie, that is not unusual to see some pretty laudable things going on… that’s not the problem really. It is about doctrine and Bickle’s low view of scripture that seemingly the new prophets of the NT don’t necessarily have to be 100% correct (end times predictions)
I would sincerely hope that Ronnie could tell me why it is important to be a part of conferences sponsored by IHOP. Maybe he has made a statement…I’d like to know. I really would. As representing the SBC, it does make a difference to our church.
On another note….There is no reason to compare IHOP’s low view of scripture and the ceasing of tongues, etc by some. There is no reason to think that tongues, miracles, etc. have ceased. God’s work continues. I’m not sure why tongues, miracles, etc. are even part of this conversation about IHOP.
Dwight,
You want proof?
You want proof that my opinion is that the IHOP ministry is false? And yet you have endorsed it without even knowing what they preach.
Did you go to the link provided by Cathy?
here it is:
http://mikebickle.org/resources/series/38
Dwight from that link, the following is quoted: 3 quotes…
The Lord said, “I will change the understanding and expression of Christianity in the whole earth in one generation.” Not this movement, or that movement, but God Himself will do this through all the thousands of movements and millions of ministries.
the Lord says, “You cannot back off from these realities. Beware lest your brethren steal these from your heart.”
When I first met Bob Jones, that was one of the first things he told me.
Bob Jones said, “I came back from death to strengthen some young leaders for a purpose that would unfold over decades. There is so much you do not understand, and the Lord has set me at your side.” I am giving you a summary of a couple longer meetings with Bob Jones. He gave me so many dreams and visions in the first meeting of two or three hours; but the essence of it was he said, “You are an intercessor. You are a youth pastor. You are going to lead a worldwide youth movement of singers and musicians. You are going to be used in this whole movement, which will result in power evangelism.” That power evangelism excited me.
Dwight,
God is telling him things. Bob Jones is coming back from the dead and gives him dreams and visions.
He tells many youth to not go to college and hook up with him.
More quotes:
God gives dreams and visions. I want to explain the principle: God will send signs in the heavens, comets, or weather patterns that are in the lower realm as signs in the heavens. The signs of the heavens are going to pick up far beyond that before the Lord returns. There will be signs on the earth.
What happens is the prophet will give you a vision, you will not be sure if the vision is true, but they will declare a sign in the heaven that God told them about, and then, when that sign in the heaven cannot be manipulated by anybody—when that sign takes place—then you will go back and say, “What was that vision again, because the sign verified it?’ I am telling you a sign right now. Bob said, “There is going to be a snow that will come at the first of spring”—because it had been sixty or seventy degrees for about a week, and they were saying that the spring had already come. I did not think it was going to snow.
Dwight,
Comets and spring snows are both predictable. They are not proof a vision was from God. Telling us 30 years or even 3 years later that one predicted an unexpected comet is hardly proof of propheticism.
“Bob said, “The Lord showed me different people among the young ones. They would simply raise their hands. They didn’t do anything but raise their hands, and the power of God would begin to hit people in big, vast gatherings in the auditorium.”
He said if someone needed a new kidney, instantly the glory of God would appear on them and a kidney would be formed. If people needed healing, whether the lame, the blind, the deaf, they would simply raise their hand and the power of God would enact it. This was something so dramatic that no one could trace it back to the guy or gal on the platform.”
“There are thousands of people on each side of the road. There are these thirty, forty, and fifty young people carrying the Lord, and the Lord said, “These are the ones I’ve anointed in an unusual way.” Every believer is anointed to heal the sick and preach the gospel, but throughout history the Lord sometimes releases here and there an unusual demonstration of power. He said, “I will release an unusual demonstration of power.”
Behind these thirty or forty people there was a long line of people who were healed. They were pushing their wheelchairs. They had been paralyzed, they were instantly healed, and now they were pushing the wheelchair. They had been missing a limb and now they were carrying that prosthetic limb with them. All these thousands of people were in the road, those who were healed by the Lord through these young people. Multitudes across the city were on the sidelines cheering. Then the Lord looked at Bob and said to him,”
“I [Mike Bickle] said, “Tonight is the night where I’m going to stand before the Lord or something.”
I’ve never had an experience like this and never one since, although I believe for more. I thought, “Wow.” How do you go to bed? But I did, and I started off in my sleep, but I didn’t end up in my sleep. I was standing before the Lord in a room that was fifty feet by fifty feet. I didn’t know how big the room was, actually, but it was a fairly small room. It looked like it was made up of clouds—the roof, the ceiling, the walls, were all clouds.
I was standing at the Lord’s left, and He spoke to me very strongly. I was standing there touching my arms and my hands. I said, “I’m not dreaming. I’m awake. I know I’m awake. This isn’t a dream. I’m awake.” I stood there for a few moments just getting oriented. I said, “This is real. Where am I?” I had no idea where I was or how I got there. This is biblical, by the way. There’s a verse in 2 Corinthians 12 about being caught up in the Lord somewhere. Paul described this, talking about himself: “I will go to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago”—here’s the part I like—“whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2-3). In other words, “It felt like I was there physically, but I can’t be sure I was there physically, but I think I was, but I don’t know for sure. Only God knows. I was caught up before the Lord. I know such a man.” He can’t let this go. You can tell Paul is still captured by this: “Whether in the body or out, I don’t know. Only God knows.””
“Again, every believer has the license to heal in that one sense, but we are talking about more dramatic levels of manifestations. Blind eyes instantly opened on a regular basis. We are talking about limbs being restored instantly on a regular basis. We are talking about a healing anointing far beyond what we have seen in the Body of Christ over the centuries. The Lord told Bob, “Tell them that if they use this anointing to make money for themselves, to manipulate for immorality, or to open doors for their own pride, I will take back the license to heal at this level.””
Dwight,
Are those blind going to IHOP and getting their sight restored? Are those who have lost limbs going there to get new arms and legs?
Do you find all this credible?
Parson Mike,
I respect all that you have written and can see that you are zealous for the truth. My daughter has a friend that she has taken IHOP online classes with. This young woman met and spoke with Mike Bickle personally at last year’s Onething conference. He encouraged her to finish her degree before coming to join the IHOP staff. She is working on that now. I don’t believe it is normative for them to tell anyone to skip college. I know that many of their worship leaders have completed college degrees.
Brother Dwight,
I answered why Mohler made a political speech at the Tabernacle, and how he proclaimed the gospel message directly opposed to the Mormon faith. I’m not sure how that would compare….and I’m not trying to defend Mohler. Maybe he shouldn’t be getting into political policy??
On the other hand, IHOP has been known to be on the edge of heretical, …I’m not even comparing it to Charismatic or Pentecostal. IHOP may have some sincere passions for Christ. Yet passing or channeling end time prophecy in the frame where the actions of men and women are necessary to bring about the return of Christ is not just error, it is doctrine to be refuted.
Bickle’s teachings are predictable, sensational, and his prophecy and framing of the end time requirements are just plain wrong. He may be fine on other matters, but the emphasis of his ministry revolves and centers around his view (on par with the visions of Paul as has been reported in the past) And why not, it brings the folks in the doors. Unfortunately folks that get sucked into this sensationalism feel a need to be there for many reasons, and they truly believe their efforts are bringing Christ to earth in the next fifty years.
It is hard to understand how these things are not just obvious to Pastors…. even as Jesus uttered….”But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”
If believing that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached to the ends of the earth before the end comes, then count me among the heretical(Matthew 24: 14).
Dwight,….. I hear you and agree with Matthew 24. Please take some time and read a little history on this guy before you jump into his station wagon.
Parsonmike,
I have not endorsed IHOP. I simply don’t start from the premise that IHOP is false. There doctrinal starement is one that I can embrace. Although it does not address certain matters that I wish it did, such as eternal security.
It is simply not on my to do list to do an indepth study of IHOP anytime soon. As time permits, I may read some of the material on Cathy’s link. I did read what you have painstaking lly taken the time to post here. My response similar to Spurgeon when he said that he’d rather restrain a fanatic than to wake up a corpse. I can assure you that nothing that I’ve read that you’ve posted takes place in our ministry. However, I’m not opposed to anything that you’ve posted here. I don’t see a smoking gun here. I would not be unsettled or the least bit bothered or annoyed if those things were said during a service where I was present. The proof is in the pudding. It appears that much of what Bob Jones said to Bickle has come to pass. That’s why IHOP is even on our radar screen. I’m excited to learn that that many young people are turning to the Lord & giving their lives to missions, prayer & ministry.
Trust me, I know what’s taken place is beyond SBC comfort zone. But, is it outside of God’s or the Bible’s comfort zone? Judge ye? At this point I’ve read or heard nothing ’bout IHOP that’s beyond the pale except for the crawling & howling, barking & rooting. It’s even suspect whether or not that really happened. It certainly is not normative there. The Gammaliel approach is probably the best way to deal with IHOP, or the Jesus approach…”other sheep I have which are not of this fold.” And they certainly are not against Christ, therefore, I conclude they are for Him. It’s ok to not be comfortable with IHOP. I know loads of people who are not comfortable with the SBC. Some have refused to join our church solely because of our affiliation with the SBC. If I find a smoking gun that I believe is false regarding IHOP I will report it here. But, because they are pursuing God, and pressing into the Kingdom of God, and believe in prophetic utterances….again, I know the SBC largely rejects that approach to Christianity, I don’t. I’m sure there are areas of imperfections, and much room for improvement with IHOP. But, if the best you all can come up with is areas of discomfort, but know teaching that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, then I have no reason to label IHOP a false movement. To do so may be cursing what God has it appears to me annointed & blessed.
Dwight said “It’s not uncommon for Confederate flags to be posted & celebrated at some SBC church functions in the south.”
Really? Can you name one? I have NEVER seen one at a SBC church.
Donald,
Singing groups have come into churches & sang Dixie(an offensive song most African Americans) and at SWBTS, a southern quartet attempted to display a Confederate flag. Thank God, Dr. Patterson blocked them. Can’t remember where I read it, but, I think I recall reading that in South Carolina & Mississippi, Confederate flags are sometimes displayed.
I think it’s safe to say you oversold “It’s not uncommon” and “posted & celebrated” by SBC churches.
There are some few examples in Episcopal Churches. Perhaps you had read articles about those discussions.
I have never seen nor heard tell of it (confederate flag display) in an SBC church either. I’ve Served and lived in NC, VA, and GA and would think that in these localities I’d have heard about that.
I was a Pastor in MS for 7 years. I NEVER saw a Confederate flag in any Church that I went in. I’ve lived in TN for the rest of my life, and I’ve never…never seen a Rebel flag in a Church. I’ve never heard any group sing “Dixie” in Church. I have heard a few sing “Rocky Top.” And, I sang along with them…joyfully, I might add.
Also, Dwight, when I was a teenager, I drove a gray T-bird with a red pin stripe. I flew a Rebel flag on my antennae. I didn’t do it for any racist reasons. To me, it was a symbol of the South, and our Southern way of living…. my Southern heritage. And, I called my car “The Gray Ghost.”
Honestly, I didn’t see the Rebel flag as a racist thing. I knew that some KKK people used it as a racist symbol. But, I didn’t. And, where I lived…in my county…we were 50% Black and 50% White. I never had any of my Black friends accuse me of being racist, because I had the flag flying.
But anyway, I hope that people, all over this country, can move away from focusing on race. Maybe, one day, we’ll truly be able to say, along with Martin Luther King, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
David
PS. I don’t have any Rebel flags flying, anymore. I’m still just an ole hillbilly redneck, though. lol
I have been in a lot of churches in Alabama (including in Montgomery) and Mississippi, as well as in North Carolina and Virginia. Many of them were rural churches, most were all-white, some were very conservative (socially as well as politically, and theologically too), and one I know had a member who was a Confederate re-enactor. Maybe a Confederate flag has been displayed in some southern churches, but not in any I have been in when I was ever there.
John
25 + years pastoring in MS and I have never seen confederate flags displayed in churches. However, bumper stickers with the confederate flag are common in the parking lot.
Once on a Wed night an 18 wheeler came by on the high way a couple miles away and blew his horn which played dixie. For some reason it came through our sound system at the exact time our minister of music finished our song service. He was still in the pulpit and said at Dixie’s first note, “All rise,” placing his hand in his heart. We laughed at him for 10 minutes. He was poking fun at we southerners.
Question: Does IHOP serve wine at communion? It may explain a lot of things, visions, and etc.
Jess,
A large church would have to have a lot of money to give its people enough wine to explain things.
Donald, Volfan, Tarheel,
Donald is probably right. I oversold this. I apologize. Forgive me.
For certain the singing group that attempted to display the flag at SWBTS takes that same display every where they sing. During the recent Confederate flag controveries, I can recall seeing on TV some story about a “few” churches in the south having displayed the Confederate flag, even if it were only seasonally. One church celebrated a Robert G. Lee day, or whatever the man’s name on led the Confederate army. On the day of that celebration they displayed a confederate flag. These are isolated occurrences. It was inaccurate & unfair for me to project those sporadic incidents as regular or often. Am I forgiven?
My main point yet stands. Should Dr. Floyd if invited to preach at a gathering with the flag displayed, be expected to bring correction to this matter? Or should he just go there and preach Jesus, and make no mention of the flag?
Dwight,….lest we get to far afield of why Bickle’s world is what it is, bringing a confederate flag into the mix is a bit of a shift.
The bottom line is that Bickle expresses God’s Word to mean something that it does not mean in order to prop up “his” entire ministry. According to Bickle, the lamps in the Matthew parable are ministries (that should be a red flag from the beginning): Bickle says, “They all had a lamp…they all had a functioning ministry. They’re born again, they’re virgins and they all have a functioning ministry.”
Bickle assumes they are born again because of a passage in 1 Corinthians that calls believers “virgins.” But this is not how parables work. In Jesus’ use of parables, He tells a story that uses language of literal Jewish wedding practices to make a point. The story contains literal oil, lamps and virgins as there would have been in the situation described in the parable. It does not follow that every detail has a meaning that is found by how terms like oil, lamps, or virgins are used elsewhere. But the allegorical method used by Bickle finds hidden meaning everywhere. So for Bickle the lamps are ministries and the virgins are truly regenerate Christians. Which is a false teaching. Jesus, in fact, is conveying a completely different message.
It may be beneficial for Ronnie can kindly ask Bickle to clarify that teaching. What really happened to 5 of the virgins. 5 certainly did not have a ministry. Jesus is clear about the results of those that are not truly his in this parable. Maybe Bickle can find another way to convey what he thinks people should be doing to get closer to God, and summon the return of Christ. But using this parable to prop up his cause will cause division as disciples mature and grow to love the real meaning Christ has put into the passage.
Right on, Chris.
“…But the allegorical method used by Bickle finds hidden meaning everywhere…”
Thankfully he’s able to discover new and hidden meanings in the bible.
Sounds like mystic gnosticism to me.
Red flags abound!
Yes, It appears as a new form of Ecstatic or Theurgic overtones, which is more “biblical” way to engage in the philosophy and practice. When overt error is used to define and “self-promote” the practice (Matthew 24) red flags should be hoisted!
Tarheel… should have added the operative word for better context. Ecstatic or Theurgic “Kabbalah” techniques may better explain where these type things end up. Kabbalah forms the “biblical” context for the activities that follow.
Dwight,
Your analogy –
If he knows (or should have known) the flag is going to be displayed and racist propaganda spewed – and he decides to go anyway – I’d surely be “calling him out” on that too. I’d hold out hope though (as I am here) that he’d deal with the issue in his talk. however, if he went anyway and didn’t address the issue from a biblical perspective – I’d be even more upset.
As an aside – I see and understand the point made by many that the rebel flag is not always and necessarily racist – but I contend that wisdom would dictate not identifying with it.
I think he should either address it or leave in protest once he verifies that it is in place. Sometimes few/no words speak more eloquently than a long address.
John
Dwight, Robert G. Lee preached “Pay Day Someday” and pastored Bellevue Baptist Church.
Robert E. Lee was the general over the confederate army. In my neck of the woods you would be forgiven for overselling the confederate flag at church as long as you don’t go to mocking R.G. Lee or R. E. Lee either one. 🙂
LOL
AMEN!!
Nothing to be forgiven for – you’re not the first – nor the last – blogger/commenter to overstate thier case. Realizing and admitting it is a good thing though. 🙂
Just now reading this post…. Wow!
Ronnie is making a huge mistake, and seemingly is endorsing “new Apostolic” behavior. Ronnie should be running from, not running to, or participating with this organization. It is simply the next shiny object.
Just unbelievable! And, no doubt lessens the integrity of the SBC.
Just Wow!
Chris,
I’ve preached in Methodist Churches & the largest Catholic Church in Arlington, Tx. I’ve preached at at least two churches that embrace Calvinsm. My preaching at those places did not imply endorsement of all of their beliefs or practices. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to argue that Dr. Floyd preaching at IHOP suggest that he is endorsing the NAR. Ronnie Floyd & Dave Miller has preached at my church. They certainly would not endorse all of my beliefs or practices. Please don’t be driven by charisphobia.
I’m grateful that Dr. Floyd is preaching at IHOP. I’m trying to convince my wife to let me go or we go together to experience IHOP & to hear Dr. Floyd preach there. I don’t know that you can explain IHOP apart from a genuine work of God’s grace & Spirit. The Kingdom of God is larger than Southern Baptists. God does not need SBC permission or approval to lay His hands on whom He wills. The SBC needs to see what they can learn from IHOP. Like eating fish, we(SBC) can take away the meat from IHOP & throw away the bones, or the parts we find problematic. To repeat an old cliche, as it relates to IHOP…let’s not throw away the baby with the bath water.
Brother Dwight,
I would be delighted to have Dave Miller and Dwight McKissic to preach at the local church I am a part (even though I kinda got on Dave’s bad list of late). That is not the point.
IHOP teaches as a pre-condition of the return of Christ. Is there one?
Meant to ask… IHOP teaches a pre-condition of the return of Christ. Is there one? (I had added a word)
Not familiar with IHOP’s teaching on a pre-condition on the return of Christ. Do u know specifically what pre-condition are they referring to? In Matthew 24: 14 it states that “the gospel of the Kingdom” must be preached to the ends of the earth, then shall the end come. Is that what they mean by a pre-condition?
Dwight, Bickle has a pretty long history and has been written about since the 90’s. His visions, prophecies, etc. lead many to believe that we have control and influence over the coming of Christ. Maybe the authors of those things were just making it up…
I’ll have to trust that Ronnie is doing what he thinks is best.
Chris,
One more thing. You mentioned that Dr. Floyd preaching at IHOP will “lessen the integrity of the SBC.” I don’t think so. If anything, his preaching there demonstrates that the SBC is not elitist & exclusive & recognize & embrace fellow evangelical believers even when there are differences in worship patterns, preferences, practices & culture. Dr. Floyd’s preaching at IHOP adds value & enhances the brand of the SBC, not diminishes it.
Dwight,
What Ronnie would be preaching is exclusive to some of the teachings that are put out by IHOP. Will he be correcting them, or going along. I’m curious now, since I’ve just been informed by this post, but is his participation one of embracing what is being done at IHOP?
“worship patterns, preferences, practices and culture” should not be melded into the same category as error. I’m with you on differences of expression, …while the teaching/content (doctrine) is the same.
I wonder, Chris, were you to be invited at a (consertive) Methodist or Presbyterian church, perhaps asked to speak on a certain topic, like “missions”….Would you attempt to correct/rebuke them on baptism, or stick to your topic? or simply decline the invitation?
Great question, Andy. If your goal is to correct them, why go? There is so much good to say, and so much that we have in common, why go & pick a fight over the differences?
Dr. Floyd & IHOP have a heart for revival/prayer. This is where there ministries intersect. If the SBC is ready to label IHOP a cult, then we really need to back off this heresy hunting as it relates to IHOP. If IHOP is practicing & teaching error, we need to be precise & specific, with documentation at to what the error is…no one has done that on this site yet. Dr. Floyd would need to address them privately ’bout errors-if there are any. And only if they aren’t resolved privately should he address them publicly. Coming to their house as a guess would not be the appropriate time or place to address their possible errors.
BTW, Al Mohler spoke at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. Where was the post on this site, demeaning and rebuking Dr. Mohler?
Mohler’s was about politics… not preaching, although he was able to clearly and specifically testify to the distinctions of the Christian faith as opposed to that of the Mormon church. As he should always in opportunities like that political one….
Chris,
My point remains the same. If it was permissible/acceptable by the SBC for Dr. Mohler tp speak at the Mormon Tabernacle Church under any context, then it is a double standard at best, and hypocritical at the least, to give Dr. Mohler a pass for speaking at a place that everyone of us would classify as a cult, but none of us have evidence that IHOP is a cult.
Andy, that is a great question… I would try to use good judgement in going…and if I had the opportunity would have a healthy discussion with their leadership if I could show them they were teaching error.
I’m assuming Ronnie is doing the same thing. I’m just curious if he condones or supports the effort and training of IHOP, being the topic of the post.
Chris,
My point still stands. If it’s permissible/acceptable to the majority of the SBC for Mohler to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle no matter the context, it certainly has to be permissible/acceptable for President Floyd to speak at IHOP, where there is mothing in their official doctrinal statement that I find alarming. To give Mohler a pass, and condemn Floyd is practicing a double standard at best, and being hypocritical at the least.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for posting this plea! The times in which we live seem to shallow doctrinally at best….and I agree with your warning, well done.
We need to pray for Ronnie Floyd, that God will touch his heart and give him discernment in this matter. There is little doubt, in fact, no doubt with over 30 years of historical evidence that have debunked the false prophecy of self proclaimed prophets of this movement like Bob Jones and his followers of the same doctrine (Mike Bickle). Some Pastors see the shiny objects of emotion, and want to join in… others that are looking for Christ also get lured into these seductive movements. May the Holy Spirit mature us all.
Prayer is the answer, and it never puts God in a box to perform. Even when we don’t know how to pray, He intercedes on our behalf to the Father. Praise God for the truth!
Blessings,
Chris
This gentlemen,…like so many others before, gets to the heart of the error that Bickle teaches, and obviously in a convincing way.
“Another idea that Bickle emphasizes throughout his message is that the greatest revival lies ahead and will be contemporary with the Great Tribulation. This makes sense from the Latter Rain perspective, but where is it taught in Scripture? Amazingly, Bickle claims that Matthew 24 teaches it: “There’s so many principles in this [parable of the virgins] parable. It is an end time parable, I tell you it is. It is for the people and when the crisis and the revival of the great Matthew 24 is unfolding.”
Hold on. Matthew 24 teaches a great end-time revival? Where? It teaches the opposite: a great end-time falling away. Here are a few passages:
For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will mislead many. . . Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:5, 9-12, 24)
Not one verse in Matthew 24 teaches a great revival where Christians defeat God’s enemies. And Bickle cites none, but he claims the teaching exists there:
(Bickle) “We’re still in Matthew 24 it’s all about the end times—Matthew 24 and then the three parables. Jesus is preparing the church through these three parables to walk in victory in the hour of the greatest revival in history and the greatest time of trouble in history—it’s called the Great Tribulation.”
The Bible simply does not teach this revival. The Bible teaches that there will be people coming to faith during the Tribulation, but most of them are martyred. The idea of the revival Bickle describes is a Latter Rain teaching that came from allegorizing some Old Testament passages about the agricultural seasons in Israel. Bickle repeatedly refers to this non-existent revival and makes it the centerpiece of his allegorization of the parable of the virgins.
What we have here is Latter Rain redivivus. In its resurrected form it is sans anti-trinitarianism, the manifested sons, and a few other false teachings that caused the first version to be discredited. But the distinctive eschatological doctrines of the Latter Rain are alive and well. In both movements, Jesus cannot return for the church because the church is supposedly “defeated” or “lacking revelations.” In both movements, it is the church, and not God Himself, who defeats God’s enemies during the Tribulation. In both movements all Christians are considered unenlightened and lacking, except those elites who are privy to special experiences and revelations. Both movements predict an expected end-time revival that is greater than anything that has gone before.
Bickle claims that the church will not only go through the Great Tribulation, but the church will cause it:
(Bickle) “We’re not absent for the great tribulation, now listen carefully, the church causes the great tribulation. What I mean by that – it’s the church, it’s the praying church under Jesus’ leadership that’s loosing the judgment in the great tribulation in the way that Moses stretched forth his rod and prayed and loosed the judgments upon Pharaoh. The church in the tribulation is in the position that Moses was before Pharaoh but it won’t be a Pharaoh and Egypt, it’ll be the great end time Pharaoh called the antichrist and the book of Revelation is a book about the judgments of God on the antichrist loosed by the praying church.”
In Bickle’s eschatology, the church, with a special type of prayer as the key, defeats Antichrist. The Latter Rain version claimed that a company of prophets and apostles would do it. In both versions an elite end-time church defeats God’s enemies, and Jesus is “held in the heavens” until it happens.
False Prophesy with a bit of contemporary twist in a new digital age. Isn’t it nice to be part of the spiritual retribution against the Anti-Christ. Christ can’t seemly do it on his own in the Bickle version. Most definitely, the bible doesn’t agree with Mike Bickle’s new theological centerpiece .
Chris,
I distinctly recall a SWBTS prof teaching to end time revivals: (1) A revival of Satan (2) A revival of the Holy Spirit
Dr Gray did not used Acts 2:17(if memory serve me correctly) as his text to support his view of a last days revival. Nobody called him a false prophet for teaching this. I think I still have the class notes or booklet that he wrote making the same claim Bickle made.
John MacArtur in his commentary on I Corinthians makes a statement that no men were present when Paul told the ladies to “prophesy with their heads covered.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the head covering was to acknowledge the headship of a husband & make pastor. My point is Bickle is not the only one who at times may take liberties with biblical text. The SBC applauded Dr. Criswell the whole time he was an avowed segregationist. No one said, don’t go to FBC Dallas because the preacher teaches & practice false doctrines there. Yet, we want to attack Bickle because he’s not of our tribe.
The Bible does teach that in the last days there will be a great fallen away, and because iniquiry shall abound the love of many shall wax cold. The Bible teaches that “in the last days God is going to pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.” The Bible also teaches a latter rain. Don’t know if Matthew 24 support those conclusions but other text certainly do. The SBC should not be guilty of straining at a gnat while swallowing the camel of cold dead orthodoxy. The life & fervor of the young people at IHOP is quite impressive. I refuse to credit the Devil for this.
Where did the disciples go to college? Acts 4:13 describe them as “ignorant & unlearned men, who’d been with Jesus.” To invite young persons to spend time being discipled & prioritizing prayer, sounds like a Jesus model to me. Why are we attempting to demonize this model?
Oops
“to end time revivals” should have been two.
Dr. Jack Gray did use Acts use Acts 2:17 to support his view of a last days revival.
Dwight – it seems you are you suggesting that Bickles teaching is on par with Classical Pre mill or post mill eschatology – is that what you’re doing?
Also, if I may make a request, please stop bringing into the discussion irrelevant red herrings and building straw men. We’re talking about a specific group and specific doctrine – some of these other emotionally charged issues are simply not germane.
Bickle is a historical premillennialist.
As it relates to bringing other subject matters to the table, it’s because I see glaring inconsistencies. It’s a valid question: why was Mohler given a pass for speaking to undisputed cult, while Floyd is being publicly chastised, corrected, called out–however you choose to frame it–for speaking to a group of fellow Bible believing saints–that no one had offered any evidence that they are less than orthodox?
Chris’ “political” excuse for Mohler satisfies him, not me. Lest I be misunderstood though, I don’t disagree with Mohler speaking to the Mormons. I would preach the unadulterated gospel to them as well. I would preach to the Klan if they gave me a platform. But, I’m perplexed as to why Dr. Floyd can’t be extended this same courtesy?
John MacArtur clearly states no men were present when the text of Scripture never said that. We castigate Bickle for alleged for the Matthew 24 text not supporting his two revival theory, but we dare not criticize MacArthur for the text not supportin his no males present theory. The duplicity, double standards, and inconsistencies I find quite disturbing. These “red herrings” are valid.
Dwight, the only thing I have said about Mohler is that he went to state political stuff, and ended up sharing the gospel in direct opposition to the Mormon faith.
Again, the only thing I am curious about with Floyd, is….does he believe and endorse the stuff that Bickle supports. If he does, that is important to know. Do you know if Floyd has expressed his support, or is he just going to be curious?
Chris,
I have not discussed this with Floyd. His heart for revival suggest to me that he has to have some level of appreciation & respect for what’s taking place at IHOP. My gut tells me that he wouldn’t dot every I & cross every T identical to Bickle. However, that would also be true of many other venues or churches where Floyd may preach. I would hope he goes and affirm & strengthen their quest for prayer & revival. If he goes to correct or rebuke, I believe he would be better to decline the invitation, even at this late hour.
It would be good if we had a 24 hr 7 day a wk prayer focus & ministry within an SBC context to challenge our young adults to give 6 months or so to. He may be going to view the ministry close up, so that he can explore/develop something quite similar that you all would be more comfortable with. What I’ve learned ’bout IHOP I would to God that there was something analogous to within a Baptist context. But, if I had a young adult in my church interested in investing time at IHOP, I would give strong consideration to supporting them in doing so. The upside of IHOP far outweighs the question marks, sort of like the SBC-:).
Dwight, I’ll be curious to see Ronnie’s take, and will be listening if one comes. Error doesn’t outweigh anything my friend. If Bickle were to correct his erroneous teaching, the attraction to this “phenomena” would evaporate along with his 30 million dollar budget (2011). It always does.
I think we should all pray without ceasing! That is real charisma! Christians can do that and avoid error at the same time. Paul wrote about that on many many occasions.
“Chris’ “political” excuse for Mohler satisfies him, not me.”
Of course. But Chris cannot answer how you feel about whether the two are different. He can only answer for himself. You are charging him with hypocrisy for saying they are different simply because his explanation for why he sees them as different doesn’t satisfy you.
“But, I’m perplexed as to why Dr. Floyd can’t be extended this same courtesy?”
Just now saw this post…
Dwight, don’t get me wrong. Floyd has every courtesy to do what he feels is best. The distinction between Mohler at the Tabernacle and Floyd at the IHOP will be made clear in the near future. Mohler made clear political policy statements as well as made a clear distinction in the Gospel of God in contrast to the Mormon faith. My hope and prayer is that Floyd will have the same effect by exposing the error of Bickles teaching (well known) and preach the Gospel of God.
If Mohler would have endorsed the work in Mormon Tabernacle, or their doctrine, there would have been an effect on the SBC. If Floyd endorses the reasons for the work within the IHOP, or their doctrine, there will be an effect within the SBC.
Dwight, I’m just putting forth what Bickles is saying. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the error and the cleverness of his allegorical approaches, even when allegory is not in play.
I’m not aiming for who has the less error btw. Yet, the stuff that Bickle is pushing is simply rehashed poor teaching. I was raised in a branch of the Pentecostal movement until high school, so I saw plenty of this same error, and scheming.
I also know of many SBC churches that are not cold and dead. In fact, greatly alive and faithful. And to your point, there are some SBC churches will a very low pulse rate. But that is beside the point. I’m not looking at emotion or crowds. We are called to rightly divide the word, and work hard at doing so.
I just hate to see leaders within the SBC get sucked into a well known mud pit, that is based upon the bible, yet very far from the meaning of it. Again, its not me making these outlandish claims…. its Bickle.
“John MacArtur in his commentary on I Corinthians makes a statement that no men were present when Paul told the ladies to ‘prophesy with their heads covered.’ ”
Could you tell me what page I can find this on? I realize it isn’t really related to this conversation, but since you introduced it, I would like to be able to read the statement in question.
Adam,
Quite relevant that’s why you all sidestep the issue. Won’t be at my desk for a couple of hrs. But, as soon as I get there, I’ll pull the commentary & give u the page.
Adam, same question I asked Chris: would you object to Dr. Floyd preaching at FBC Dallas during the era when Dr. Criswell used Genesis 9 to justify his views on segregation & African servitude?
BTW, the I Corinthians MacArthur commentary is either chaper 10 or 11, where Paul talks about women praying & prophesying with there heads covered. It is in one of those chapters covered by the commentary that MacArthur makes this erroneous statement. You all are determined to crucify Bickle & Floyd while giving everyone else a pass. I’m about convinced that charisphobia & prejudice against charismatics is driving this conversation, as opposed to fairness & consistentcy.
“same question I asked Chris: would you object to Dr. Floyd preaching at FBC Dallas during the era when Dr. Criswell used Genesis 9 to justify his views on segregation & African servitude?”
Dwight, just got back from a long day of meetings…. but to answer the above question. I would expect Dr. Floyd, if invited, to strongly rebuke Dr. Criswell. I have not listened, nor am I aware of the message that Criswell pontificated. But, to say the least, he should have been confronted immediately while endorsing prejudice through the use of God’s word.
Wouldn’t you rebuke Dr. Criswell?
Chris,
The truth is the vast majority of SBC pastors did not attemp to correct or rebuke Dr. Criswell for his teaching segregation & servitude for African descendants based on an erroneous interpretation & application of Genesis 9: 18-27. Furthermore, no guess preacher would have gone to FBC & publicly rebuked or corrected him. My point is you & others are asking Dr. Floyd to do what no one did to Dr. Criswell, so, why place this demand on Dr. Floyd?
To answer your question, I would have asked Dr. Criswell for a private audience to share with him lovingly why his teaching on segregation & servitude was harmful, hurtful, heresy, and horrible. But, I would not have publicly corrected or rebuked him.
Dwight, have you ever spoke/blogged disagreement with another brother publicly?
I’m not rebuking Floyd – I have no personal relationship with him and he hasn’t offended me – but I am expressing disagreement with him appearing to partner with IHOP – and a personal preference that our convention president not grant what some see as legitimacy with an unorthodox group like IHOP.
Brother Dwight,
It is unfortunate that the Criswell pontification on the subject was not corrected immediately. It should have been. And, it should have been done in public and not private….especially in the church. When a leader espouses gross error in front of the church it is important to make sure the church is clear on the error and that the messenger of the grave error / heresy is outed as soon as possible. The Apostle Paul is not ambiguous in his letters to the churches.
Since I never met Criswell, and not familiar with the situation, it may be something that he repented of after some “private” meetings with others. I have no idea.
The bottom line is that gross error in teaching should be outed immediately. If your testimony about Criswell is correct, both he and Bickle would be on the same stage and should be outed for such gross error. Maybe Ronnie will take that biblical approach since he will have the stage.
Dwight,
I am still hoping you can point me to the page number where MacArthur wrote what you said he wrote. I looked for it before asking you for a page number. I couldn’t find it. So I need your help.
Adam
Good googly woogly!
Please, pretty please – can this world (ESPECIALLY the christian world) stop with all the constant “phobia” attachments as a means of expressing disagreement with someone’s view!
Geez!
I just read MacAthur’s sermon on the 1 Corinthians passage and while I did not find the quote brother Dwight mentioned, MacArthur did say that he did not believe that women could prophesy in the church. Which if that is the case, I do not understand what the head covering thing was all about.
I think that I just found the quote that Brother McKissic was referring to. It is in Dr. MaCArthur’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:5. “Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present.”
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (pp. 256–257). Chicago: Moody Press.
Adam & Brother Wiley, Tarheel,
Adam, John Wiley found the quote. MaCArtur clearly argued that women generally did not prophesy in a place where men were present. The point of the text is that the head covering was a symbolic statement to suggest that the women prophesying & praying were doing so under male authority. My point is that MaCArtur is contextually & clearly wrong when he intimate men were not present when the prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11 took place.
Although Mac is clearly wrong here, should he be rebuked or corrected by a guess preacher that he’s invited because of his faulty interpretation & application?
Excellent comments, Chris.
Tarheel, this is pretty scary stuff that seemingly leadership in the SBC is having a hard time discerning. These are important matters!
Other men that have looked into this charade find this…
“Like the Latter Rain, Mike Bickle’s IHOP takes pietism to a completely new level, and his message on the parable of the virgins shows this. He has promoted pietism by claiming that the wise virgins are Christians with a better secret connection to God and the foolish ones are Christians with worse, or lesser, connections to God. Pietism is unbiblical, and Bickle misinterprets the parable of the virgins in order to find it there. The foolish virgins were not Christians not only because Jesus said “I do not know you,” but because the parable before this one (about the slave) and the parable after it (about the talents) clearly portray as non-Christians those who were not faithful. In the first case it states “the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:50, 51). The issue is the same: the master coming at an unexpected time. In the parable of the talents it says this: “And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30). The parable of the virgins does not teach Bickle’s two- (or more) tiered scheme of types of Christians.
Bickle has various dividing points between the good kind of Christian and the lesser one. One of those is “connected” and “disconnected.” Bickle states: “He wants us connected to his heart, not that you feel God all day every day, but I tell you when I press into the Lord with a bridal paradigm and I stay connected to him, my heart gets tenderized.” So, am I to believe that if I come to God on His terms, believing that Jesus’ blood washed away my sins, and I “draw near” to the throne of grace by faith, I am still lacking something that only certain elite Christians like Mike Bickle have gained through revelation? Pietism sounds spiritual enough, but it always is an attack on the finished work of Christ. What God has done in Christ to forgive sins and bring us near to Him is the same for all true Christians: “But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:13).
The elite-minded leaders at IHOP are selling a bill of goods. They have bought the lie that by imagining “passion for Jesus” along the lines of sensual intimacy that they have ascended into an elite class that will make them like Moses and they will be able to call down the plagues on the world. They have pumped themselves up into imagining that the Great Tribulation will be the stage where they show off their exemplary spiritual powers and prowess.
It gets truly scary when they call for Christians to send their teenagers to Kansas City to get this same “passion.” This is actually happening, so be warned. These young people are being inducted into a reworked version of the elitist Latter Rain heresy.”
The same ole stuff! Beware!
Chris,
If we listened to 100 sermons of 100 different SBC pastors, we would hear interpretations and applications that we disagreed with. Bickle is no different. Many in the SBC don’t agree with Billy Ggrahm on spiritual gifts.
Had Floyd being pastoring or President of the SBC–during the season when Criswell was an avowed segregationist & using the Gen. 9: 9-27 text to suggest that Africans were divinely assigned to servitude–would you have objected to Floyd going to preach at FBC Dallas when Criswell was preaching theological error with regard to race?
Dwight, Apples and Oranges my friend. The Bickle world is based upon erroneous teaching. He didn’t just happen to make a mistake in one morning sermon last year.
Tarheel,
I’ve never gone to a pulpit as a guess preacher & intentionally corrected the host pastor. Have I blogged to correct, rebuke, or address what I’ve considered error? Absolutely, and will continue to do so. Accepting & invitation & going to correct, rebuke? I can’t think of a scenario where I would do that. That is inappropriate and unethical in my book. That would be an ambush.
IHOP’s doctrinal statement is certainly not unorthodox. Doesn’t the case have to be made first, beyond a shadow of a doubt that IHOP is unorthodox before we label them unorthodox? Southern Baptist orthodoxy & evangelical orthodoxy isn’t always compatible. SBC orthodoxy & Calvinist orthodoxy is not compatible. Why are we demanding that IHOP meet the standard of SBC orthodoxy?
If we demand that IHOP holds to certain interpretations to meet our standard of orthodoxy…then are we going to hold every SBC pastor to SBC orthodox interpretations? Why single out IHOP to meet SBC orthodoxy?
Dwight, I’m not quite understanding the plea for orthodoxy by “statements”. The UCC and Flunders orthodox connection doesn’t keep her from error. We both know the nasty results of her bizarre teaching. Error in teaching to support a systematic approach to a form of ministry is the subject with Bickle. Not orthodox statements. Those are a dime a dozen.
Chris,
UCC nor Flunder hold to the inerrancy of Scripture & Scripture as the final authority. That’s the roots of their errors. IHOP does hold to the inerrancy & authority of Scripture.
Tarheel, the IMB under Platt does not hold to “Strange Fire” orthodoxy. Shall SBC pastors go to MaCArthur’s conferences & correct/rebuke him for not holding to IMB/SBC orthodoxy on tongues?
My point is you have to allow for differences on the nonessentials. We are trying to make IHOP for into an SBC box, and that’s wrong. We wouldn’t dare ask MacArthur to fit into our current IMB box on tongues. But, we want to march into IHOP & ask them to fit into some “orthodox” box of an SNC creation. That is very arrogant, imperialistic, and elitist of us.
Dwight, I think you are still missing the point. Error is error. Variations in interpretation is in another category.
If I can make bridesmaids be whatever they need to be, I can dream of all sorts of Charisma. Bickle has done that, and for the wrong purpose. Although he has changed his politics on the matter to forward his message, the facts remain. God is not put inside the box that Bickle has formed.
Adam,
I have an insatiable apetite for reading. Across the past 30+ yrs, I’ve read & listenenrd to much of MacArthur. I thought I’d read it in his I Corinthian’s commentary. Like you, I reread it yesterday & didn’t see it. Looked in a couple of other places as well, didn’t see it. Absolutely certain though, that I read or heard him say it. Inasmuch as his theology is that a woman cannot prophesy to a man in church, inevitably he had to hold the position that no men were present in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul discussed women prophesying with their heads covered. I’ll keep looking as time permits. But, that’s what I recall & it certainly fits his theology on the role of women in the church. Thanks for raising the issue again.
I hope Ronnie will see that Mike Bickle is simply a clever allegorist and its the clever allegorist that finds his own meaning. The bottom line is that the reader who dreams up the allegory determines the meaning of the Bible; God, who inspired the Scripture, does not. The Bible becomes a touch point, a base for creative ideation where ideas that have no direct link to the text itself inspire new interpretations. Bickles does this in Matthew 24/25, and Revelation 22. He simply makes things up to fit his narrative, even when they are not there are mean the opposite in the text.
Pray for Ronnie,….because the author of this post is right. There are young folks, and leaders that will follow his steps, ….and what a tragedy to be ushered into the heart of extremely poor teaching!
Chris,
Final Appeal. Pastor Randy White at FBC, Katy, Tx is an avowed dispensationalist, which is certainly a theological system that effects all kinds of interpretations. Most SBC pastors don’t hold to dispensationalism.
If Dr. Floyd is invited to preach for Pastor White & accepts the invite…should Dr. Floyd go there & correct Pastor White’s false dispensational theology? If not, why not?
No, because dispensationalism, though I would say a flawed hermeneutic, is not heretical. But someone like IHOP seems to be going outside the bounds of Sola Scriptura, which I would say becomes heterodoxy.
Of course, I just read this comment and haven’t seen your previous ones, so I don’t have much context.
Dwight: While I agree with you that dispensationalism is incorrect, I don’t think you are correct that most SBC pastors aren’t dispensationalists. I have met few that aren’t. I haven’t seen numbers so perhaps I’m wrong.
20-25 years ago most probably were. They are also probably a majority in the South. I don’t expect most SBC pastors would be Dispensational outside of the south, but I could be wrong. Would be intresting to know the numbers.
I think that “something like dispensationalism” is the majority view in SBC pews. It seems that most generally still retain the primary distinctives of a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture and an eschatological future for national Israel.
I’m not a cessationist, because I don’t think scripture supports it, but I am skeptical of much that passes for signs and wonders. This is just a little thing, but has there ever been a documented case of someone regrowing a limb? You simply couldn’t hush that kind of thing up. That’s why most “healings” are something internal and often obscure. When I hear about limbs regrown (plural), my charlatan-o-meter starts registering.
Exactly, Bill.
I’d define myself just as you did in your first sentence.
Dwight,
The SBC was wrong in its segregationist policies, actions, and support.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
As far as the parallel between Mohler and Floyd, there could be one. Preaching the truth is a rebuke to false doctrine adherents. It may not include the words or the direct idea that “You’re Wrong!” But the truth, by its nature, rebukes the lie.
Mohler preached the truth and thus rebuked the Mormon lie.
So I am confused s why you would want to compare the two trips seeing how you seemingly are embracing IHOPKC.
Do you want Floyd to peach the truth that rebukes the IHOP lie? No, for you said if he is going to rebuke, he shouldn’t go.
But I don’t see the parallel between the two. In Mohler’s trip, there was a line already drawn between the Mormon and the SBC, with the latter claiming to be the truth and also claiming the former as a cult. There is no such line drawn for Floyd’s trip. And although many have said that IHOP is cult like, most are stopping short of that declaration.
And since you too are a minster of God, does not God direct you in what to preach? And where to preach? Thus think we must leave Pastor Floyd and his message to him and God, and do what we can: pray for the preacher and his listeners that God’s message will be spoken and the ears of the heart recieve it with understanding.
Mike,
Have you read the statement of faith of IHOP? On paper at least they are as orthodox as the SBC. On paper they preach the same gospel.
John,
I am nt calling them a cult.
I was simply working through Dwight’s comparison of Mohler’s trip to Utah with Floyd’s trip to IHOP. It was someone else that brought up the idea of rebuke and it was Dwight who expressed hope that Dr. Floyd would decline to speak rather than rebuke them, if that was his intention.
Now if there is no lie, there is no need for a rebuke.
I have no idea what Pastor Floyd’s message will be about. I highly doubt that he is going there to rebuke them.
But Dwight, not I, made the comparison between Mohler’s trip to Utah and Floyd’s trip to KC.
“truth that rebukes the IHOP lie”
Parsonmike, that’s pretty strong.
IHOP is doing quite well without my “embracing or endorsing” them.
Like anywhere else I worship/visit/preach, I learn & receive whatever good I can, I passively reject whatever I hear or observe that I find distasteful, unScriptural, or does not fit the character, culture, conscience was, or sometime the predominant color of my church.
I’ve not delve deeply into Bickles teaching. But, if everyone else can get a pass from teaching that sometimes misses the mark, I can give a pass to Bickle. As a matter of fact, I have preached in at least 200 venues outside of my pulpit. I venture to guess without exception there would be different interpretations & theologicalLOL.
Voting for Trump is out of the question for me, based on his demeaning of just about every demographic that exists. He also stated that he’s never asked God for forgiveness. That’s necessary in order to be a believer.
Just curious though; is there evidence that the preachers who endorsed Trump were actually paid?
Somehow the above comment(using my IPhone) got conflated with an earlier comment on another post or othe blog. Not sure how that happened. But the part that responds to Parsonmike is quite apparent.
Dwight, Do you mean the Trump part?
We can just ignore that. Technology isn’t always kind to those raised with paper and pen.
Dwight,
IHOP is doing well, if numbers is what you mean, without you endorsing them. I fail to see what that has to do with what I am saying.
You are the one that brought up Mr. Mohler’s trip to Utah in comparison to Mr. Floyd’s trip to KC, not me. You are the one who said you would rather have Ronnie not go then to go and rebuke them.
I am just pointing out the inconsistency in your position, and as i stated, how it was confusing that you even conflated the two trips.
I think Mr. Bickle’s teaching has been touched on in these posts and it is available online for anyone who cares to review it. What Al Mohler or Donald Trump or even your many different venues in preaching the Word have to do with what I am saying is nit germane to our discussion, unless you have a point I have not yet grasped. Please feel free to explain, Pastor Dwight.
Parsonsmike,
Trump’s name got on this thread because of some mistake I made hitting the wrong something on my IPhone. That was totally a mistake. Truly, he was not in this conversation, except I think I did mention that FBC’s Dallas current pastor, and David Jeremiah both seem to endorse Trump. Just as Floyd is called into question for an association with Bickle, shouldn’t these men be called into question for an association with a casino owner?
The point of mentioning “200 venues” was simply to point out, it is very common for preachers to preach in a venue where you don’t agree with 100% of what the pastor preaches or the church stand for where you are preaching. So what? You preach anyhow. My point is big deal that there are methodological & theological differences between Floyd & Bickle. Big deal. Dr. Floyd can simply go there & preach prayer, revival, missions, or whatever The Lord lays on His heart, and like the parables of the tares….let the Lord sort out the differences in the end. I hope I’ve made myself clear.
Dwight,
Yes you have.
Have a great and blessed day in the Lord.
It seems the base of the opposition to IHOP is the fact that they are an on the edge charismatic church which is known for giving prophetic statements and their members getting slain in the spirit.
However, on the other hand, I didn’t see much opposition within the SBC to Mark Driscoll in all of the years of controversy surrounding his pastorate. Even more stunning is the lack of criticism of Erwin McManus, pastor of the Mosaic group of churches in Los Angeles. McMcanus is quoted in a recent New York Times article saying:
“We have people in our community who are gay and live openly gay lifestyles,” Mr. McManus said. “We have people here who would say, ‘Homosexuality is clearly against the scriptures and is wrong,’ and we’re teaching them how to walk together. Our position is, you have to be for each other.”
Here is the link to The New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/fashion/mosaic-oasis-hillsong-churches-los-angeles.html?_r=1
The quote on homosexuality is the fourth from the last paragraph which begins, “Mosaic is more accommodating.”
Mosaic Church is listed on the sbc.net website as being a SBC church and Erwin McManus, a graduate of Southwestern seminary, has spoken at numerous SBC events, yet, I don’t hear of anyone saying that they are going to travel to L.A. to rebuke McManus in front of the Mosaic congregation.
The reality is that while prophecy and tongues are definitely in the Bible, you’re not going to hear of either in 90% of SBC churches. By contrast, there was a fair amount of discussion of the Blood Moon prophecy (driven by pastor John Hagee) in the larger evangelical community, but it wasn’t mentioned in the SBC world. I’m not trying to say that Hagee and company are right, but on the other hand, I’m not going to say that anyway who claims the gift of prophecy, like those at IHOP, are in heresy either.
The bigger question is, where is the line drawn on false teaching. Does every speaker at a SBC event have to dot every “i” and cross every “t” theologically in order to be heard? In the PCA, that is more likely the case because their roots are from departing a liberal denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA and they are going to be diligent to see that they don’t go back to where they came from.
Looking at past history, Billy Graham received a lot of intense criticism for his ecumenism particularly during his New Work City crusade of the late 1950’s. Bob Jones led the attack because he thought it was wrong for Graham to have people on his fundraising committee who were members of liberal churches in New York who didn’t have an inerrant view of scripture. Graham’s father in-law defended him. Graham’s response was “We preached the Gospel. If anyone did any compromising, it was they (the members of the liberal churches), not we.”
Bob Jones would only associate with those who dotted every “i” theologically the way he would. Yet, I don’t think anyone would disagree that Billy Graham had a more significant impact for the Kingdom worldwide.
That is an old and frankly weak argument….
“because you have not called out every wrong that exists (or as another poster argued existed), that fact makes calling out another wrong inappropriate.”
Rather than defend against the accusation (that IHOP teaching is in error) you say “well look at…”
Tarheel,…the arguments are weak as you have stated, and important because “comprise” is the enemy of good exegesis. Its always important to expose poor teaching and obvious error.
I agree with your train of thought!
Weak arguments to you & Tarheel. Strong arguments to me. The argument that you are not calling others out demonstrate & document that the reason you are calling IHOP out because you have bias against them, and that’s unfortunate.
Biased about what?
Dwight,
In a trial, is it a good defense attorney practice to ignore the specific charges against his client and point to others, some in the past, who are or were in error?
How does that address the guilt or innocence of his client?
What are you suggesting Dwight? What is the bias you contend that I have?
I will say that I am biased against unorthodox and heretical teaching.
Would it have been fair for people to dismiss you as simply “biased” and “homophobic” when you (courageously and rightly) spoke out against their unorthodox antics? If you remember I was a huge cheerleader for you as you engaged in those rebukes.
Would it have been fair game for them to say, as you are essentially saying to us
“Well Dwight, you have not called out ____________ for ____________ therefore your comments here are dismissed. Sit down and shut up.”
Of course Dwight I am referring to your addressing of your denominational (NBC?) leaders and college president when they went all unorthodox.
David,
I think you make some important points. IHOP uses error to pose as prophecy, and uses charisma (“slaying and murmurring) to embolden the effort. On both accounts Bickle has led the church into error. The question though… is what is prophecy? Is there any new revelation? Of course not,… Or is prophecy as Peter told us, to teach and foretell the truth already given? I stand with Christ, Peter and the other Apostles about scripture. The slaying in the spirit “business” is the hook of privilege or attainment, and is a more sure way to attain giving from those engaged in the emotion.
Why is prophecy important? Because we can be sure prophecy (teaching, forth telling others) is pulling from a content that is already closed. Accurately conveying that message is 200,000 percent more valuable than tongues, as Paul would convey to those at Corinth, even as Paul spoke in tongues more than all. And even though speaking in Tongues is the lesser of gifts, they are never unclear when used in context, and always speak of the work of God and the Gospel. So in other words, that make up language, should never be feared, but governed and steered toward understanding.
And as far as other SBC folks engaging and not rebuking obvious sin. Sin and error are surely bound to happen. Yet, are instructed by Christ to walk with them in their sin. No, we lovingly confront, correct, and lead those that are heading in the wrong direction….back to the truth and freedom.
Homosexuals need freedom. Homosexuals will not get freedom from walking together with anyone… unless there is a clear and loving rebuke of the sin of “degrading passion” that is destined for hell. Unless the homosexual repents he/she will be in hell, because there are no homosexuals in heaven according to our Lord.
Sounds like Tarheel has a case of Phobiaphobia—which is, after all, the only thing we have to fear.
lol. 😉
Nicely played.
Tarheel,
Charisphobia is a term that Dr. Jack Gray, who taught a class on Spiritual Foundations for Missions, used in his booklet “Studies On The Holy Spirit” to reference positions/persons who feared or stayed far-far away, from anything remotely related to charismatic theology & practice.
The only reason one would caution Dr. Floyd to not preach/visit at IHOP would be because of charisphobia in my opinion. Charisphobia has governed many Baptist churches for many years. IHOP is experiencing the revival that we’ve prayed for. Will we let charisphobia keep us from experiencing a similar revival?
Dwight, What is Charismatic about IHOP? That is a whole different subject than the error he teaches from Matthew 24 to substantiate the purpose of his ministry.
If u are accurately representing his Mt. 24 teaching, and I’m sure you are, I would disagree as well. But, that’s an interpretive issue. We would disagree with a lot of preachers interpretations of certain text. So what?
You may not fit this category, but, this situation rinds me of SBC persons wanting Jimmy Draper to go to James Robinson’s conference as a guest speaker & speak against his affinities to the charismatic movement. Dr. Floyd could find a sermon that he disagreed with in every venue where he has or will preach. So what? Should he correct the bad sermon he doesn’t like? Ridiculous.
Most objectors are rooted in the charismatic flavor of IHOP. It has nothing to do with a particular message. Again, if that becomes the standard, none of us would preach anywhere.
Dwight, we both agree that he uses Matthew 24 wrongly. The question is not that he makes a mistake in interpretation. That is to miss the point. Bickle specifically uses the error to support the reason for his ministry. I could bear with the man, if he were just simply missing the point, because he would be teachable….right?
Yet his continued use of the error in teaching, along with many others for the same purpose, is the bad part. He interprets it wrongly to support his fundamental thesis for revival. His teaching is not only in error, but dangerous.
Perhaps “Charisphobia” has done as you suggest…I have already stated that I do not believe that scripture supports the ending of all the gifts with the Apostles – I do think people have gone too far is that regard.
But, that said – there is extreme thinking that is equally dangerous to orthodoxy that embraces any all charismatic practice as acceptable (or at least not worthy of rebuke) in an effort to not be “phobic” or in some cases to justify a personal belief system based on experience over scritpure.
My approach toward the use of what people identify as the sign gifts is not automatic rejection but I am cautious.
Geez…Can I just say again that I despise that attachment of “phobia” to words as a debate/discussion technique….it only inflames discussions and (intentionally) puts people on the defensive.
No matter what one is truly saying, or what their hear actually believes becomes all but irrelevant as soon as one has to start trying to convince people they do not deserve the “phobic” label.
It may be an “effective debate tactic”, but it is not one that is fair game.
Chris,
To the extent that you are correct about Bickle’s erroneous view of Mt. 24 sort of polluting an entire system…you may be correct. But wouldn’t the same hold true for the SBC? Didn’t we believe the lack of belief & teaching of inerrancy was polluting the whole system? There are those that believe Calvinsm, dispensationalism, racism, chauvinism, and republicanism, and cessationism is or can pollute the whole system? Therefore, even if u are correct ’bout Bickle’s Mt. 24 interpretation polluting the whole system, can’t the same be said about the SBC? We have some trends, teachings, theological & political bents & biases that potentially can pollute the whole system? In that sense we are no different than Bickle. Dr. Floyd could have the same dilemma preaching at SBC venues. What say ye?
There is always a struggle to hold to something that is true because of our sinful ways, yet it is the hope the Spirit that we can know truth and live by it. The SBC hopefully strives to do that and if the churches that form that alliance strives to please the Lord and be faithful to His Word, then you are correct that all churches must repent and look to the Lord for help.
If error leads to systems that promote more error, I do see that as something different than striving to be faithful to the Word of God.
There are a lot of charlatans these days that pretend to be Charismatic, or are trying to imitate what they might understand as Charismatic, which is based upon poor teaching. Murmuring, shaking, whinning, giggling, orderless shenanigans, Spirit slayings, etc are not Charisma. In fact those acts are acts of Charisphobia, because folks caught up in those activities are running from real Charisma.
Charisma defined in the greek means a great deal to those captured by Christ. The term is defined as favor received without any merit, the gift of divine grace. The gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue…all of which the Holy Spirit bestows on those that believe. Everyone! No special classes. As Paul spoke of these gifts, as referenced to the abusers at Corinth, he gives us the beauty of the gifts in amazing clarity. The gifts of the Spirit are given to believers, not “created” by believers. In that, the gift of Prophecy is paramount for the edification of the church. Prophecy is affirming and based in the finished work of Christ and his Apostles teachings. A completed Word. Tongues were, and are used as a sign to unbelievers. How would those with other language origins hear the gospel of God without the Spirits working in the church to express the Gospel in a language understood by the hearer. Paul’s main point at the end of his first letter is spot on. Prophecy is 200,000 percent more important for the fact that most churches are filled with believers that speak the same language. No need for the gifted language bearer, as Paul would say (he spoke more than others) if language is known, because prophecy (teaching and forth telling of the Word of God) is what edifies the church overwhelmingly the best. Yet, this in know way diminishes the Spirits giving and gifting of tongues when used by the church correctly. This is easily tested.
Charisma has gotten a bad name hoisted upon it by imposters and poor teachers, looking for followers and calling it revival. God has given us his more sure Word to test these Charisphobic imposters.
Tarheel,
I knew who you were referring to. It was a fair comparison. Many of them response as you did, and as I am doing to you & Chris. The supporters of the lesbian bishop speaking asked questions such as: why aren’t you all going after preachers who are guilty of other sins, you all have a bias against homosexuality. Our response was: you provide evidence that other preachers have come to lecture at this college while flaunting their sin, or living in open rebellion & sin, we will address them & the college with the same vigor. They never gave us evidence or names. I hope this adequately address your concern.
I know that IHOP is not a institution/movement/whatever, any MoBap, SBC or any other Bible believing Baptist should have anything to do with.
Just go to the MoBap website, link up the Vimeo page, about four videos down is Daniel Lim’s video of his conference speech.
He uses a word (transdemoninational) to describe the ministry he is CEO over and associated with. From his own lips he states (by use of the term) believes in universal religion (just a fancy name for New Age nonsense). IHOP teaches and practices extra ‘revelation’ which in itself states the Word of God is not sufficient.
I sent an email to the MoBap Pathway paper over two weeks ago about their silence surrounding this issue. I’m still waiting for a reply.
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/30803-sbc-president-prays-with-charismatics
Lifeway is sponsoring JOYCE MEYER? Are you kidding? Please tell me that you’re joking?
If this is true, then we’re worse off in the SBC than what I thought.
Good grief. SMH.
That is VERY discouraging
I was listening to a Lutheran program where they expose false teachings and sure enough they pointed out that Lifeway was supporting her ministry. They are Probably selling her books as well.
I just checked Lifeway, they do not seem to have her books.
Maybe I got the name wrong [memory failing].
Life way is selling Beth Moore books.
Maybe that is who I was thinking of.
I’m glad to hear that they’re not selling Joyce Meyer, anything. It’s bad enough that they sell TD Jakes and used to sell The Shack. I don’t know, they may still have the The Shack.
David
Update:
In his 35+ minute speech [found by googling ihopkc, going to their website, clicking on resources, and putting ‘floyd’ in the search engine provided], he did not, I repeat did not say what was purported above to him.
In fact, his sermon was very good except for one thing. His sermon was very good in that he made it clear that him being there didn’t mean he agreed to their theology anymore than they agreed to his orthodoxy. It was very good in that he posed them specifically to the Word of God several times as what Christians needed, as well approaching from it. It was very good in that he gave the SBC high props. His sermon [except for the one thing] was very good as well. Even kind of Calvinistic at times :-]
The only thing I took issue was with his prophesy. Yep.
He said that now is the time for the third great awakening.
Now I hope he is right.
But my opinion is that when a man steps up to the pulpit and preaches God’s Word, he is speaking for God. Not that he can’t make an error. But how does Pastor Floyd [and he said he was speaking not as the SBC prez but as a pastor from his assembly], how does he know now is the time, and not say 10 years from now?
By the way, that was the theme of his sermon, that we should all pray, fast, trust, and hope, because as in the days of Joel [Joel 2 his text was from there], God heard and brought awakening.
Like I said, I hope he is right.
But how does he know?
Other than that, it was a very good sermon based on the Word of God. We all should pray, fast, trust, and hope because we do have a BIG God.
Correction
This line:
It was very good in that he posed them specifically to the Word of God several times as what Christians needed, as well approaching from it.
SHOULD READ:
It was very good in that he pointed them specifically to the Word of God several times as what Christians needed, as well preaching from it.