In the aftermath of the immense and public false political prophecies, a contingent of the prophetic movement has written and posted a document of ‘Prophetic Standards’ that should be followed. As in my last post, I would generally recommend not even bothering to read the document, as it is produced in the sphere (you might even say ‘realm’) of those who have perpetuated this false prophecy movement. However, as I know that many are affected by this movement (and it seems to be immensely pervasive in the church, even according to biblical prophecy (see my last post: End of Days Prophecies Fulfilled)), and perhaps see no ‘charismatic,’ or Pentecostal alternative to the signs and wonders movement, I’d like to be able to help – in my own limited blogger/author/nobody capacity – to help those tangled up in the group and its line of thinking.
The group does intentionally infiltrate churches in order to streamline them to their own ‘revivalist’ church culture and way of thinking. (One might wonder how they can be considered a revivalist culture when they rarely preach the Gospel, instead emphasizing positivity, prosperity, and spiritual power.) Many people I know who seek to have a deeper ‘charismatic experience’ seek them out. I’ve had difficulty trying to encourage zeal for such things as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and faith for healing miracles because this group acts as though they hold the capital on such things. It has been somewhat wounding to find people that I’ve tried to kinister to on this line reading out texts from the Passion translation, and closely following people like Bill Johnson.
I am not some sort of super-apostle or something, dancing with angels in ‘glory realms’ or anything like that, but I do sometimes operate in spiritual gifts, and while all the Evangelical christian world was prophesying Trump into office, I believed the Lord was saying something rather contrary to the general prophetic narrative.
First I’ll say this, I am generally opposed to the making, and signing of ‘statements of faith’ because it causes one to sign a contract (if not stated outright as a covenant) on the basis of human interpretation and theology. None of these statements of faith (from any denomination I’ve seen) take merely scripture as their statement of faith, but incorporate the beauracracy’s developed doctrine. I have in more than one occassion become disqualified from ministry capacities (and with just about any denomination) because I cannot in conscience sign a covenant or contract regulating that I teach scripture according to an organizations theology and doctrine. Why? Because I am already in an eternal blood Covenant with God through Jesus Christ, and under that covenant, I must teach God’s word in purity and Truth. Furthermore, Christ commands us specifically not to swear oaths on such matters, but to let our yes be yes, and our no be no (Matt 5:33-37), so to force one to sign statements of faith as a prerequisit to ministry already forces that minister to disobey a direct command of Christ. (Certainly I understand that they want to prevent contentious people from teaching doctrine that is not sound, but this must be based on relationship, and a trust of a person’s character – the signing of document does not ensure a person will comply with it, anyways.)
The most generic statement of faith I have ever seen is that of the Salvation Army – which I considered joining at some point. Their statement of faith essentially was a pledge to be a good Christian and try to witness to people, etc. However, even that statement (called a covenant by them) included as the last couple of clauses to never use alcohol, or tobacco products, and that all ‘tithe’ would be paid to the Salvation Army organization (as much as possible).
While I agreed with 90% of the Salvation Army statement, I could not in conscience sign it as it included strictures that were not biblical. I generally do not use alcohol, or tobacco, but to sign a covenant to never do so puts me under a legalistic stricture not commanded in scripture. Further, I believe that placing such legal strictures on one is anti-biblical. If, for example, they wanted me to agree to sign a promise to abstain while involved in such-and-such capacity with the organization that would be no problem, as it is a temporal regulation in something like an employment agreement (and that would certainly be prudent and practical particularly in many capacities of the Salvation Army where they work with recovering addicts) but to sign a covenant which adds permanent laws regulating my conduct in life as a Christian is – I think – anti-biblical. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom. 8:2); Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with he yoke of bondage. (Gal. 5:1)
If I was asked to sign an agreement to teach God’s word according to my conscience, and understanding of it in righteousness and truth, and will ammend or correct my doctrine where shown to be in error, I may be able to sign that I agree I will endeavor to do so. But again, not as a ‘covenant,’ or oath, merely as a statement of intent.
But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matt. 5:37)
Any rate, the issues which have arisen today have their roots in fundamental issues that go back much further than the movement that now exists (see also post: Signs, Wonders, the Roots of Holiness and the Last Days Deception), and it was not only the Signs and Wonders movement which climbed onto the bandwagon of political prognostication. Pentecostals, charasmatics, the general mainstream Evangalical world.
Now a contingent has set up a statement of faith, and is encouraging people to sign it. Problem is this statement seems to be made as a justification for prophetic ministry in the face of false prophecy. I’ll say that again: a justification of prophetic ministry in the face of false prophecy.
What would be best is for the false prophets who publically prophesied to publically repent, and get back on page with God. Evident to me is that the whole movement got off base in a major matter in the global public arena. This didn’t happen overnight becausr of a few false prophets, there is evidently a fundamental problem with prophetic ministry as this movement understands it. When it was evident that the ‘prophets’ were wrong, they doubled down; I recall seeing a post after the election whose headline was: “The Prophets say they were not Wrong” implying that despite the election results as revealed, God would put Trump in office. They were wrong, and wrong again.
Now they are posting this statement of principles of prophecy so as to avoid such future faux paus – except its the principles, philosophies, doctrines and teachings which led to this widespread false prophecy. Rather han repent, and re-assess (as they should have done at the election results), they double down on their doctrine and theology… as if to say: “Well, many proohesied wrong, but we agree with these principles that got us there, they’re not wrong.”
But, If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)
It was the concensus of Christian Charasmatics, Evangelicals, and Zionists who ALL WENT WRONG – not some individual rogue, like me who won’t sign covenants with organizations – on the basis of these prophetic principles.
So, for the sake of dissillusioned without alternative, I have decided to make a couple of posts responding to certain of the false assumptions in the statement.
One of the first assertions in the statement is this:
WE BELIEVE that the general function of the gift of prophecy, as it relates to the church, has to do with edification, exhortation, and comfort (see 1 Cor. 14:3). As this gift relates to unbelievers, it can reveal the secrets of their hearts and bring them to repentance, demonstrating God’s reality to them (see 1 Cor. 14:24-25).
This statement is on the basis of the erroneous general teaching that all New Testament prophecy is ‘positive’. This is taken from 1 Cor 14:3, as stated, however, the Signs & Wonders movement oddly takes 1 Corintians 14:3 as a law, and not a principle. It is in fact, a statement of principle, all True prophecy will indeed be strengthening, encouraging, or comforting because it is a word from the Lord.
It is understandable that this is taken as a law because by applicaton, leadership attempts to ensure that people are not using their ‘prophetic gifting’ as an excuse to – as Peter Cartwright put it – ’empty their wallet of hellfire and brimstone’ on people. However, as one can see clearly from both old and New Testament prophecy, a true prophetic utterance is not always ‘positive,’ but may bring correction or warning. Using this principle as a law engenders intentional false prophecy; if we made it a rule to only speak positively from the pulpit for instance, there would be no warning of hell and damnation, and thus reason to repent. (Speaking of: perhaps that’s part of why the Signs and Wonders people don’t really seem to preach the Gospel, save the positivity portion of it.)
Micah the prophet points out that, even though his ptophecy SEEMED to be negative, it would do well to the righteous; in fact let’s look at that:
“Prophesy ye not,” say they to them that prophesy: they shall not prophecy to them that they shall not take shame. [The people were twlling the prophets not to prophesy; Micah says as they have rejected to hear the word from the prophets, they rob themselves of the truth, for indeed the prophets won’t prolhesy to them, quote: ‘that they shall not take shame.’ I.e. that they should not be ashamed of their wickedness and repent. Micah is saying because they reject hearing rebuke from God they certainly cannot be saved through the message of salvation given by the prophets.]
O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is the Spirit of the Lord shortened? are these his doings? DO NOT MY WORDS DO GOOD TO THEM THAT WALKETH UPRIGHTLY?
He says: is God’s Spirit shortened (or ‘straitened,’ alt. translation)? Is God unable to speak in these days? This part may be a message to cessationists of our day; God is able to speak, yesterday, today and forever. If ever He has spoken, He can speak today. He is ‘I AM.’ But the main point here is: Micah point out that even though his message is full of warning, and of God’s wrath (I mean, just read the book man!) his words do good to the righteous; they are for strengthening, encouragement and comfort. Micah did not put the cart before the horse, and ‘prophesy the opposite’ so that he could say something positive. To prophesy the opposite is to prophesy the opposite, if God says one thing, and you prophesy the opposite, you have made a false prophecy (that should be a ‘duh’ statement, but I have been to some of these ‘prophecy classes’ where they literally say that, and people accept that they should because 1 Cor. 14:3).
It seems evident that this principle (of 1 Cor. 14:3) applied legalistically is used in order to curb people’s being in the flesh and prophesying out of their mood, or whatever; the assumption THEY make in applying this as a law is that people aren’t really prophesying, they’re in the flesh. If it is the word of the Lord, then it had better be spoken as revealed by God. Yet this principle as a law specifically becomes a foundation stone for false prophecy, and thus a perpetuation of the erroneous movement they seem to be trying to correct with their document.
Link to part 2,here