Blog - Jay N. Forrest

Dangers of the New Apostolic Reformation

“You have not strengthened the weak; you have not healed the sick; you have not bound up the injured; you have not brought back the strays; you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them” (Ezekiel 34:4).

Tens of millions of American Christians are embracing a charismatic movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation. It aims to eliminate the secular state. It is a powerful version of Christian nationalism, and it is deeply anti-Christian.

The New Apostolic Reformation wants to “force” fundamentalist Christianity on the American people, and ultimately the world. It wants to usher in the kingdom of God by force.

Apostles Never Ceased

It mistakenly thinks that the apostles died out. They did not. Their authority in the church was taken up by the bishops, and their ministry was taken up by the missionaries. Missionaries do what apostles used to. They’ve never ceased.

Dominionism

Two equally and dangerous ideas are found in the New Apostolic Reformation. The first is dominionism, which is the idea that Christians should take dominion over society. Why wait from Jesus to return, they believe we should take over the government now.

Of course, fundamentalist Islam believes a similar thing. They want to take over a nation and impose Shira law. But if Muslims tried to do that in the United States, Christians would be going crazy. But it’s okay for Christians do the same thing. I don’t think so.

Of course, dominionism is both anti-christian and ant–American. The American forefathers created this nation as a secular nation, separating church and state. Because they were smart enough to know the dangers of the marriage of religion and government. Christians today are not so smart.

Theocracy

The second dangerous idea is theocracy. It literally means a government ruled by God through his chosen ones. Of course, the New Apostolic Reformation believes that they are the chosen ones. They know what’s best for us. They are the anointed the elite, the master race.

If that doesn’t send chills down your spine, you clearly don’t remember the history of the Nazis. It is the same old lie that the devil has offered, not only to Jesus, but also to his followers (Matt. 4).

If you learn nothing from the history of the Roman Catholic Church, you should realize that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And once the New Apostolic Reformation apostles take over authority of the government, all other viewpoints will be persecuted.

Charismatic

I consider myself a Charismatic Christian. I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are still operative today. But I don’t believe that these gifts should ever be used in a governmental setting to rule over others. The gifts of the Spirit offer the edification of the body of Christ, not for governing other people. (1 Cor. 12)..

Having been in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement for my entire Christian life, I can tell you that most confuse emotions with spirituality. What they claim is the Spirit of God is not. It is simply emotional highs.

They worked themselves up into an emotional state, and mistakenly think it’s a spiritual state. It is not. And if they were more educated in the mystics, they would know this. But they are not. Spirituality does not deal with emotions, it deals with awareness. Spirituality is about deepening and broadening one’s awareness of Reality.

Progressive Christianity

“As Progressive Christians we seek to distinguish ourselves from and denounce those who would use the name of Christ to take away the rights of LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, people of color, prisoners, Muslims, Jews, and others.

‘We denounce Christian nationalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and all racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and hatred. We stand for democracy, diversity, equity and inclusion for all people everywhere.”[1]

References

1 Jay N. Forrest, “A Progressive Christian Declaration”.
https://progressivechristianity.us/

Relationship-Centered Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is simply the fancy word for the interpretation of ancient text. It is the principles that we use to interpret the Bible.

About Relationship

As I thought often about the interpretation of the Bible, one of the things becomes clear. The Bible is primarily about the relationship between God and humankind.

Now if that is true, then when we go to interpret the passages in the Bible, we need to interpret those passages in a relationship-centered mode.

Relationship-Centered Mode

Now what does that mean? It means that we look at the passage and try to understand the relationship between that person and God. And then we take the principles that we discover in that dynamic relationship, and we see if they apply to us.

So the point is to move from interpretation to application. And we do this by extracting the principles concerning the God and human relationship, as they’re recorded in the scriptures.

Defining Monotheism

“Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6).

The short definition is monotheism is the belief that there is only one God. However, there are many beings called god or elohim in the Old testament. Some of these are Angels, some are demons, and even humankind is called gods.

In order to better understand monotheism, we must first define theism. Theism is the belief in an Infinite and Eternal God who is both transcendent and imminent.

How clearly demons, angels and humans do not meet this definition of theism. Therefore, there is only one God who meets this definition. At least according to the Old and New Testament. And that is the God of Israel and the Christian Church.

Therefore, monotheism, properly defined, is a biblical and Christian doctrine. Christianity has always been considered a monotheistic religion, as soon as the word monotheism came into use. To deny this is to deny the facts.

The Word was God

“The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine” (John 1:1 Moffat).

Logos is a Name

Logos is usually translated Word, but John is using it as a name and should be left untranslated. Furthermore, Logos means much more than just Word.

The Logos Was Deity

But the part I want to focus on here is “the Logos was divine.’ I would argue that it would be even more accurately translated, “the Logos was Deity.”

According to Daniel B Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (page 269), we read:

“The most likely candidate for Θεός [in John 1:1c] is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative nominative fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and the NT as a whole) …”

This means that the Word was God is not identifying the Logos as God, but rather is telling us about the nature of the Logos. In other words, “what God was, the Word was” (John 1:1 NEB).

The Trinity in the Bible

Thus John 1:1 does not prove the Trinity. It proves that the author of the Gospel of John viewed Jesus as somehow Deity. How there can be two persons identified as God, was a problem that the early church had to solve later on.

That Christian viewed Jesus as Deity can be proved not only by Scripture, but by secular authors such as Pliny the Younger. He wrote:

They (Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god…”

I could quote early church fathers to support this, but you get the point. The problem is how can Jesus be God and the Father in heaven be God? Yet, there cannot be two Gods.

Two Gods

It was in a desire to rectify this apparent contradiction that the early church developed the doctrine of the Trinity. “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence” (Athanasian Creed).

There are a number of passage in the New Testament that attribute Divinity to Jesus Christ. So there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ “existed in the form of God” and that in him “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Phil 2:6; Col. 2:9). “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3).

The Doctrine of the Trinity

The Trinity, then, is an authoritative doctrine based upon the Bible and sacred Tradition. It is authoritative by those who accept sacred Tradition. This would include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and some traditional Protestant churches.

“Persons” was translated from the Greek word hypostases. It means, writes Mark Koscinski, “a complete and real substance, a complete entity lacking nothing.” I would translate it, “neither confounding the Beings, nor dividing the Essence.”

The Nicene Creed

The authority on the subject is the Nicene Creed. This is binding upon all who accept sacred Tradition. It says:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

Interpretations are open, but it is clear that Jesus is “God from God.” Now if it is true that when “the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,” the only way to reconcile that with the evidence, is that it is through the general consensus of the church that the Spirit leads us into truth.

The Trinity is Not in the Bible

For those who believe the Bible is the final authority for Christianity, there are many doctrines that are not found in the Bible. One of them is the Trinity

The Bible

Yes, the Bible does talk about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But in no place does it say that these three persons are of one essence.

Four Sources of Authority

But for Progressive Christians, like myself, this is not an issue. The Bible is not the final authority for Progressive Christianity. Rather we have four sources of authority. They are Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience.

We get the doctrine of the Trinity from Tradition, not from the Bible. Yes, the doctrine harmonizes with the Bible, but its source is from Tradition.

Tradition

I capitalize the word Tradition because here I’m speaking specifically about church Tradition that is virtually universally accepted. That is, there’s a general consensus about the doctrine over a long period of time.

But Tradition is not the final authority. The final authority is the church, the Christian community itself. It is the church that defines and interprets those doctrines that are authoritative. And it negotiates these based upon the four sources of authority, which again are Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience.

Reason and Culture

And just to quickly clarify, by Reason I’m including science, history, and modern scholarship, as well as logical and reasonable arguments.

The general culture of a society can inform the church to renegotiate issues that may have been misinterpreted. At no time is the doctrines of the church infallible or inerrant. They are always open for negotiation based upon new evidence and new information.