Like wild animals – whose colors and physical features blend in with their natural surroundings – they try to conform to their Christian environments. Their No. 1 method of blending in with Christians is to quote from the Bible.

If they quoted from the Koran or the Book of Mormon, then they’d be easy to detect. But they’re much trickier than that. They quote Bible verses to back up their non-biblical teachings. This practice is what I call “Christian camouflage.”

But even though they try to hide behind the Bible, they can still be found out. The key is to see if they are quoting the Bible correctly. And you don’t have to be a pastor or Bible scholar to do that. You just have to learn a few basic rules of Bible interpretation.

The first rule is simple to grasp if you can just remember a childhood nursery rhyme.

Mary Had a Little Lamb

To know if a Bible verse has been quoted correctly, you must look at the verse in context. What do I mean by “in context”?

Think of the line from a nursery rhyme: “Mary had a little lamb.” What does it mean?

Well, if you know the rest of the rhyme, then you know it means that a girl named Mary owned a young sheep.

But if you don’t know the rest of the rhyme — and you just read the line by itself — then you might think it’s about a woman named Mary who ate a lamb chop for dinner. Or if you’re a Christian, you might interpret it another way — you might think it’s a symbolic statement about Mary, the mother of God, who gave birth to Jesus, the “lamb” of God.

But these other interpretations are ruled out by the rest of the rhyme, which reveals that the lamb was a real lamb and it followed Mary around wherever she went. The other lines provide the context that helps interpret the first line.

In the same way, one Bible verse quoted in isolation of the surrounding verses can often be understood in different ways.  To get at its correct meaning, it must be read in context of the surrounding verses and chapters. The importance of context in biblical interpretation is expressed in the saying, “Context is king.”

‘Foolish’ Interpretations

Now, instead of a nursery rhyme, let’s apply the context rule to a line from Scripture: “There is no God.”

If that’s the only part of the Bible someone read, then they might think it teaches that God doesn’t exist. But if they read the full verse, Psalm 14:1 – which says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” – then they would see that it teaches the exact opposite of the first interpretation. It teaches that only a fool would deny God’s existence. The context helps provide the correct interpretation.

Yet none of today’s “apostles” or “prophets” would deny God’s existence. So let’s apply the context rule to a verse they do often quote out of context – Psalm 105:15. They say this verse forbids Christians from criticizing so-called prophets.

“Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.”

Yet, by reading the entire Psalm – not just verse 15 – it becomes clear that it’s about God’s protection of the nation of Israel, including its prophets. The people of Israel are the “anointed ones” referred to in the verse. It’s a warning to the nations that they’d better not attack Israel. It’s not a warning against criticizing any self-declared prophet.

So remember: Whenever a “Christian” teacher quotes Bible verses, always check to see if they’re quoting them in context.

Is being logical unspiritual? That’s what modern “apostles” and “prophets” want you to think.

In fact, it’s not just unspiritual — it’s a sin to be repented of, according to Paul Cox, founder of Aslan’s Place in Hesperia, Calif. His suggested prayer urges Christians to repent of “all intellectualism, ungodly reasoning, logic and humanism.”

Huh? When did logic become an evil comparable to “ungodly reasoning” and “humanism”?

I want to show that logic isn’t bad — it’s a gift from God, and it protects us from harmful beliefs.

Human Logic vs. Heavenly Logic

“Apostles” and “prophets,” like Cox, often claim that there are two types of logic: “human logic” and “heavenly logic.” Human logic — they say — is unspiritual, evil, bad. Another example of the “human logic is bad” teaching can be found in “apostle/prophet” Rick Joyner’s prophecy titled Civil War in the Church.

Back in 1996, Joyner prophesied that an end-time battle will be fought in the church between two types of Christians — the “grey coats” and the “blue coats.” The grey coats — who represent the bad guys in Joyner’s prophecy — are Christians who use their “natural minds” and “human wisdom” to evaluate teachings in the church. The grey color of their coats represents “grey matter” — which, Joyner points out, is a slang expression for “the brain.”

But the blue coats — the good guys — don’t rely on their brains to evaluate teachings. They’re “heavenly minded” and “follow the Holy Spirit,” according to Joyner.

See other recent examples of the “human logic is bad” teaching by Kathi Pelton and John Mark Pool.

The problem with their statements is that the Bible doesn’t teach that there are two types of logic, and it doesn’t teach that human logic is bad. Let’s look at two Bible verses that have been misused by “apostles” and “prophets” to support these teachings.

1 Corinthians 1:21 and 3:19

In his first letter to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul says that the “wisdom of this world” is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 3:19), and that God’s plan of salvation seems like “foolishness” to humankind (1 Corinthians 1:21).

So, the Apostle Paul believed that “human logic”  is bad, right?

Wrong. Confusion occurs because so-called prophets like Joyner teach that “worldly wisdom” and “human logic” are the same thing. They’re not. They’re very different.

When Paul talked about worldly wisdom, he was talking about the things that are valued by people who are separated from God — things like power, fame and money.  These things are the opposite of the things God values. That’s why Paul says that God’s plan of salvation — through a crucified Christ — appears like “foolishness” to worldly people.

Paul’s description of “worldly” wisdom matches James’ description of “earthly” wisdom in James chapter 3 — it’s jealous, covetous and self-seeking (James 3:3-18).

So, it’s selfish ambition that Paul and James are bashing — not “human logic,” as Joyner asserts.

Human Logic

Logic is the science of correct thinking. We use it to determine if our beliefs are sound or not. We use it everyday.

Not sure of this? Let me show you.

One of the rules of logic is called the “law of non-contradiction.” This rule may sound complicated, but bear with me.  In simple terms, it means that if two things contradict each other, then they can’t both be true. For example, a moving car can’t be both in the street and not in the street at the same time. It’s either in the street or not in the street.

We use the law of non-contradiction when we decide if it’s safe to cross the street. We use other laws of logic, too — whether we know their names or not. And we have places for people who don’t use them — they’re called mental hospitals.

That’s because the opposite of being logical is being illogical. And being illogical isn’t being spiritual — no matter what teachers like Joyner or Cox want us to think.

Logic Glorifies God

God made our minds, and it glorifies Him when we use them. We were created in His image and that includes our ability to reason.

In fact, Jesus, Himself, is called “the Logic” in Scripture. Where? In John 1:1 — where He’s called “the Word.” The Greek word for “Word” is logos — which is where we get our English word for “logic.”

In other words, Jesus is the Supreme Rational Being who governs all things. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the Greatest Commandment includes an admonition for us to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:36-38).

Likewise, the original apostles never discouraged people from using their minds. In fact, they had harsh words for false teachers who didn’t base their teachings on sound beliefs, but instead promoted a secret knowledge — or  “heavenly” knowledge, as Joyner would prefer to call it. Peter called these false teachers “unreasoning animals” (2 Peter 2:12).

So by not using their God-given abilities to reason — through applying the rules of logic — these false teachers are being unspiritual.

Why would they go to so much trouble to urge people to shut off their brains? So their followers won’t scrutinize the teachings of these so-called prophets and apostles. If they did, they’d detect the error.

Think about it.

***Read the first post in my Brain Stoppers series here.

Paul Keith and Wanda Davis, founders of WhiteDove Ministries

“God is doing a new thing!”

Have you ever heard a Christian teacher make this statement? Chances are, you have. It’s become a catch phrase to promote all kinds of dangerous teachings, like this recent one from “Prophet” Paul Keith Davis of WhiteDove Ministries. See it here.

In his teaching — sent out by the Elijah List on Dec. 12 — Davis said God is doing a “new thing” today by giving new revelation to the Church through modern “apostles” and “prophets.” The purpose of this revelation, according to Davis, is to help the  Church set up God’s kingdom on earth. The Scripture he quotes to support this teaching is Isaiah 48:6-7.

What is the new revelation God is giving the Church, according to Davis? It contains insights into the heavenly realm, including the discovery of new laws of “physics, light, sound and spiritual colors,” he said. It also contains new revelation into the Scriptures. Christians will suddenly understand verses they never understood before. Their new understandings will have as great an impact on the Church as the Protestant Reformation, according to Davis.

But does Isaiah 48:6-7 support Davis’ teaching? No, an examination of the passage in its biblical context shows that it can’t be used to promote new revelations from “apostles” and “prophets.”

First, let’s look at the passage. I will quote from the Amplified Bible since it’s the translation Davis quotes from, even though it’s not the best translation to use. (I’ll explain why it’s not the best translation in a future post.) Here’s the passage:

⁶You have heard [these things foretold], now you see this fulfillment. And will you not bear witness to it? I show you specified new things from this time forth, even hidden things [kept in reserve] which you have not known.

⁷They are created now [called into being by the prophetic word], and not long ago; and before today you have never heard of them, lest you should say, Behold, I knew them!

In this passage, God — speaking through the Prophet Isaiah — says He will reveal “new things” that He hadn’t revealed before. What are the “new things”?  They had to do specifically with the nation of Israel and its restoration after going into captivity.

How do we know this? By reading the chapters surrounding Isaiah 48. In Isaiah 39, God reveals that He will punish the Israelites by sending the Babylonians to conquer them. Undoubtedly, this experience will leave them wondering if God has abandoned their nation. So, in chapters 40-48, God calms their fears by promising that — after a time of captivity in Babylon — He will forgive them, return the exiles to their land, and restore their nation.

Thus, the restoration of Israel is the topic of chapters 40-48 and also the subject of the “new thing” God promised to do in Isaiah 48:6-7. This same “new thing” is promised in two other places: Isaiah 42:8-9 and 43:18-19.

So, Isaiah 48:6-7 is a specific promise God made to the nation of Israel — not a green light for every new revelation given by a teacher. Yet, a “green light” is exactly how this passage was treated by Rev. V. Gene Robinson when he was elected as the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop. In an interview with Beliefnet, Robinson said that the election results showed that “God is doing a new thing in the world.”

Robinson’s use of this passage contradicts other teachings in Scripture that say homosexuality is a sin. In the same way, many modern “apostles” and “prophets” are giving teachings that don’t mesh with Scripture, like Davis’ teaching that we must learn new laws of physics in order to establish God’s kingdom on earth.

God makes it clear that we must test all new revelations by seeing if they line up with Scripture. That’s what the first Christians did when they were presented with new teachings from the original apostles — they examined the Scriptures daily to see if they matched up (Acts 17:11).

But can God ever do something new — assuming that it lines up with the revelation He’s already given? He certainly can — He’s God! He can do whatever He wants to do. This is the very reason He promised to do a “new thing” for Israel in the first place. He wanted to show them that only He — and not their worthless idols — was capable of fulfilling prophecy (see Isaiah 48:5 and 7-8).

Steve Shultz

If you ever receive a forwarded e-mail from an organization called the Elijah List, beware. Steve Shultz — the founder of the Elijah List — is one of the most dangerous false teachers today.

This is a harsh statement. Why do I say it?

The Elijah List e-mails — which are sent to more than 134,000 subscribers everyday — have done more to promote the false prophets and false apostles of the New Apostolic Reformation than just about anything else. And they do this by twisting Scripture beyond recognition.

Take a recent example. Today Shultz sent out an e-mail containing a prophecy from Kim Clement. See it here. The prophecy was about California.

Shultz always introduces the prophecies he sends out with background information about the featured “prophet” or prophecy. In this case, Shultz introduced the prophecy by saying that when he first heard Clement give it live on streaming TV — before Clement even began to speak — Shultz somehow intuitively knew it would be about Los Angeles. Shultz concluded that — because he knew the prophecy would be about Los Angeles before Clement said what it was about — then the prophecy must be true. Then Schultz backed up his bizarre conclusion with a Scripture verse. Here are his exact words:

I am not exaggerating when I tell you I just KNEW he was about to prophesy about Los Angeles, and that was before he said it. The Bible says, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses.” So this is one of those words you can “take to the bank!”

The portion of the verse Shultz quoted — “by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” — comes from Deuteronomy 19:15. Shultz used this verse to argue that — since two “prophets” (he and Clement) agreed with the prophecy — then it must be of God. So Shultz’s followers could trust the prophecy and, as Shultz said, take it “to the bank!”

Yet if Shultz had quoted the full verse — and not just the second half — then it would be obvious to everyone reading his e-mail that it had nothing to do with knowing whether or not a prophecy is from God. Here’s the full verse in the New King James Version (the version Shultz quoted it in):

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

This verse comes from the Old Testament, and it says that a man cannot be given the death penalty based on the testimony of only one person. This law was given by God to the Jewish nation to protect someone from being falsely accused of murder.

We know the verse is talking, specifically, about the death penalty — even though it doesn’t use those words — because the surrounding verses talk about what to do when someone is accused of murder. This interpretation is backed up by other passages in the Old Testament that set forth the same principle in regard to someone who has been accused of murder (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6). We also see the same principle at work in the New Testament regarding Christians who are accused of committing some type of major sin (Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19).

So, the verse Shultz quoted has nothing to do with testing a prophecy. His misuse of Scripture to support Clement’s prophecy is irresponsible and dangerous. It teaches Christians that — any time two or more Christians agree that a prophecy is true — then it is true and they should believe it.

Yet, Scripture gives us at least three tests for knowing whether a prophecy is from God. And they have nothing to do with the number of people who agree.

1) Does the prophecy point people to worship of the one true God or to the worship of other false gods? See Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20. A close examination of the prophecies given by Shultz and Clement over the years show that the “God” they talk about bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible.

2) Does the prophecy come true? See Deuteronomy 18:21-22. Clement has become notorious for giving prophecies that never come to pass and then attempting to explain away their failure.

3) Does the prophecy line up with Scripture or does it contradict or otherwise undermine Scripture? See Acts 17:11, where the Bereans were praised for searching the Scripture to test new teaching. Shultz, on the other hand, contradicts Scripture by twisting verses such as Deuteronomy 19:15 and giving bogus methods for testing a prophecy.

Besides these three tests for a prophecy, the Bible also tells us we can know whether a prophet comes from God or not by examining the fruit of his or her life (Matthew 7:15-23). The frequent abuse of Scripture exhibited by Shultz is one example of bad fruit.

So, the bottom line is, Shultz and Clement can agree all they want — until they’re blue in the face. It still doesn’t make their prophecies true. Contrary to what Shultz says, by the mouth of 2 or 3 or even 123 witnesses a prophecy is not confirmed.

Dr. James Dobson speaking at The Call, San Diego.

Thousands of Christians gathered at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, Nov. 1, to fast and pray in support of Proposition 8 — which would ban same-sex marriage.

“The Call” received support from prominent evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson (who spoke at the event) and from many Southern California churches — even though its list of organizers reads like a “Who’s Who” of the apostolic-prophetic movement. Well-known “apostles” and “prophets” behind the event include founder Lou Engle, C. Peter Wagner, Che Ahn, Rick Joyner, Bill Hamon, Cindy Jacobs, Chuck Pierce, Dutch Sheets and more. See the national board and advisory board.

What’s the problem with this? The apostolic-prophetic movement promotes modern-day “apostles” and “prophets” who claim to wield unlimited authority and give new doctrinal revelation in addition to Scripture. It’s teachings have historically been considered outside orthodox Christianity.

Why would mainstream evangelicals like Dr. Dobson, Michael W. Smith (Christian musician) and Steve Douglas (president of Campus Crusade) partner with this fringe movement? (See other prominent evangelicals here.) My guess — and hope — is that they aren’t aware of the organizers’ teachings. But in their zest to support marriage and family values, their participation gives the movement greater visibility and credibility in mainstream evangelicalism.

As a result, many Christians who never heard of Lou Engle or Cindy Jacobs or Dutch Sheets before are going to want to learn more about them, buy their books and attend their churches. Then they’re going to start being exposed to dangerous apostolic-prophetic teachings.

Though I will address this teaching more in a future post, the reason I mention it now is because I recently saw a discussion board where people were praising the New Apostolic Reformation. Someone had posted a statement from my blog where I said that this movement promotes apostles with unquestioned authority and prophets who give new doctrinal revelation not found in Scripture. Someone responded and said my statement was untrue. Yet, my statement is true, and I will continue to show — from Wagner’s own writings and from other leaders in the movement — what they teach about modern “apostles” and “prophets.”

In this post, I want to briefly point out leaders of some well-known ministries who are members of Wagner’s “International Coalition of Apostles.” Many Christians may be surprised to learn of these leaders’ affiliation with Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. Their participation shows the movement’s growing influence in the church. Some notable members include:

Notable ICA Members
• Chris Hayward, president of “Cleansing Stream Ministries,” based in Van Nuys, Calif.
• Jane Hansen, president of “Aglow International,” based in Edmonds, Wash.
• Dick Eastman, international president of “Every Home for Christ,” based in Colorado Springs, Colo.
• Hal H. Sacks, founder and president of “BridgeBuilders International Leadership Network” in Phoenix, Ariz.
• Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, and Stephen Strang, founder of Strang Communications (publisher of seven Christian magazines, including Charisma).

See the full list of members of the International Coalition of Apostles here. [Note: Many of the above names have been removed from the membership list since this article was originally published.]

Cleansing Stream Ministries
Cleansing Stream Ministries has “deliverance ministry teams” in over 2,500 U.S. churches and over 500 churches in other countries. Many of these churches wouldn’t consider themselves part of the New Apostolic Reformation or even know about this movement. Upcoming retreats led by Cleansing Stream are scheduled at many churches, including “New Life Church” in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Ted Haggard’s former church) and “The Church on the Way” in Van Nuys, Calif. (the church Jack Hayford founded). See the full list of Cleansing Stream retreats here. [Note: this link is no longer available.]

One of Cleansing Stream’s books that they use with their teaching materials is written by “prophet” Chuck Pierce, and Cleansing Stream links to Wagner’s Web site from theirs. When one understands that Cleansing Stream president, Chris Hayward, is a member of Wagner’s International Coalition of Apostles, the reason for the organization’s promotion of New Apostolic leaders becomes clear. Apparently, Hayward has bought into Wagner’s movement. Unfortunately, through Cleansing Stream many people will be unwittingly introduced to New Apostolic teachings.

‘Aglow International’ and Others
The same goes with Aglow International. Its international advisors include prominent “apostles” and “prophets” like Che Ahn, Rick Joyner, Cindy Jacobs and Wagner. See the full list here. And Charisma magazine regularly features favorable articles on modern “apostles” and “prophets” (like Wagner and Pierce), which is no surprise given both the editor and publisher’s memberships in the International Coalition of Apostles. Many Christians also would probably be surprised to learn of the involvement in the movement by Dick Eastman (Every Home for Christ).

Of course, many Christians have probably been saved or otherwise blessed through their involvement with these ministries and have no knowledge of the leaders’ involvement with the New Apostolic Reformation. My point in mentioning their membership in the International Coalition of Apostles is not to pick on them or disparage their entire ministries. It’s to show how this movement is expanding its reach — and to show the importance of informing more Christians about this movement so they won’t be misled into its aberrant teachings.

First, I want to be clear that the apostolic-prophetic movement is a huge, worldwide movement made up of many different people and strands of thought. I don’t believe that all Christians who are part of this movement are equally in error.

I define the apostolic-prophetic movement as a charismatic Christian movement that is seeking to restore apostles and prophets in the church. Historically, Protestant Christians have believed that apostles and prophets who give new doctrinal revelation have ceased and that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine.

While the apostolic-prophetic movement is seeking to restore apostles and prophets to the church, not all people in this movement view modern “apostles” and “prophets” in the same way. Many believe that “apostles” are simply gifted, visionary leaders who have a strong, evangelistic calling to a specific geographical region or people group (like church planters) and that “prophets” simply have the New Testament gift of prophecy. My blog isn’t critiquing people who define “apostles” and “prophets” in this way (though I do think the terms can create confusion when not clarified).

But others in the apostolic-prophetic movement believe that “apostles” and “prophets” are giving new doctrinal revelation to the church (new teachings not found in the Bible) and that all Christians must submit to the “apostles” and “prophets” — in fact, the whole world must submit to them. A well-known supporter of these teachings is C. Peter Wagner (pictured here). He calls the apostolic-prophetic movement the “New Apostolic Reformation.” I may also start using this term to clarify which part of the movement my blog is critiquing — the part that shares Wagner’s unorthodox views of apostles and prophets.

I’ve talked about Wagner in past posts, so I won’t go into much detail on him now other than to say that he’s a former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, he’s written many books on the New Apostolic Reformation, and he leads several influential organizations of “apostles” and “prophets” — including the “International Coalition of Apostles” (ICA’s Web site) and the “Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders” (see the ACPE’s “Word of the Lord for 2007”). Some of the well-known “apostles” and “prophets” in these organizations include Chuck Pierce, Cindy Jacobs, John Kelly, Dutch Sheets and Steve Shultz (founder of Elijah Rain magazine and the “Elijah List,” a Web site that e-mails prophecies daily to more than 130,000 subscribers). These people are becoming very influential in the U.S. charismatic movement and are regularly featured in Charisma magazine. See the current issue (pictured here), which has Chuck Pierce and Dutch Sheets shown on the cover.

My blog focuses mostly on Wagner’s circle of “apostles” and “prophets.” I realize that some people in the apostolic-prophetic movement are concerned about Wagner’s teachings and oppose them. But his teachings aren’t on the outer fringes of the movement — as the poster on my blog claimed. They represent a prominent and growing force within the movement.

But, first, I need to point out that Christians should view conversations with dead people with suspicion since the Bible forbids “necromancy” (the practice of communicating with dead people). Deuteronomy 18:10-11 and Isaiah 8:19-20 So, the very premise of Joyner’s book — which records his conversations with several dead Christians — should raise a legitimate question of whether he is guilty of practicing necromancy or not. That issue aside, I will now raise other concerns about the specific content of the conversation Joyner claims he had with the apostle Paul.

I’ll start with some background. Joyner says he is walking through heaven when he runs into Paul seated on a throne. Joyner tells Paul that he is honored to meet him. But Paul tells Joyner that the honor is his since Joyner is one of the soldiers in the “last battle” (the last-days battle between God and Satan). Then Paul confesses to Joyner that he didn’t accomplish all God wanted him to do during his time on earth, saying, “I fell short of all that I was called to do” (see pages 131-133 of Joyner’s book). Paul then adds:

“By the grace of God I was able to finish my course, but I still did not walk in all that I was called to do. I fell short of the highest purposes that I could have walked in. … I had been given so much to understand, and I walked in so little of it” (page 132).

Red Flag 1: Joyner claims Paul confessed that he failed to complete his apostolic ministry.
I think Joyner is really going out on a limb to say that the apostle Paul confessed that he had fallen short of God’s call on his life. The Bible — including Paul’s own writings — gives no indication of this. Quite the opposite, at the end of his ministry Paul wrote: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day” (2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Since the Bible gives no indication that Paul fell short, apparently Joyner expects us to take his word on this — based only on his alleged conversation with Paul.

Red Flag 2: Joyner twists Paul’s words.
Joyner also says that Paul claimed — at the end of his life — to be “the greatest of sinners” (pages 132-133).

Paul did, of course, call himself the chief of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15, but he wasn’t referring to his present status at the end of his life. If one reads that verse in context, it’s clear that Paul was referring to the time before he was saved, when he was guilty of persecuting Christians and blaspheming Christ. Read the context here: 1 Timothy 1:12-16. Yet, Joyner claims that Paul was speaking about the present, not past. Joyner says:

“I was being honest when I wrote near the end of my life that I was the greatest of sinners. I was not saying that I had been the greatest of sinners, but that I was the greatest of sinners then” (page 132).

I don’t understand why Joyner would twist Paul’s words like this — whether he does it intentionally or whether Joyner really doesn’t know how to read the Bible in context.

Red Flag 3: Joyner claims Paul confessed to being prideful.
Joyner claims Paul told him that, as an apostle, he started off being prideful, but grew humble (page 133). Joyner says Paul pointed to his own New Testament writings as evidence of this transition from pride to humility — saying that, at the start of Paul’s ministry, he claimed to be equal to the most eminent apostles, then Paul claimed that he was the least of the apostles, then he claimed to be the least of the saints and then, finally, he claimed to be the greatest of sinners.

But Joyner quotes these four verses out of context. When Paul said he was equal to the most eminent apostles in 2 Corinthians 11:5, he was defending himself against false apostles who were challenging his apostleship. When Paul said he was the least of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:9, he was saying that, apart from God’s grace, he didn’t deserve to be an apostle because of his former role persecuting Christians. When Paul said he was the least of the saints in Ephesians 3:8, he was again acknowledging his former life of persecuting Christians. And when he said he was the greatest of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15, he was referring also to the time before he was saved. Each of these statements was referring to different things. So, Joyner’s claim that Paul was admitting to pride — based on these verses — is off-base.

Not only does Joyner quote these verses out of context, but he also has his biblical timeline wrong. 2 Corinthians was written after 1 Corinthians, which means Paul said he was the least of the apostles before he said he was equal to the eminent apostles — not after — disproving Joyner’s claim that these verses indicate a progression in Paul’s humility.

Red Flag 4: Joyner claims Paul told him that Paul’s teachings aren’t part of the church’s foundation.
Joyner says Paul told him that many Christians are distorting Paul’s letters in the New Testament by misusing his teachings as part of the doctrinal foundation of the church. Only the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) can be used as the doctrinal foundation, according to Joyner, because the Gospels are based directly on the teachings of Christ. Joyner quotes Paul saying, “His [Jesus’] words are the foundation. I have only built upon them by elaborating on His words. The greatest wisdom, and the most powerful truths, are His words, not mine” (page 134).

In Joyner’s vision, Paul does admit that his words are Scripture and are true. But he downplays their authority below that of the Gospels. This is bizarre to me, as Joyner seems to be suggesting that the parts of the Bible written by Paul are less important or authoritative than the Gospels. Yet, there is no biblical basis for this. Paul’s teachings are Scripture, so they are equal to all the Bible’s other teachings. I don’t know why Joyner would want to downplay Paul’s teachings as he does.

Red Flag 5: Joyner claims Paul equates his New Testament writings with Joyner’s writing.
Toward the close of Joyner’s conversation with Paul, Paul tells Joyner, “Even in this conversation I can only confirm what I have already written, but you still have much writing to do” (page 135). First, I want to point out that Paul does much more in Joyner’s vision than simply confirm what Paul already wrote in Scripture. Paul tells Joyner many things outside of Scripture. So this statement isn’t true. Second, Paul seems to equate his New Testament writings with Joyner’s writing of The Final Quest. So, in effect, Paul is putting Joyner’s book on the level of Scripture.

Last Thought
I believe all these red flags should cause Christians to question Joyner’s claim to be a “prophet” and “apostle.”

In the introduction to The Final Quest, Joyner (pictured here) claims that modern prophetic revelations — like the vision contained in his book — can’t be used to establish doctrine (teaching). He says, “We have the Scriptures for that.” The two purposes of modern revelation, according to Joyner, are to reveal God’s will about certain matters and to illuminate doctrine that is taught in the Bible.

Yet — despite what Joyner says — his book contains many doctrines not found in Scripture or that contradict Scripture. In this post, I will look at a few examples of each.

Doctrines Not Found in Scripture
• Christians will be assigned to various levels of heaven. The Christians who served the Lord wholeheartedly, and with the right motives, will dwell in a level closer to Christ’s throne and will enjoy more of His presence, according to Joyner. They also will have more glorious bodies than the less devoted Christians. Those who didn’t serve Christ wholeheartedly will be assigned to the “outer fringes” of heaven for all eternity — far from Christ’s throne and presence. But, first, they will endure a hell-like experience — which lasts for what seems like a lifetime — until they repent of their lack of devotion to Christ. Only then will they be allowed to enjoy the lowest level of heaven. (See chapter 4 of The Final Quest for this teaching.)

Although the Bible does teach that there will be rewards given out in heaven, it doesn’t teach that there are different levels or that some Christians will have more glorious spiritual bodies than others. It also doesn’t teach that some Christians will have to go through a hell-like experience. Instead, the Bible teaches that heaven will be a place of eternal joy and intimacy with Christ for all God’s people. And it teaches that there will be no mourning in heaven because Jesus will wipe every tear from our eyes (Revelation 21:4).

• Last-days Christians must submit to modern-day prophets to have victory in the final battle (pages 58-59). They should be dependent on the prophets like children are dependent on their parents, according to Joyner (page 60).

Yet, the Bible doesn’t teach that Christians must submit to modern-day apostles and prophets. In fact, the apostle Paul warns the Galatian Christians about false teachers who want other Christians to seek after them (Galatians 4:17).

• Christians should frequently interact with angels (page 71).

But nowhere does the Bible teach that angelic encounters are to become common or sought after.

Doctrines That Contradict Scripture
• Joyner teaches that marriages will continue in heaven (page 103), though Jesus taught that there will be no marriage in heaven (Matthew 22:29-30).

• Joyner teaches that Christians — during their earthly lives — can eat the fruit of the Tree of Life that was in the Garden of Eden (pages 35, 41-43), though the Bible teaches that we can’t eat of the Tree of Life until we go to heaven (Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). In fact, after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, God put angelic guards around it to block access to the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:24). Yet, in Joyner’s vision, these angels allow Joyner to eat the tree’s fruit, which, according to Joyner, represents God’s love. Joyner said God told him:

This [fruit] is now your daily bread. It shall never be withheld from you. You may eat as much and as often as you like (page 35).

Seeking access to the Tree of Life — though forbidden by God until heaven — is a recurring doctrine in the apostolic-prophetic movement. I hope to address this teaching more in a future post.

• Joyner’s misinterprets the “parable of 10 virgins” in Matthew 25:1-13 (page 89-91). He says the five foolish virgins are Christians who wasted their lives by living for themselves rather than serving God. So, they are assigned to the lowest level of heaven. But, first, these foolish virgins must go to a place of outer darkness where they gnash their teeth, according to Joyner. (By implication, Joyner also teaches that the foolish virgins won’t be able to take part in the great wedding feast, since, in Matthew 25, the foolish virgins are barred from entering it.)

Yet — despite Joyner’s teaching — Matthew 25 makes it clear that the foolish virgins won’t make it to heaven at all. According to the passage, the five wise virgins are allowed into the wedding feast, and then the door is shut behind them (Matthew 25:10). The five foolish virgins will try to get in, but Jesus tells them, “I do not know you” (Matthew 25:12). So, these foolish virgins are people who don’t belong to Christ because they didn’t trust Him for their salvation.

All God’s people — since they’re all part of the bride of Christ — will take part in the wedding feast. No people in heaven will be left out of this festivity. Nor will any of God’s people “gnash their teeth in outer darkness” — as Joyner teaches — because this is a biblical description for hell. For more on this, see Hampton Keathley’s article, “The Outer Darkness: Heaven’s Suburb or Hell?”

I’m troubled that Joyner — someone who is considered an “apostle” and “prophet” — would be so careless with his handling of Scripture. The Bible warns that church teachers should be able to accurately handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Strange Doctrines
The apostle Paul told Timothy — the leader of the church of Ephesus — to “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines” (1 Timothy 1:3). Paul said these doctrines are based on “myths” and “mere speculation.” I think Paul’s command should be applied to many of Joyner’s doctrines.

There are other strange doctrines in Joyner’s Final Quest, which I plan to look at in future posts.

Many people, including dear friends of mine, reported feeling very edified by The Final Quest when they read it. They appreciated the book’s heavenly perspective on the spiritual battle Christians are fighting on earth. It reminded them of the eternal significance of how we spend our time here on earth and the glorious rewards that await us. It encouraged them to be humble by reminding them that many of the Christians who will be the greatest in heaven will have been regarded as the least on earth. It also stresses the importance of simple devotion to Jesus and of love for others.

Concerns About Joyner’s ‘Final Quest’
I just finished reading The Final Quest and also appreciated these emphases in the book. The book also contains teachings, however, that should concern Christians — teachings that directly contradict the Bible’s teachings. Some of them are especially troubling and, I fear, will hinder many people’s relationships with Christ.

When I spoke with my friends about these teachings, they were surprised and said they didn’t remember them being in the book. This may be the case with other Christians who’ve read The Final Quest, so I wanted to point out, specifically, some of these troubling teachings. I will deal with one of them in this post and continue to address more in future posts.

I will dedicate several posts to Joyner’s teachings because of his influence in the apostolic-prophetic movement and because these teachings are promoted by other leaders in the movement. I’m not trying to pick on Joyner, but believe serious errors in his teaching need to be noticed so Christians won’t be misled by them.

For those of you who’ve read The Final Quest, I encourage you to go back and read the pages I cite so you can see these teachings for yourselves (if you didn’t already notice them). Note: I’m using the 1996 edition published by MorningStar Publications, so the page numbers may vary in later editions.

Joyner’s Troubling Teaching No. 1: He claims the book’s vision is more accurate and important than revelation contained in the Bible.
On the back cover and in the book’s introduction (pages 7-14), Joyner says he received the vision from God in parts — over a period of one year. He goes on to explain that there are “many levels of prophetic revelation.”

Joyner’s ‘Levels of Prophetic Revelation’
The first level of revelation is, what Joyner calls, “prophetic impressions” — these can be very specific and accurate when those who receive them know how to interpret them correctly. However, these lower-level revelations also can be distorted by the recipients’ biases and incorrect understandings, according to Joyner.

The second level of revelation is a “special illumination to our minds” given by the Holy Spirit, according to Joyner. He says this level gives us “greater confidence” in the “importance” and “accuracy” of the revelation. However, this level can “still be influenced by our prejudices, doctrines, etc.,” according to Joyner (page 10). He believes this is the same level of revelation the apostles received when they wrote the New Testament letters. Joyner’s exact words are:

“I believe that this was probably experienced by the apostles as they wrote the New Testament epistles” (page 10).

The third level of revelation is “open visions,” which, according to Joyner, is more accurate than the second level (the level at which the apostles received their revelation recorded in scripture).

The fourth level is a “trance,” which Joyner defines as “like dreaming when you are awake.” This is the level at which Joyner received the vision recorded in his book, according to Joyner. He says:

“The visions contained in this book all began with a dream. Some of it came under a very intense sense of the presence of the Lord, but the overwhelming majority was received in some level of a trance” (page 11).

The crucial thing to notice is that Joyner is claiming that the vision he records in The Final Quest is more accurate and important than revelation contained in the Bible. This should alarm Protestant Christians who believe that the Bible is error-free and the final authority for Christian teachings (doctrines).

Joyner’s Inconsistencies
After listing the different levels of prophetic revelation, Joyner makes two important qualifications. Yet, unfortunately, he contradicts both those qualifications in his book.

His First Qualification
Joyner warns that modern prophetic revelations can’t give new teachings in addition to Scripture. He says:

“I must state emphatically that I do not believe that any kind of prophetic revelation is for he purpose of establishing doctrine. We have the Scriptures for that” (page 12).

He goes on the say that — rather than giving new doctrine — the purposes of prophetic revelation are: (1) to reveal the Lord’s present or future strategic will about certain things; and (2) to illuminate biblical doctrines we have not seen before.

If Joyner truly believes that modern prophetic revelations can’t teach new doctrines, then he should be commended for this. But, unfortunately, he contradicts this statement throughout his book, which gives many new doctrines that can’t be found in the Bible or that directly contradict doctrines taught in the Bible. I will look at these unbiblical doctrines in a future post.

His Second Qualification
Joyner warns that only the Bible is free from error, so he urges his readers to separate the “chaff” from the “wheat” in his written vision. He states:

“Only the Scriptures deserve to be considered infallible” (page 14).

Again, if Joyner truly believes that his vision is subject to error, then he should be commended for this. He should also be commended for teaching that the Bible alone is error-free. But he contradicts these statements by claiming that the level of prophetic revelation recorded in his book is one of the highest and most accurate levels — even higher and more accurate than New Testament scripture. So, Joyner seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Final Thoughts
Toward the end of The Final Quest, Joyner records a conversation he claims to have had with the apostle Paul during his vision. During this conversation, the apostle Paul equates Joyner’s written vision with Paul’s own New Testament scriptures (page 135).

Christians should be alarmed to see Joyner equate his own writing with scripture. Yet, he not only equates his writing with scripture; he actually elevates it above scripture by claiming that his revelation is from a higher level than the New Testament writings.

Given this troubling teaching, I was disturbed to discover that, in 2001, Thomas Nelson (a leading, evangelical Christian publishing house) published Joyner’s The Final Quest and its sequel, The Call, in a one-volume book titled The Vision. Either some editors at Thomas Nelson lack doctrinal discernment, or they were willing to set it aside to make some bucks. Either way, Thomas Nelson bears responsibility for promoting a book with such an unorthodox teaching (and other teachings I will discuss in the future).