Evidence For Intelligent Design Found Throughout Nature

"The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and "tied together." Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate."... This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God." (p. 96)

"...the laws of nature seem to be crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life." (p. 114)

"How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-reproduction capabilities, and coded chemistry?" (p.124)

"Over the centuries, thinkers who have considered the concept of "nothing" have been careful to emphasize that "nothing" is not a kind of "something." Absolute nothingness means no laws, no vacuums, no structures, no physical or mental entities of any kind-and no "symmetries." It has no properties or potentialities. Absolute nothingness cannot produce something given endless time-in fact, there can be no time in absolute nothingness." (p. 170)

Excerpts taken from Antony Flew, There Is a God

Suggesting That Life Arose By Blind Chance Is Absurd

"Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages-but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the smallest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-lettered word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked. He continued:

All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.

Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 690th.

If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time."

Antony Flew, There Is a God, pg. 76-77

Pope Gelasius And Transubstantiation

Was transubstantiation generally believed in the early church? It is interesting to read what Pope Gelasius (492-496 AD) had to say about this matter. But first let’s define the meaning of the doctrine.

Transubstantiation (from Latin trans- across, and substantia substance) is the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearance of bread and wine still remaining. “Substance" means what something is in itself.

The Council of Trent states: “If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, session 13, canon 2).

Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that at consecration the bread and wine no longer remain; they become truly, really and substantially the body and blood of Christ even though the appearance (or “accidents”) remains unchanged. We continue to see bread and wine though they are no longer bread and wine; what we perceive and taste as bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Jesus.

Now let’s see what Pope Gelasius taught. In a treatise De Duabus Naturis against Eutyches and Nestorius (who taught that in the incarnation the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature), Gelasius wrote:

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

Gelasius taught that the sacramental bread and wine are the “image and the similitude” of the body and blood of Christ; the “substance or nature” of the bread and wine remain unchanged – “it does not cease”. Bread remains bread; wine remains wine. Clearly, Pope Gelasius contradicted the idea of transubstantiation.

How do Catholic apologists react to this? One Catholic writer argues that “Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance [accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine.” (Kenneth Henderson)

Did Pope Gelasius really mean “appearance” when he wrote about “substance” and “nature”? Was the pope ignorant of the meaning of the very terms used in the Nicene Creed (325AD) and the Definition of Chalcedon (451AD) to describe who Jesus actually is?

There is a very simple reason why Gelasius did not mean “appearance”. Remember he is using the Eucharist as an analogy for the Incarnation, namely that “Christ’s humanity remains alongside His divinity.” Now if by “substance or nature” he meant that only the appearance of bread and wine remains, it follows that Christ merely appeared human but in fact he was not! That is the very heresy he was refuting!

No, rather, Gelasius rightly believed that the distinction of divine and human natures of Christ are “in no way annulled by the union” (Council of Chalcedon). Jesus is truly God and truly man! The Eucharist illustrates this great truth, for, just as the substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged despite its union with divinity.

Pope Gelasius did not try to prove that the bread and wine remain unchanged. He could take it for granted that his readers at the close of the fifth century believed that the substance of the eucharistic elements do not cease. The novel idea of transubstantiation was developed and adopted much later in the history of the Catholic church.

© Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi | Duplication and free distribution is encouraged | www.justforcatholics.org

The Evolution Of Charismatic "Tongues Speaking"

"...Every biblical example of angelic encounters with humans of any nationality shows the angel speaking in speaking in the language of of the person/people he was sent to (cf. Gen. 16:9; 22:11; Num. 22:32; Judg. 13:3). Revelation 14:6 speaks of an angel flying in the mid-heavens proclaiming the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, and tongue. The only tangential referent is found in the pseudepigraphic book titled "Testament of Job" which mentions Job's three daughters chanting in the "dialect of cherubim."29 Some date this book around the time of the writing of First Corinthians and Paul never gives credence to this novel writing and in fact warns against getting caught up in Jewish fables in Titus 1:14. For anyone to claim that they speak with the "tongues of angels" is simply without any biblical support and must be regarded as spurious. Naturally, this brings into question the alleged ability to translate an angelic tongue. How would anyone know if the translation is correct? We have no angelic lexicons, grammars, or dictionaries. For someone to claim they have the supernatural gift to translate angelic tongues is equally spurious.

Furthermore, the manifestation not only changed from an unknown language to an angelic language but the reason for the gift changed. Initially, Pentecostalism saw the restoration of this gift as a means to evangelize the world supernaturally and quickly. Due to the various well-publicized failures on the missionary field, the manifestation shifted from missionary work to the individual's personal prayer life. After WWII America experienced a "Healing Revival" with various Pentecostal tent-revivalists.30 This revival marks the explosion of Pentecostal practices (primarily tongues, prophecy, healing, and deliverance from demons) into non-Pentecostal denominations referred to as the "Charismatic Renewal" movement.31

The use of the gift changed from a supernatural missionary tool into a private (me and Jesus) language. It changed from being seen as a missionary gift for ministers to something that all believers can posses and should practice. Tongues went from having to be translated in public ministry today where entire groups of people all speak in tongues at the same time with no translation expected.

The only "restoration" of these gifts back into the Church is through outright heretical teachers (Montanus and his disciples) and later questionable fringe sects (Camisards, Shaking Quakers, Holiness groups) or other non-Christian cult groups.37 The Shakers were America's first non-Christian Pentecostals and since their advent other non-Christian Bible-based cults practice speaking in tongues as part of their piety including the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Unification Church of the Holy Spirit (Moonies), the Way International, snake handling groups to cite a few."

Rev. R. Liichow, Comparing and Contrasting the Various Concepts of "Tongues" Historically, p. 8-10

The Fatal Flaw Of The Charismatic Movement And Speaking In Tongues

• Discussion:

          -Consider this excerpt from a pamphlet titled "Comparing and Contrasting the Various Concepts of Tongues Historically," by Rev. Robert Liichow, page 2:

         "The ability to manifest ecstatic speech is not limited to the Christian Church or even the early church. Anthropologists have found many examples of religious groups who practice "tongues". The East Greenland Eskimo use a spirit language through their shamans. The Quillacinga and Pasto Indians also express "unintelligible words" in their services. We have possibly the earliest account of ecstatic speech approximately 1,100 years before the Day of Pentecost in Egypt. Dr. Wayne House has shown a historical practice of speaking in tongues in Phrygia by followers of the Cybele-Attis cult as well as the cult of Apollo prior to the birth of the church. Biblical scholar Gerald Hovenden demonstrates that "the existence of glossolalia in pagan world in ancient time itself cannot be denied." He shows that glossolalia phenomenon appeared prior to the New Testament period in the Mari Document (around 2000-1500 BCE), Wen Amon (1100 BCE), the Homeric to Delian Apollo (700 BCE), Cassandra, and etc."

          The speaking in tongues that we are witnessing today in the charismatic movement is not from God. The tongues spoken of in the New Testament were simply human languages that the speaker acquired by supernatural means. They were actually intelligible and understandable to other people. To attribute the human experiences oftentimes found within the charismatic movement to the Holy Spirit is nothing short of blasphemy. Genuine New Testament tongues served a distinct purpose and functioned as a miraculous sign to communicate God's message to people of diverse linguistic backgrounds. They authenticated the divine origin of the gospel and demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit in a manner that was both clear and convincing.

          The various sign gifts utilized by the church in the first century were to be used in serving God, not self-gratification. Speaking in tongues was a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22). We no longer need sign gifts because we now have the New Testament. The gospel has sufficient power to bring about the conversion of souls (John 20:30-31; Romans 1:16). The completion of the New Testament canon marked the end of the need for these miraculous sign gifts, as the written Word now serves as the full and final revelation of God's will. In essence, the Scriptures provide all the guidance, wisdom, and authority necessary for the faith and practice of believers. This makes the continued pursuit of sign gifts unnecessary and even misleading.

Does Isaiah 53 Teach Penal Substitution?

        "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. " (Isaiah 53:4-6)

         This text states in cause-and-effect manner that man's sin brought about Christ's suffering. It contains substitutionary language, with Him bearing the consequences of our actions instead of us being dealt with by God for them. He was offered up in the same manner as an unblemished lamb for our sins (1 Peter 1:18-19). His innocent blood was shed on our behalf (1 Peter 3:18). Our sins are forgiven by His wounds, not our own merit (1 Peter 2:24). The Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:7-8 alludes to the humility and humanity of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53:7). The idea of vicarious atonement finds its basis in the sacrifices performed under the Mosaic Law:

         "When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." (Leviticus 16:20-22)

         Animals paid the price for the sins of the people with their own lives. Similarly, Jesus Christ gave up His life in bearing the penalty for our actions. The animals did nothing to deserve their fate. Thus, they served as an innocent substitute in the place of the offerers. Similarly, Christ did not deserve to die but suffered in our place anyway. Though animal sacrifices temporarily held off the judgment of God, the Levitical sacrificial system pointed to the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-2). He has the power to spare us from eternal condemnation. Richard L. Mayhue provides this helpful synopsis of Isaiah 53 emphasizing the substitutionary elements contained therein:

         "1. v. 4 - "our griefs He...bore" 2. v. 4 - "our sorrows He carried" 3. v. 5 - "He was pierced... for our transgressions" 4. v. 5 - "He was crushed for our iniquities" 5. v.5 - "by His scourging we are healed" 6. v. 6 - "caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" 7. v. 8 - "He was cut off...for the transgression of my people" 8. v. 11 - "He will bear their iniquities" 9. v. 12 - "He Himself bore the sin of many"

         The people who betrayed Christ and had Him executed thought that He was receiving due punishment for His own crimes. They thought God was exacting justice on Him, even though He was really suffering for the sins of those wounding Him. Jesus was treated unjustly by the Jews for their own benefit, even though they did not realize it. He allowed Himself to undergo undeserved pain in order that we not receive due punishment for our own sins against God. While contrary to human expectations, matters went exactly as God intended them to be. The suffering of this humble Servant is a foundational part of God's plan.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:5:

         "tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause. tn Heb “the punishment of our peace [was] on him.” שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) is here a genitive of result, i.e., “punishment that resulted in our peace.”sn Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here."

         It was because of things we did that Jesus Christ suffered. Our own actions resulted in Him bearing the weight of our sins and their penalty. He did this with the intent of restoring us back to a proper relationship with God. Christ died a criminal's death in order that enmity between man and God be resolved. This hostility does not originate from God to us, but us to God. Human nature has a bent of rejecting Him, which accounts for the Jews rejecting their own Messiah.

         The New English Translation has this footnote on Isaiah 53:6:

         "tn Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack."

         In Isaiah 53:6-7, the imagery of sheep is deployed with a contrasting effect. We are likened to sheep that have strayed from their shepherd. We have stepped out of line and merited for ourselves condemnation by God. The imagery of sheep in this case stresses our rebelliousness to His commandments. Jesus Christ is likened to a sheep that is totally obedient to its master. He obeyed the will of God in every jot and tittle. He was obedient even to the point of death. The imagery of sheep in this case emphasizes the humility and gentleness of Christ.

How Catholic Apologists Deal With The Thief On The Cross

• Discussion:

          -Catholic Nick wrote an article in an attempt to rebut the common citation of Luke 23:39-43 as a proof text for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The author briefly comments on the potential faith background of the thief, grasps at straws by saying that nowhere is personal faith brought up, and other issues. Following are excerpts from Nick along with a critique of his assertions:

          "We don’t know his faith background, e.g., if he was ever baptized in the past or if this was his first time meeting Jesus. His prayer “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” shows he had some knowledge of the Gospel, since no such “kingdom” details are given in this passage."

          It is doubtful that the thief would have been baptized if he continued living as a thief, a crime for which he was being punished. By the way, folks who say that the criminal did not need to be baptized due to being under the Old Covenant would simultaneously argue that Nicodemus needed baptism in order to be justified (John 3:5), who was also under the Old Covenant. That is a glaring logical inconsistency.

          "Terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are not used in this passage, so there’s no reason to think ‘faith alone’ is even the focus, just as the Parable of the Pharisee & Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) doesn’t use such terms, but rather highlights the virtue of “humility”.

          What good works did the thief on the cross do for salvation? The words “faith” and “belief” do not need to be specifically mentioned in order for such to be present. Further, the way that the thief spoke to Christ implies that he had faith in what He proclaimed. While the convict did have a penitent heart, all that we see from the context is him placing his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Humility is not a work, but a state of heart.

          As for the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Christ was clearly addressing self-righteous individuals. The tax collector humbly trusted in God for justification, whereas the Pharisee relied on his own efforts to please Him. The first went home justified, whereas the latter was not. This parable is obviously about justification and the forgiveness of God.

          "In fact, we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone."

          God has not prescribed the various things listed by the author as being requirements for getting a right standing with God. Repentance from sin is not a work, but an expression of faith. It presupposes faith and stems from it. Only one whose heart has been changed by the grace of God would exhibit fear of Him. These things are inextricably associated with justification before God, but they do not make up its essence. It appears some sort of a watered-down concept of faith has been attacked.

          "This was a unique situation, it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits. For example, Jesus had not yet Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so Dismas probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t even given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of ‘not needing baptism’ is kind of moot."

          The "norm" that we observe in the New Testament is people believing on the gospel before getting baptized. In fact, there are over one hundred instances of the word faith being used in the New Testament, and none of them bring up the doing of good works to earn a right standing before God.

            "Plus, can we take this one example as an excuse to ‘not really have to’ obey the many teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, including getting baptized, gathering to worship with others, being subject to your pastor, sharing our possessions, etc?"

           This is a complete misrepresentation of the position that the author attempts to prove to be wrong. Obedience to God is done out of love for Him and gratitude for His atonement sacrifice for us. The heart of a saved person is transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Biblical Showstopper For Catholic Eucharistic Theology

Introduction:

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that during the mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This transformation is said to occur under the appearance of bread and wine, while their substance becomes Christ Himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity. While this belief is central to Catholic worship, it faces serious theological challenges when examined in light of Scripture, particularly Acts 17:24–31.

In this passage, the Apostle Paul addresses the philosophers of Athens with a sweeping declaration of God’s transcendence, self-sufficiency, and spiritual nature, a declaration that stands in stark contrast to the idea of God being localized or physically consumed through ritual.

God Is Not Contained Or Controlled:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything…” (Acts 17:24–25)

Paul’s words dismantle any theology that suggests God can be summoned, manipulated, or made present through human ritual. The Roman Catholic claim that a priest can consecrate bread and wine into the literal presence of Christ implies that God responds to human action in a way that contradicts Paul’s teaching. If God is not served by human hands, then He is not dependent on liturgical formulas or priestly invocations to manifest Himself.

This passage is not merely a rejection of pagan temple worship. It is a sweeping theological statement about the nature of divine presence. Paul presents a God who is radically independent of human mediation, who “gives everyone life and breath and everything else.” To suggest that God’s presence is triggered by ritual action reverses this relationship, making the creature the initiator of the Creator’s manifestation.

The Divine Nature Is Not Material:

“We ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and imagination.” (Acts 17:29)

This verse challenges the notion that God can be physically present in created elements. Bread and wine are tangible, earthly substances, crafted by human hands and subject to decay. To claim that these elements become the full presence of Christ equates the divine with material form, a concept that the Apostle Paul explicitly rejects.

Roman Catholic theology attempts to resolve this tension through Aristotelian metaphysics, distinguishing between “substance” and “accidents.” Yet this explanation introduces a philosophical framework foreign to Scripture. Paul appeals to the universal intelligibility of God’s nature, not to hidden metaphysical categories that require philosophical decoding. Why should a first-century Jewish audience understand Jesus’ words through a fourth-century Greek lens?

Moreover, Acts 17 presents a God who “commands all people everywhere to repent,” not a God who hides behind appearances. Transubstantiation introduces a kind of sacramental opacity, where what appears to be bread must be believed to be Christ, despite all sensory evidence to the contrary. This stands in tension with Paul’s emphasis on clarity and accessibility in divine revelation.

Symbolism, Not Transformation:

Catholics often cite Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, “This is my body… This is my blood,” as evidence for a literal transformation. However, Jesus frequently used metaphorical language (“I am the door,” “I am the vine”), and He was physically present when He spoke those words. The bread and wine served as symbols of His impending sacrifice, not as transformed substances.

The eucharistic elements do not become Jesus Christ, but an image of Himself. They are only an earthly depiction of the divine. This point is a springboard for a separate objection: if the bread and wine remain materially unchanged, then the act of worship directed toward them becomes indistinguishable from the kind of image-veneration Paul condemns.

Since the bread and wine are still bread and wine in substance, then worshiping them constitutes a form of idolatry. Paul’s warning in Acts 17:29 against thinking “the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” could just as easily be paraphrased: “or bread and wine.” The theological implication is unavoidable: worship directed toward created elements, however well-intentioned, violates the very nature of God’s transcendence.

The Spirit Of Christmas Present

"Good Spirit,' he pursued, as down upon the ground he fell before it:' Your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life.'

The kind hand trembled.'

I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone.'

In his agony, he caught the spectral hand. It sought to free itself, but he was strong in his entreaty, and detained it. The Spirit, stronger yet, repulsed him.

Holding up his hands in a last prayer to have his fate aye reversed, he saw an alteration in the Phantom's hood and dress. It shrunk, collapsed, and dwindled down into a bedpost."

A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens; Stave 4: The Last of the Spirits, pages 10-11

A Biblical Critique Of The New Apostolic Reformation

Defining The Issues:

A powerful and controversial movement has taken root within global Christianity, one that claims to be the vanguard of a new spiritual age. Known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), this movement asserts that God has restored the offices of apostle and prophet to the church in order to bring about the transformation of society and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. Its ideological architect, C. Peter Wagner, envisioned a post-denominational Christianity led by charismatic leaders who receive direct revelation from God and wield spiritual authority over nations, institutions, and cultures.

Though not a formal denomination, the NAR is a sprawling network of independent churches and ministries united by a shared dominionist theology. Its adherents believe that the fall of man resulted in the forfeiture of dominion over the earth, and that Christ’s redemptive work was not merely salvific but also restorative in terms of earthly authority. This theology, often referred to as "Seven Mountain Mandate" teaching, calls for Christians to reclaim control over seven spheres of influence: religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business. The goal is not simply to evangelize but to conquer, not merely to disciple but to dominate.

The movement has gained significant traction in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, regions where rapid church growth has often outpaced theological depth. It has even infiltrated established denominations, such as the Assemblies of God in Australia, blurring the lines between classical Pentecostalism and neo-charismatic innovation. The NAR’s mission extends far beyond preaching the gospel or making disciples; it seeks to establish a global theocracy under the spiritual governance of modern-day apostles and prophets.

Apostolic Authority: A Closed Canon And A Completed Foundation:

The NAR’s central claim, that the offices of apostle and prophet have been restored, is a direct challenge to the historic understanding of ecclesial authority. Scripture teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational to the church, not perpetual offices to be revived at will. Ephesians 2:20 states that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The word “foundation” implies a once-for-all laying down of doctrinal groundwork. Foundations are not repeatedly laid; they are established once to support the superstructure.

In Ephesians 4:11–13, Paul writes that Christ “gave” apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers for the equipping of the saints. The verb tense used here indicates a completed action in the past. The apostles and prophets were given to the early church to establish doctrine and bear witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Their role was unique and unrepeatable. Paul himself, in 1 Corinthians 15:8, refers to himself as the “last” of the apostles, underscoring the finality of the apostolic witness.

Moreover, the qualifications for apostleship are clearly delineated in Scripture. An apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and personally commissioned by Him (Galatians 1:1). Paul’s apostleship was validated by his direct encounter with the risen Lord and by the miraculous signs that accompanied his ministry (2 Corinthians 12:12). No modern claimant to apostleship can meet these criteria. The canon of Scripture is closed, and with it, the apostolic office has ceased.

Prophetic Claims And The Test Of Scripture:

The NAR’s prophetic wing is equally problematic. Its prophets claim to receive ongoing revelation from God, often in the form of dreams, visions, and impressions. Yet Scripture provides stringent tests for prophetic authenticity. Deuteronomy 18:22 declares that if a prophet’s word does not come to pass, it is not from the Lord. The standard is 100% accuracy. Even a single failed prophecy disqualifies the prophet. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 13 warns that even if a sign or wonder accompanies a prophecy, if the message leads people away from the true God, it is to be rejected. The content of the message must align with revealed truth. Isaiah 8:20 affirms that if a prophet does not speak according to God’s Word, there is no light in him.

The New Testament also urges discernment. Paul commands believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and the Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teaching (Acts 17:11). The NAR, by contrast, often discourages scrutiny, promoting a culture of spiritual elitism in which apostles and prophets are above question. This authoritarianism is antithetical to the New Testament model of mutual accountability and doctrinal fidelity. Isaiah 8:20 affirms that if a prophet does not speak according to God’s Word, there is no light in him. The NAR’s prophets often issue vague, ambiguous, or failed predictions, and their teachings frequently deviate from biblical doctrine, emphasizing personal empowerment, political conquest, and mystical experiences over repentance, faith, and holiness.

The Old Testament provides further criteria for evaluating prophetic legitimacy, and these criteria are devastating to the claims of the NAR. First, if a prophetic utterance fails to come to pass, the prophet is false—regardless of charisma, sincerity, or accompanying signs. Second, if the content of the prophecy contradicts previously revealed truth, it is to be rejected outright, even if the prophet performs miracles. In the context of Deuteronomy, this included leading Israel to worship other gods, but the principle applies broadly: any deviation from God’s Word is a disqualifier. Third, the moral character of the prophet must be consistent with the office. A true prophet is marked by humility, integrity, and reverence for God, not self-promotion or manipulation. Finally, the message of a true prophet exalts God, not the prophet. False prophets draw attention to themselves, demand allegiance, and often build personal empires. These biblical standards expose the spiritual bankruptcy of the NAR’s prophetic movement. There are no well-documented, verifiable prophecies or miracles that validate their ministries. Their utterances are often vague, subject to reinterpretation, and devoid of theological substance. If Scripture is already the complete revelation of God, then the need for new prophets and apostles is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. 

The Kingdom of God Is Not Of This World:

Perhaps the most egregious error of the NAR is its redefinition of the kingdom of God. Jesus declared unequivocally, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). This statement affirms that Christ’s reign is spiritual, not political. The kingdom is not built through legislation, cultural dominance, or institutional control. It is manifested in the hearts of believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Luke 17:20–21).

The NAR’s dominionist agenda conflates the church’s mission with political activism and cultural conquest. But the Great Commission is not a mandate to seize power; it is a call to make disciples of all nations through the proclamation of the gospel (Matthew 28:18–20). The early church did not transform the Roman Empire through legislation or revolution but through suffering, witness, and love. The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4).

The mission of the church is not to bring heaven to earth through human effort but to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection, as the only hope for salvation. The kingdom of God advances not through coercion but through conversion. It is the Spirit who regenerates hearts, not apostles who legislate morality.

Scripture Alone Is The Final Authority

The sufficiency of Scripture is a bedrock doctrine of the Christian faith. Paul writes that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). This affirms the divine origin and authority of Scripture. It is not merely inspired; it is the very voice of God. To claim ongoing revelation is to imply that Scripture is insufficient, that God’s Word needs supplementation by fallible human impressions.

The NAR’s embrace of the Passion Translation, a paraphrase riddled with theological bias and lacking scholarly rigor, is emblematic of its disregard for biblical fidelity. By altering the text to fit its agenda, the movement undermines the clarity, authority, and trustworthiness of Scripture. This is not reformation; it is deformation.

A Call To Discernment:

The New Apostolic Reformation is not a harmless renewal movement. It is a theological Trojan horse, smuggling in doctrines and practices that erode the foundations of biblical Christianity. It redefines apostolic authority, distorts the nature of prophecy, politicizes the mission of the church, and undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. Its influence is growing, particularly in the Global South, where explosive church growth is often accompanied by shallow theology and susceptibility to charismatic authoritarianism.

The church must respond with clarity and courage. We must recover a robust doctrine of Scripture, a biblical understanding of the church, and a Christ-centered vision of the kingdom. We must test every spirit, examine every teaching, and hold fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The gospel is not a call to cultural conquest but to spiritual transformation. Christ alone is King, and His Word alone is our final authority.