The New Apostolic Reformation

Not as good as the "charismatic demons" video- but they have a good point in this one too. If you're going to say you have a prophetic word- it really needs to be a prophetic word; it's not a game at all. If you can't stake your life on it, then don't say it's a prophetic word. And I honestly would have no problem with someone sharing something they were not certain about, as long as they disclosed that up front- but if you are going to say you have word from the Lord, then it has to be word from the Lord, you can't play around with that.

The one part where I thought this couple was a little confused is when the guy was talking about prophetic intercessors- and they say "guess what, if the scripture says she was a prophet, she was a prophet".... I don't think he was saying Anna wansn't a prophet: he was saying that even though she was a prophet- her role was basically the interpretation (by intercession) of existing prophecy rather than direct revelatory prophecy. Idk if that's a thing, I don't see why it couldn't be either.

Apostle is NOT a hierarchical role. Neither scripture nor any translation would support that

and apostle means to be sent from someone...who has sent these NAR dudes besides each other? so, that would literally mean they represent each other and that is EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. they give themselves away without even meaning to and the devil is having such fun with them

in the case of Christ, as declared in Acts, no one can say they are an apostle of Jesus save those who saw Him risen...and that would actually include Paul who was personally called by and sent by Jesus

Apostles are not and never were kingpin leaders of anything. Jesus Apostles had some weight, but there are no others that have been sent directly from Him

I cannot rule out that the Spirit might send someone who preaches, plant churches, etc. and use the body of Christ to confirm it, separate him to ministry... and that this same person could be or end up in the NAR. I don't think the NAR is against Biblical apostolic ministry. It just seems like what I've heard from the movement is that the concept of apostleship is fuzzy and some of them have a hierarchical view.

The passage I alluded to in II Corinthians 10 does mention Paul and his co-authors having a 'measure of rule' that extended to Corinth. They wanted to extend it beyond Corinth as the Corinthians enabled them on their way to reach new areas. So having 'rule' and 'authority'-- I believe this is the epistle where Paul uses exhousia in relation to himself-- might imply a bit of 'hierarchy.' But these were missionaries setting things in order, answering questions, training up those who would be leaders, appointing elders, etc. They weren't setting up 'apostolic networks' from existing churches to be under their wing.

Having lived in some territory where there were unreached people-groups, I noticed many of the missionaries had to rely on Biblical patterns that are not paid much attention in the US. I spoke with the widow of a missionary who had handed over the churches to local elders, and she was happy for how the way the elders handled some church people going back to the old customs of polygamy with their church discipline decisions and decisions on how the husbands had to provide for those who had been second wives. The missionary helped lead and set things up, and backed off. The apostles did that in Jerusalem. Paul did that, but he still could give input into the churches, even after appointing elders.

Chapter and verse. Paul mentioned the fact that he was an apostle had seen the Lord and that he was free (e.g. not a slave) when he was defending his right to live of the Gospel. He did not say all apostles had to see the Lord to be apostles. Whoever was one of the 12 had to have seen the risen Lord and more. He had to have gone around with the rest of the twelve from the time of John the Baptist. Matthias had done that. It is pretty clear Paul had not.

There is no evidence that Barnabas saw the Lord. It is possible in his case because we do not know how long he was a disciple or when he left Cyprus and when he ended up in Jerusalem. But if Timothy or Apollos saw the Lord, it almost certainly would have had to have been in a post-resurrection appearance.

Being sent is important. Consider the serious of questions in Romans 10. How shall they preach unless they be sent?

you can keep it, rule it out or put it in a drawer and take it (whatever it is in your understanding) out for whatever reason you deem necessary

screams giant red herring

you deny the actual meaning and try to psycho-analyze in some non professional manner, what are facts and easy to understand biblical markers.

I don't even read your long and winding road posts anymore. you do not get to the point, you are not a gifted journalist and you wish to retain ambiguity as your main guide

you are welcome to it

and you have not really addressed the op but have tried to create a perspective that is your own, that deals with a historical aspect that is not half as accurate as you wish it to be. you are gathering an awful lot of moss. probably thick enough to sleep on in comfort

I ( am somewhat sorry but not a whole lot sorry) to inform you I do not care about your personal experience and I will not bore you with mine

Apostles....already has a definition.

and he also did not create nor define a word that already had a meaning

the fog is your own

I don't think you actually have a clue what NAR is or how it came to be or why it is not born of the Spirit of God

please do not expect me to respond again to your ramblings and I am being polite

What is it? I think my posts are fairly clear, but I do not understand what you are saying. But you seem frustrated.

I had written: "Being sent is important. Consider the serious of questions in Romans 10. How shall they preach unless they be sent? "
We are talking about apostles and you think a preacher being sent is a red herring? I thought you had posted something about apostles being sent, and knew that one translation of apostle is 'sent one.' Paul asks 'How shall they preach except they be sent?" Sent as in 'apostalōsin'. I did not break it down, and I should realize not everyone is familiar with the same passages-- though this one is familiar to many about salvation.

Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

This is how Jew and Gentile shall know about the gospel-- through preaching. Part of what Paul talks about is the preacher being sent. There are still unreached Jews and Gentiles. Do you think God has nothing to do with sending people to reach them?

Psycho-analyze? What are you talking about? Biblical markers? Which ones? What are you trying to say?

Your missing out. I am confident there is some grace from God to operate in the area of teaching, and numerous others have confirmed this. This is the sort of thing people I just met have 'words' about or prophesy over me over and over again in different parts of the US and the world. But if you don't read my posts, why don't you just ignore them instead of making comments that frankly come off as rude?

You do not need to be responding to my posts if you haven't heard them.

Proverbs 18:13
He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

I am going to answer from my own perspective. Who doesn't? Who hasn;t?
How do you know? be specific.

I don't get your metaphor-- or how it is relevant here, since I'm rolling.

You could behave sort of normal and not post just to express stress... or try to start a quarrel. Do you feel uneasy if there is no drama in your daily life?

Then why did you object to my 'sent' comment?

They aren't confused at all; James Goll is the one who's confused. They simply point out his deceptive scriptural error.

Supernatural Ministry School, tarot cards, crystals, paying $5,000 to learn spiritual gifts, and that’s only the first five minutes of the video. Truly disturbing and sad what some people embrace rather than praying and reading the Bible.

There are prophets just mentioned once, or a few times in the Bible. If someone is already a prophet in the scene we see, then they might have prophesied before the scene in which we encounter them. It is clear from certain passages that there were prophecies being given that are not quoted in the Bible. We have no idea of all the prophecies Anna gave.

Prophets can say all kinds of things. Jeremiah and Isaiah probably had to negotiate to buy food at the marketplace or ask their parents what to do. And we see some prophets engaged in intercession. God threatened to wipe out the people and make a nation through Moses. Moses interceded and God did not do it. The Bible even calls Abraham a prophet. He negotiated with God for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Deuteronomy 18 says that God would put His words in the prophets mouth. We can read so many 'Thus saith the Lord' messages of prophets in the Bible, spoken in the first person, using 'I'. In the New Testament, the words for 'prophet' and 'prophecy' are used for this activity that went on in the Old Testament that are used for this activity that went on after Pentecost. Agabus was a prophet. We get one quote of him operating in the role that starts 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.'

Peter, describing prophesying in ages gone by with a focus on the scriptures says, 'Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' More literally that might be rendered 'carried along by the Holy Spirit.'

Prophetic speech involves God putting words in the mouth of the prophet and the prophet speaking as moved by the Spirit of God. It is a distinct gift from the gifts of teaching and exhortation as we see in Romans 12. Prophets and teachers are distinct giftings or ministries in I Corinthians 12. Prophets, and evangelists are listed as separate categories and separate from pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11. So prophesying is not just teaching from previously revealed knowledge in the scriptures.

A prophet may also be a teacher, or just a human being commenting on scripture. But if the prophet prophesies, genuinely, that means the Spirit is moving him to speak words that come from God. The topic can be about the past, present, or future. It could be a statement commenting on past scripture if the Lord so desires.

There are only twelve apostles of the Lamb according to Scripture (including Paul and excluding Judas). So all these so-called apostles today are FALSE APOSTLES -- deceitful workers.

Why don't you just make up what 'Twelve Apostles of the Lamb' means, and try to create a contradiction with other scripture? Wouldn't your reasoning also lead one to conclude that Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy were false?

Acts 14:4 and call Barnabas and Saul 'apostles.' Look at I Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6. There were the 12 appointed as apostles before Christ's ascension, but after Christ ascended, he gave gifts unto men-- which if we look in Hebrew could be Paul's non-formal-equivalence translation of 'received gifts for men'. Read on and we see what Christ gave-- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The twelve, or 11 of them that remained, were appointed before the ascension. Barnabas and Saul were sent after the ascension of Christ. The opening part of I Corinthians 9 seems to indicate Barnabas is an apostle, especially when we consider that it is directly stated in Acts.


Since Paul excludes himself from the twelve by his own wording in I Corinthians 15 (which we accept as being written by the grace of God through the Spirit), then how would he get into that 12 group? I am inclined to see Matthias there. "The lot falls in the lap, but the decision is from the Lord." Jesus had opened the mind of the 12 so that they might understand the scriptures. Also, all Christ's works were not written according to John. Jesus' instructions on the matter might have been a factor in replacing Judas in Acts 1.

They may have wanted to have 12 apostles when the Spirit came. There were 12 tribes when God spoke at Sinai, and the giving of the Law was celebrated at Pentecost. After the law was given, 3000 died. Israel had sinned. On the day of Pentecost, about 3000 found new life in Christ.

I am just going to touch on this. first off, are you deliberately misquoting me or are you that hard up on your ability to comprehend?

I was speaking of the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ and noted that a person can only be such an apostle, if he personally knew Christ and saw Him resurrected.

here is my post again:

I never said a preacher being sent is a red herring. what you said was the red herring. I was speaking of one specific thing and you distorted it into a general meaning.

and we are also not talking about apostles. the op is about NAR.

I pity the person that tries to make sense of what you say on a regular basis. Talk about gaslighting

Apostle simply means to be sent...so that is a term that it seems has come to mean something else

No one can truthfully say Jesus sent them to be an Apostle today if we understand the biblical definition of such

but without doubt, as I stated in my other post:

these dudes have sent each other...if a person actually grasps the significance of that, they should draw back and reconsider what it is they are getting mixed up in

There is some truth in the NAR movement, and 'some truth' can be very dangerous.

that is a true statement

There seems to be a lot of truth. They'll quote scriptures backward and forward. But their interpretation of these scriptures is wildly different than what any sane person would understand by the same scriptures.

They'll be sure and say: "Yeah, we strongly believe God's word." But they don't love God's word; they love their own skewed interpretations of His word.

One of my concerns with some of these critical videos is the error, unbiblical assumptions, and some of the things they criticize as occultic activities... they have no basis for it. Other things may be quite alarming. I saw the beginning.

But let's consider asking God for the name of the mother of the person sitting next to you? Is that occultic? Is it 'cold reading.' Unless you are using stats like "His last name is Irish, X percent of Irish have a mother named Katherine" or you are feeding back to the person what you know already, I do not see how this would be 'cold reading.' Knowing the mother's name of someone you just met or someone you know from church and you do not know their family-- that's a pretty specific thing generally.

Is it divination occultic to ask God to tell you something? I find the suggestion of that idea almost offensive. It seems to exude an ignorance of scripture or a blindness to what it is saying though one studies it. There are plenty of examples of God telling people things in the Bible. God had conversations with certain individuals like Moses. Moses asked God questions right there at the burning bush incident and God answered. God spoke to Elijah, Elijah spoke back, and God spoke again on Mt. Horeb. That also seems like a conversation. The Israelites were allowed to ask prophets to enquire of the Lord-- where is the lost donkey? Will I live or recover? What shall we do? If it pleased Yahweh, He would respond to the prophet and answer the question however he wanted to. A prophet called for a musician after being asked to enquire of the Lord. The Spirit came upon him and he prophesied.

Moses wished that all God's people were prophets and that God would pour His Spirit upon them in the last days. In Joel 2, we see a predicted outpouring of the Spirit for the last days, a prediction of prophesying, dreams visions. Peter applies this to the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2. He even says the promise is for them that are 'afar off.' By the time the Gospel gets to Corinth and Paul writes I Corinthians, God has not only prophets in the church, but people operating in other gifts and receiving other types of revelatory type things-- the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. A believer can share a 'revelation' in the assembly of the church to edify others in I Corinthians 14. The church is commanded to let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. Paul writes 'For ye may all prophesy one by one.'

God can speak to individuals the scripture does not call 'prophets'. Philip the evangelist heard the Spirit. Ananias who baptized Saul of Tarsus.

'Charisma'- gift is related to the word for grace, and Paul writes that gifts are given according to the grace given unto us. The book of Hebrews says we can come boldly before the throne of grace to find grace to help in time of need. Paul wrote to let our requests be made known to God. We can also read the great
I don't want to paint too broadly, but I have traveled a lot and had little stints where I would be somewhere for a few months and go to church with a relative or somewhere, and I'd go to a signs and wonders or prophetic movement type church. I was raised Pentecostal. I don't believe God wants us to divide based over names or titles. I see one church in a city in scripture, and churches in homes. My thinking is probably more aligned with that of some of the mature house church people and missionaries that type of thing as far as how church should be, and I've been to house churches, hosted, etc..

Asking God to tell one stuff is a 'kosher' activity we find in scripture. God speaking to believers is kosher. Prayer is kosher and we can boldly pray for God to help.

So the idea that it is a sin, somehow, to ask for someone's mother's name and then share it with them is without Biblical justification.

The issue is whether telling someone their mother's name in a context where you are implying it is from God, if you are wrong, could be an issue. It certainly is if one says, "Thus saith the LORD" or words akin to that and the LORD did not say. I do not have a problem with people working stuff into conversation as they learn to exercise their senses 'to discern both good and evil' to borrow a concept from Hebrews 6.

Christian tarot cards.... uggghh.... that you randomly flip and give to people as a prophetic word. I want no part in that.

Its a sad thing but many believers are easily caught up but a slick speaker.

I see in the Bible a number of elders appointed from within the very church they are a part of. I see in scripture elders charged with pastoring the church/flock of God.

I see in scripture 'every one of you' sharing a psalm, teaching, tongue, revelation or interpretation-- unto edifying, with more instruction to set parameters and clarify that. I see where Paul commanded the church to let the prophets speak two or three and to let the other judge, and 'for ye may all prophesy' one by one.

But I go to church and I see one pastor. I see him giving one sermon. I see hierarchical titles not found in scripture like 'senior pastor'. But I see Jesus is the chief Pastor in I Peter 5.

Are these churches false? Do the leaders all have no grace to lead or teach?

I also see in scripture that members of the body of Christ can be sent. The Spirit can send, and then the men sent recognized as 'apostles'. The church is not left without scripture that shows how 'the work' can be continued. I see in Ephesians 4 that Jesus gave gifts, including apostles, after the ascension, though the original Twelve were appointed before it.

But I can go to churches and see no application of this or conflicting ideas. I can encounter Christians in these churches who consider the idea of an 'apostle' doing ministry these days to be blasphemy or heresy, with no scripture rightly interpreted that backs that up.

And then I can go to churches where 'apostle' is used for a church leader who is basically creating another layer of hierarchy, trying to be a 'senior pastor' to 'junior pastors.' His layer of hierarchy is called 'apostle' and theirs 'senior pastor' and neither title is in scripture.

If I'm going to consider this last category with their fuzzy hierarchical idea of 'apostle' as unbelieving heretics, why wouldn't I consider all the 'senior pastor' churches the same way? Why wouldn't I think the same way of churches that have board 'elders' but call a 'pulpit minister' an 'evangelist?' I do not see these different patterns of ecclesiology in scripture.

But does that mean that no one in any of these movements has any grace to minister? Do people come to faith in Christ through their ministry? Do those who come to faith learn the word of God and grow? Do they have any spiritual gifts that minister to others? Do they bear the types of fruits in their lives that the Bible talks about.

I could find someone in either the regular 'senior pastor' evangelical churches or the NAR type 'apostle' groups who taught some serious error or sinned, probably, if I started digging. Does that mean no one else that we put these labels on has good fruit?

I also look in the Bible and see messes in churches. The Corinthians are probably the best example. They probably did not understand spiritual gifts. They were dividing into groups-- apparently some were labeling themselves after their favorite ministers. There was even a fornicator having sex with his own step-mother. If he took his father's widow to wife or if it was even more shocking of a scenario, I do not know. Paul did not use the word 'adultery' there. But they were tolerating this sin and shouldn't. Then Paul warned them about all kinds of sin, idolatry, adultery, same-sex sex between men, and went into detail a bit about why not to have sex with a prostitute. What were these people into?

And doctrinally, there were people saying there was no resurrection of the dead! An attack on a core doctrine of the Christian faith.

But he considered them to be believers, and there were people among them operating in genuine gifts of the Spirit. Churches can be messy. I try not to be too quick to dismiss others as unbelievers. And those who are quick to do so often have some kind of doctrinal issues themselves, and sometimes their accusations are at least partly based on their perspective as someone with doctrinal error.

As far as who God has saved, that is up to God. We as believers have to have concern about who we fellowship with, eat with, etc. So there are some practical issues.

@SophieT @Rhomphaeam

I'll not dig through the thread. I posted about the issue of being sent. You responded with red herring. I can see what words on the screen say, not whatever you thought in your mind was red herring.


If you look at these threads, topics can be broader than the OP or narrower, or veer off on tangets. The A in NAR is apostolic. You aren't a moderator are you? If a moderator tells me my posts are too far off topic, I'll listen. But if you aren't, I don't care that much about whether you think my posts are on topic. I think your interpretation of what is an appropriate range of discussion for a topic like this is unreasonable, or else I just wonder if you are subconciously seeking some emotional drama and are trying to stir up a bit of conflict over some small thing.

I'll quote this back at you about those two posts, the red herring and the other one before or after it.

I realize sometimes I can leave ideas out here and there and if someone isn't on the same track of what I'm talking about based on a common understanding, then it can be confusing. I think _most_ of my posts are fairly comprehensible.