Is The New Apostolic Reformation Heretical?

FYI: those I know who are apostles would not be recognized by the NAR or any of its variants. They are critical of any amalgamation of politics and religion or activism and religion. NAR is simply the most recent spin on an old Pentecostal/Charismatic theme.

The Evangelicals also tend to migrate toward larger congregations and celebrity teachers. What is perceived is "church growth" is actually just church movement into larger groups. The church in the US has been steadily losing members for many years now. (link) Like moths to a flame, people will gravitate toward what attracts them. Large buildings, entertaining music, coffee shops, celebrity speakers, etc. are all good for business.

And yet, when you ask a box-church-goer "Who watches over your soul according to Hebrews 13:17?" many of them have no clue. They know it's certainly not their "head pastor" with whom they cannot get a meeting for several months. Or their Sunday School teacher who they barely know. It's odd to have a mantra like "It's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and then to not have a personal relationship that resembles anything like a walk with Christ, Paul with Timothy, Titus; Peter with his spiritual house; John with his, etc. The pattern is there in black and white, yet the Roman view (of a far-off, fickle god of whom it is most important not to anger) is preferred. Well, certainly preferred by the leaders who will gladly take the resources of the people with very little effort to show for it.

There are no true apostles now. They may call themselves apostles but it's all make believe.

It's true, I am in over my head in my belief of apostles.

When thinking in terms of the Twelve, of course there are none. When thinking in terms of the definition of apostles, there have been and are many.

That is the debacle though. How each individual or church define apostle. By definition it is as one who was sent. But you see it used in the 5 fold ministry as well.

There are apostles (ap-os'-tol-os): a messenger or one sent; I believe there are still apostles in this sense. But not Apostles of Christ (capital A; the 12 plus Paul). We have their teaching with us in their writings. The foundation has been laid (Ephesians 2:20); we don't need new Apostles today.

Church-goers tend to worry about who gets to rule over whom. For the democratically-minded, someone having authority over another in the church is viewed as an affront to liberty. Thus is typical among pew-sitters who conflate politics and religion.

However, our history demonstrates (the Biblical record) quite plainly that authority within the church was not meted out democratically and certainly not according to social status. The Spirit speaks to the mature (those who have demonstrated in their own lives the temperance of a life surrendered to God's will) to identify, affirm, and release apostles to their calling:

"Separate unto me Saul and Barnabas..."
"..stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands."
"I am sending him to you..."

There are no Apostles of the Lamb. There were only 12. They are now with the Lord. But there are many apostles. There always has been. The benefit a believer receives from receiving the apostles is according to the gift that is within them: to understand how Christ is building His church, to understand mysteries, and to understand order within the kingdom of God.

Lastly, a true apostle does not lord over anyone. He has no interest in doing so. He is motivated by the Spirit to support and encourage the body of Christ wherever he is called.

In my experience apostles are often elders in the area they live, perhaps in a city. For the ones for whom he watches over their souls, he has authority. But he will not simply travel abroad to win converts. He will be led by the Spirit to move, often acknowledged by the elders to the area he's been called. Often he will answer the direct call of other elders to help in a particular matter.

I am an elder in a region in the Midwest. I have many households in my region and some on the East Coast. I know who to call to ask for help if help is needed. If the Spirit confirms it in them, these men (and often their wives) will come to my home to help in a matter. These men are apostles. I have asked for help with things like encouragement for the saints (perhaps after a death), edification, and governance (like putting a woman out for adultery). When they arrive their primary focus of ministry is to strengthen my immediate household and then to minister to the saints in the region at my direction. They come, they impart their grace and encouragement, and they leave. Even though I look up to these men, they are very much a servant to me and my household when they answer the call. With this arrangement there is no worry about who gets to rule over whom: we gladly submit to one another in the Spirit.

I must admit i am not terribly impressed with comments that say "I don't see..." because one only has to say "I do see"

I am very blessed to be autistic, which means that I do not accept anything at face value. i go down a long winding path to root out the good, the bad and the ugly and when I have had the chance to assess everything, then I make a decision. Which means nine-times out of 10 I get it right.

So, the fact is that the New Apostolic Reformation is heretical, and it isn't heretical. Like all movements in the church there is the good, the bad and the ugly. The New Testament had its fair share of them. Once I have found the good, i don't worry about the bad and the ugly. They can go and shoot themselves in the foot. The old saying is you have got to be in it to win it. You can't judge something standing on the side lines. if you do that it is just your opinion which is no better than anyone else's.

I Have been involved in NAR that looked really good but once I was involved it was pretty bad. No problem. I just moved on.

Good point..
- I agree.
---
Movements..often, were criticized & despised.
- Especially..from those.."standing on the side lines.."
- Because..it breaks existing patterns/establishments.
- in Christian history.
---
Movements 'were not'..clean, orderly/nicely packaged, without errors/flaws..
- in Christian history.
--
I am working on the book project.
- 'Movements in Christian History'

No. that movement is a total heretical train wreck.

I agree you can't condemn a movement simply because it breaks from tradition; you have to evaluate by the scriptures. And when you have a movement that's populated with liars and conmen (and women) it's our responsibility to call them out. The only thing necessary for lies to flourish is the failure of truth to expose them.

The NAR and similar restoration, five-fold ministry groups need to be called out. They're movements of men, not God.

Trainers and coaches are always on the sidelines looking in, and from what they are better able to Grean by any team's performance, they are better equipped to train and give pointers on how to improve play.

This is also true when dealing with the problem or problems of others. When one is on the outside looking in he is better informed on how to resolve many problems of others.

Most trainers and coahes have..experiences/were involved.

Some concepts/emphasis of NAR is not new..
- It can be traced to..the early 20th century.

Not to mention the overt and repetitive false prophecies

I agree. Most of them aren't really new, they've just been repackaged and given new terminology. It goes back further than the early 20th century.

True. False prophecies, false signs and wonders, false apostles and prophets teaching false doctrine.

These so-called prophets claim to be God's chosen instruments to proclaim "new truths" and "present truths" that have been hidden from the body of Christ until these "last days." Their view isn't really that different from Catholicism except that instead of the Magisterium deciding how to interpret the scriptures it's the prophets. According to them, Christianity must "prepare" the way for the Lord. Only after Christianity has taken dominion will Christ return. In other words, if we want the Lord to return it's up to us.

Ya, thats all really cringeworthy.

Some of us have been involved in these type teachings. Maybe not to the severity of NAR, Latter Rain, Holinest movement, or newer age Pentecostal but you can definitely see the offspring of such movements in many charismatic, nondenominational and Orthodox churches today.

For example, this post below



I agree with the first sentence. Martin Luther did not give us new revelation but instead pointed people back to the Bible.

But it was never lost. The theocratic government had it under lock and key. Christians died to get the Bible into every individuals hands. There is no lost revelation.

This is heretical and can be easily abused. Here is another post of a charismatic that I met.





Point 3 and 4 can be easily abused because for
1. the foundation has already been laid
2. the mystery has already been revealed and explained in the New Testament that Jesus is Messiah for both Jew and Gentile.

Not to mention the silliness that our pastor was speaking on the other day as their being two baptisms. As in conversion and then Holy Spirit power.

He didn't say it this way but basically we have weak and strong Christians.

Your weak Christians have not tapped into Holy Spirit power to speak in tongues, heal, prophesize, or be empowered to carry out God's calling. Scripture says we have one baptism.

I suggest if you feel like there is two then it of true conversion not extra power we can receive.

Then there is the whole doctrine of deliverance. Not from sin but demons. Saying that many Christians need help breaking demonic chain, strongholds, or sins that a demon is opressing (their word to replace possessing).

They are taught that they can allow demons to occupy space within and so often need help delivering them.

You do not find this in scripture at all. You find spiritual warfare for the Christian but not demon deliverance in the Christian.

A demon can not occupy the same space as something Holy like the Holy Spirit. You can be tempted but you are well under your control through the Spirit to defeat any tempter and follow sanctification.

We do not need to seek out extra power for sanctification. That power does not lead to sinless perfection like Wesley seems to suggest or Finny in the Holiness movement. But it also doesn't take away free will as Calvin suggests either.

It is free will relationship as we abide, we grow.

Can you give me some details of your investigations that have led you to that conclusion?