Editorial Note: Recently I received an email from a subscriber who was asking me for answers to some questions he had concerning some troubling issues related to the nascent apostolic renewal. It was not until I was finishing the last paragraph of my response that I heard the Spirit tell me that I needed to post my answer, because it would also help others who have had similar thoughts and questions. Just bear in mind as you read my response, that this is not intended to be a theological treatise or comprehensive exposition on the matter of the apostolic or even this aspect of it, but rather I offer it to you as just one tiny little patch of the quilt the Spirit is weaving on the matter at this time in the Church…”line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here, a little there.”

Question: I hear a lot concerning “apostolic authority.” What does apostolic authority mean? I have known apostles who march into churches and tell the pastor he has to submit to them because of apostolic authority or they will ask the pastor, who is your apostle? Does the apostle have authority over the pastor in the local church? Help!!

Reply:
I will try to give you a relatively succinct answer to a rather complex matter, without fleshing it out much. I will answer the first question in what follows. The last question, which is the essence of what you are asking, I will answer directly first: No, an apostle does not have authority over the leadership of local churches of which he is not a part and is not esteemed as the “set man” of that assembly merely by virtue of some perceived “authority” inherent in the title of “Apostle.” Indeed, a true God-anointed, God-appointed, Spirit-trained apostle would never even THINK of such a thing.

Unfortunately, the kind of attitudes you describe represent what “Apostolic Authority” means to many misinformed and misguided people. A major problem in dealing with the matter of local church government, on the backdrop of the renewed awareness concerning Fivefold Ministry and the restoration of the Apostolic and Prophetic offices, in particular, is that while they are related, they are not the same, and the terminology we have been using regarding ministry offices or positions in the church has been contrary to Scripture.

Namely, in the last hundred years or so, predominantly, the Church has been using the term “Pastor” to refer to the chief or top leader in the local church, despite the fact that government, i.e., “ruling,” is not included in the office of the pastor, per se, as delineated in Scripture. The Bible is clear that “elders…rule” (1 Tim. 5:17, et al.). The local church is to be governed by a presbytery of elders (plural). However, here again most local churches have had that wrong as well, as to who elders are, especially denominational churches. According to the preponderance of Scripture, the eldership of a local church should be comprised of those who God has appointed to Fivefold Ministry Offices (Eph. 4:11), which appointment is attested by the anointing (spiritual gifting) inherent in those offices. And, among the Fivefold Ministry Office, those functioning in the apostolic, prophetic, and teaching should be regarded as preeminent in the government of the church (1 Cor. 12:28).

This picture becomes clear when the entire mosaic of Scripture is put together rightly (“rightly dividing the Word of Truth” [2 Tim. 2:15]), which is too complex and expansive of a matter for us to deal with here, but I will offer the following. Jesus chose Twelve of His disciples, and appointed (named) them “Apostles” (Mat. 10:1-5). These Apostles of the Lamb were His chief delegates, surrogates, or representatives in the Early Church following Jesus’ ascension. This set the precedent of Apostolic Appointment.

Additionally, 1 Cor. 12:28 clearly states the order of preeminence of ministerial authority and government in the local church: “And God as set in the CHURCH, FIRST Apostles, SECOND Prophets, THIRD teachers….” Notice that the pastoral office is not mentioned in this verse, per se. In fact the word “pastor” (poimen) only occurs once in the entire N.T., which is in Ephesians 4:11. So, using Scripture as the sole precedent and paradigm (and this order is clearly further corroborated throughout the N.T.), the office of apostle is unequivocally the preeminent ministry office, functionally speaking, with prophets and teachers respectively following next in succession. The Greek word in this verse translated “first” is the word “proton,” which connotes, first in time, first in order, first in rank, first in function, first in priority. (Now, while I fully realize that such teaching is controversial to those unfamiliar with it, exegetical development of these concepts is simply beyond the parameters of this article. Though, they are developed in several of my books and will be addressed further in forthcoming books.)

Now, the problem is, since the church fell into apostasy in the third and fourth centuries, it has not been recognizing these offices, and erroneous cessation theories purporting that the apostolic and prophetic offices ceased with the death of the Apostles of the Lamb have been prevalent, especially in mainline denominational doctrine. And then, somewhere along the line, primarily, as I said, within the last hundred years or so, local churches began calling the chief minister “the pastor,” even though that office, according to Scripture, does not entail government, per se.

But, the Scriptural pattern is that there is a “set man” (Num. 27:15-23) whom God recognizes and has appointed as the chief leader or elder in a local church. Functionally, this person is actually a “local apostle,” according to the Scriptural pattern, and should possess and demonstrate the giftings or anointing of an apostle, which are the entire range of the Fivefold Ministry offices. This man is esteemed by the other elders as a “chief among equals,” as was Peter among the Twelve, as was James in the Jerusalem Church and as the presiding elder at the Jerusalem Council (Ac. 15), as was John over the churches of Asia Minor in the latter part of his ministry, and as was Paul over the churches he founded, or to whom he became the spiritual father, for example.

However, “Apostolic Authority” is intrinsically parochial; that is to say, limited, to the particular local church(es) where God has established the apostle relationally—usually churches which they have had a part in founding, or existing churches that voluntarily have placed themselves under the leadership of an apostle who has become a “spiritual father” to those people and its leadership. Thus, “Apostolic Authority” is decidedly not some sort of automatic universal authority inuring to an apostle by virtue of the title of apostle. Morever, legitimate “Apostolic Authority” is never organizational, but rather is always relational. And it is vital to remember that all relationships among Fivefold Ministers are horizontal, not vertical. All Fivefold Ministers are peers with different functions, giftings, anointings, and callings. None is more important than another, or superior or inferior to another.

The church is the family extended and the family is the church in miniscule; thus, the principles of governance are the same for both (cf, Eph. 5:22-33). The family has ONE head — the husband/father (male). While a man is the husband/father of his OWN HOUSEHOLD, his authority is limited to that one household; his title/office of husband/father does not mean that he is the husband/father of any other household, and indeed he would be a trespasser and unlawful intruder if he tried to assert his husband/father authority over any other household. In fact, God’s Word expressly addressed that scenario through the writings of the Apostle Paul, dealing with the unlawful actions of deceived deceivers who were attempting to do that very thing in the Early Church:

For among them are those who worm their way into homes {households, NAS} and captivate silly and weak-natured and spiritually-dwarfed women, loaded down with [the burden of their] sins, [and easily] swayed and led away by various evil desires and seductive impulses. (2 Tim. 3:6; AB)

So, in the circumstance today in the local churches, regardless of what term is used to refer to him, the local church has a “set man” who presides as the chief leader, rightly so, because he has been so anointed and “set in” to that place of authority by God. Government and leadership of the local church is not a matter of titles, ascendancy, and authority, but of function, servitude, and esteem.

When multiple Fivefold ministers are laboring together to provide pilotage (leadership) to a local church, the proper Spirit-inspired attitude should be to regard one another as co-equals ministerially and functionally, though there is one among them who is esteemed as being the “leader of the leaders,” a la James in Jerusalem. Their goal as leaders should be to ascertain the “consensus of the Spirit”; in other words, to reach unanimity based on what the Spirit is speaking to them individually yet collectively. “It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit….” “WE have the mind of Christ.” Christ reveals His full “mind,” counsel, to a plurality of elders, not a solitary leader. The notion that God speaks the entire vision and direction for a church to a single “vision-holder” is nonsense, unbiblical, and the height of hubris. I wouldn’t follow someone across the street who said he had no need for the counsel and consensus of other leaders. Apostleship is anything but autocracy.

Governmental AUTHORITY is limited to the role of leadership of the local church, and is not personal authority (i.e., authority over people), but authority to provide spiritual impartation as well as “pilotage” to the church and its affairs. Beyond the local church, there is no “authority” among ministers — Jesus told the apostles they were “all on the same level as brothers” (Mat. 23:8, LB), meaning they were co-equals. Thus, there is no ascending authority structure, or rank system, or “chain-of-command” among Fivefold Ministers, that is to say, no one of the ministry offices has authority or ascendancy over another, as purported by the erroneous concept of “positional authority.”) In other words, the premise is not that apostles are over prophets, prophets over evangelists, and so on, as if there were “rank” inherent in the the Fivefold Ministry Offices. That’s just not the way it works.

Though, clearly, as mentioned earlier, there is a preeminence among the Fivefold Ministry Gifts in terms of FUNCTION and ROLE — its governmental role, in particular. Governmentally and functionally speaking, the apostolic function is first, or preeminent, followed by the prophetic, and then the teaching function (1 Cor. 12:28). Among those functioning in the Fivefold Ministry offices, there is to be no envy, competition, or jockeying for position, but a faithful and willing subjection to the Scripturally-revealed Kingdom order. The commanders of God’s Army understand authority, march in line, do not deviate from their assigned lanes of function, and do not break ranks (Joel 2:7,8).

Nevertheless, there is, however, a deference, among Fivefold Ministers that is based entirely on earned ESTEEM, not any perceived or ostensible “authority.” Such esteem and deference toward proven and attested senior ministers, wherein believers, including ministers, esteem highly certain other ministers for the spiritual giftings, wisdom, leadership acumen, they demonstrate, is proper, appropriate, and Scriptural:

“But we request of you brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction (lit., admonition, warning, correction) and that you ESTEEM THEM HIGHLY IN LOVE because of their work.”

I hope this helps somewhat to answer your questions.

[Original Post Date on Real Truth Digest E-zine: 10/08/2003]

———————-

ATTENTION, ATTENTION! CALLING ALL PROPHETIC PEOPLE!

International College of Prophetic Studies

Are you a prophetic person who realizes the need to be better equipped, trained, developed, and mentored in your prophetic gifting? If so, there is good news!

Dr. Steven Lambert, noted veteran prophet, prophetic author and mentor, has developed the International College of Prophetic Studies under the auspices of Christian Bible Institute & Seminary. The college exists as a resource to assist prophetic people in developing the prophetic giftings bestowed upon them by God, enabling them to attain unto their ultimate destiny in the Spirit. The ICPS offers a highly specialized certificate program whose curriculum consists of courses focusing on the prophetic gifts and office and related topics, in relation to the other Fivefold Ministry Offices and their proper place of function in the Church Jesus is Building.

Students will be guided through a program that combines both Biblical studies and personalized mentoring designed to enhance and expand their understanding regarding the foundational Fivefold Ministry functions and how to be achieve optimal effectiveness in their prophetic ministry.

The program is a stand-alone program that does not require enrollment in degree programs, however, credits earned through the program may be applied toward a CBI&S bachelors or masters degree. CBI&S is an accredited ecclesiastical Bible college, thus, credits earned are transferable to most Bible colleges.

Obtain the affirmation and creditation you need to function effectively in your prophetic calling by enrolling in this five-star accredited program today!

Remember, the proof of genuine desire is pursuit!

CLICK HERE for more information about the program.

In the 1980s a spiritually perilous trend began developing in the Neo-Pentecostal realm, which was the human appointments of certain leaders into the supposed office of “bishop.” This vogue has become especially popular and common in an increasing number of so-called Neo-Pentecostal “networks” that have emerged since the 80s, comprised of affiliated though purportedly autonomous churches. One prominent Neo-Pentecostal organization has formed what they call “The International College of Bishops,” comprised of certain leaders of networks upon whom they have conferred this faux title.

This trend has developed despite the irrefutable fact that no such office or “position” is established anywhere in Holy Writ (The Bible), but rather in fact is undeniably antithetical to the governmental offices God has established in His Word. In other words, there simply is no such an office established anywhere in Scripture.

So what’s the problem? In a nutshell, the problem is that this is precisely the path that the Early Church followed under the influence of the doctrines and deeds of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus Himself specifically stated He hated and for which He rebuked the Church for tolerating and espousing, which ultimately led to the utter spiritual apostasy and decimation of the Dark Ages, from which it is still in the process of recovery. Follow along with me as I develop this premise and proffer what I believe to be a prophetic admonition from God to the Church to desist from this practice.

Applying the Berean Principle:
“Examining the Scripture…to see if these things be so”

The Greek word translated in the King James Version (KJV) as “bishop” is the word “episkopos,” which literally means “overseer.” This word, as it is used in the original contexts, bears no thought of an “office,” or position of authority, or echelon of rank in the Church. Rather, it speaks only of the function of ministry in which everyone anointed and appointed by the Lord to Fivefold ministry within the New Testament Church operates. In fact, the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “shepherd” are all synonymous terms referring to the same offices of spiritual function, which are the Fivefold Ministry offices. If to some the KJV appears to be referring to an “office” or “position” of “bishop,” the reason, it is vital to understand, is that the cadre of translators appointed by King James in the Medieval Era to the task of developing an English translation of canonized Scripture, finally completed in 1611, were working from the mental backdrop of ecclesiastical concepts founded in the Dark Ages, and ecclesiastical structure in place at the time in the Roman Church included such positions.

However, the fact that the intention of the Holy Spirit and the original writers in the usage of the word “overseer” in the original letters was to refer, not to a position of authority, but rather to ministry function, and the fact that the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “shepherd” are all synonymous terms referring to the function of those appointed by the Lord to Fivefold Ministry is abundantly evident in two particular passages of Scripture. The first is in the Twentieth Chapter of the Book of Acts, beginning with verse 17, in which the Apostle Paul has called together “the ELDERS of the church” at Ephesus, which he had founded, and over which he had apostolic oversight, and admonished them, “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS, to SHEPHERD the church of God…” (v. 28). Here we see the three terms of elders, over­seers, and shepherd being attributed to the same individuals, the latter two of which, overseers and shepherds, spoke explicitly of their function in the capacity as the first, elders.

The second proof text is the first three verses of First Peter, Chapter 5, in which Peter as an apostle (an elder who has oversight over other elders by virtue of esteem) addresses the elders of the various churches with this exhortation: “Therefore I exhort the ELDERS among you, as your fellow elder…SHEPHERD the flock of God among you, exercising OVERSIGHT….” Again, the same three terms are mentioned here, attributing the functions of shepherding and oversight to the elders collectively.

Hence, we see from these two passages that what the Holy Spirit is communicating through this usage of the word “episkopos” is that all elders have two primary functions: to shepherd the flock of God, and to provide spiritual oversight (look after the spiritual well-being) of the flock allotted to their charge by the Holy Spirit. It is referring to the function of Fivefold Ministers (who, incidentally, are all Shepherds, not just the pastors), rather than establishing an authoritarian position of ascendancy and domination over fellow believers as so commonly but wrongly purported by so many today. In fact, the third verse of the previously mentioned passage, while specifically instructing the elders to shepherd the flock of God, exercising spiritual oversight, explicitly enjoined them against “LORDING IT OVER those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”

Thus, to summarize the point, when someone takes upon himself, or has conferred upon him, this purported title of “bishop,” he is engaging in modern-day Nicolaitanism, the deeds and doctrines Jesus explicitly stated He “hated.” He is perpetrating a patently ungodly and unscriptural form of predomination over fellows that certainly is not reflective of the model of servanthood ministers are called to demonstrate as representatives of the Ultimate Servant and Chief Shepherd, and now Lord, Jesus Christ.

The Church Jesus is Building is Founded Upon Apostolic Authority

The Church that Jesus is building is founded upon APOSTOLIC authority. There is no authority or offices in the Church of which Jesus is the Head higher than or transcendent over apostolic authority.

In His now infamous dissertation to Peter and the other Apostles of the Lamb, Jesus declared the Church to be His very own possession, His consuming passion, and that He Himself was its Chief architect and builder, when He proclaimed, “I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Mat. 16:18). When contemplating this statement, it is imperative to remember that when Jesus said He would build His Church, He meant He would build His Church through, foremostly, the foundation ministries of apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20).

Prior to His ascension, Jesus personally selected twelve “disciples” who merely by His appointment and anointing became “apostles” (Mat. 10:1,2), and relegated to them the task and function of being the chief surrogate builders of His Church. This established the apostolic precedent for the ultimate superintendence of the Church. This apostolic precedent Jesus set and which He has never since rescinded, remains in effect throughout the Church Age. 1 Cor. 12:28 makes this abundantly clear, in that it explicitly states that “God has SET in the CHURCH, first apostles, second prophets,” which means that apostles and prophets are permanently set into Church for as long as the Church exists and remains here upon the Earth, or in other words, for the duration of the Church Age. The term “set” in this passage, it is important to understand, connotes permanence, in the way the term is used to refer to what happens with concrete as it dries—it becomes set. (Further discussion concerning the office of apostles and their role in the Church is contained in the book on which this article is based, Charismatic Captivation.)

The Church is established upon “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19,20). Truth declares unequivocally that the Church Jesus is building is founded upon and will be built up through apostolic authority. The true Church of Jesus can never be established upon any form of government other than apostolic authority. The Church-Age began with apostolic authority in place, and apostolic authority will be in place at its culmination. Moreover, it will only be when the Church returns to apostolic authority and foundation that genuinely significant spiritual advancements will be made.

Similarity of Nicolaitan and Discipleship Heresies

The natural nemesis of that apostolic authority has always been, and will always be humanly-contrived and -appointed, politically-based, hierarchical systems of ecclesiastical government. Supplanting of the apostolic authority or government established by Jesus was a primary factor precipitating the Church’s gradual descent into the throes of deception and apostasy that transpired in the Dark Ages. Abrogation of apostolic authority in favor of politico-ecclesio hierarchy led to the virtual debacle of the Church as the instrument for implementation of Divine purpose, reducing it instead to being an agent of demonically-inspired humanistic purposes. No other single element was more causal to the deterioration of the Church during its corporate apostasy than this supplanting of apostolic authority. The heretical Nicolaitan strategy to “conquer the laity” as their name implies, was the chief element precipitating the corporate apostasy of the Early Church.

This modern trend of human appointment of men to the humanly contrived office of bishop began on the heels of the demonically-inspired Discipleship/Shepherding movement that emerged in the early 1970s. When you cut through all the rhetoric and faulty apologetics proffered by their proponents, the hyper-authoritarian teachings and practices promulgated via that movement, along with its coupe de grace of “bishops,” are virtually identical to the doctrines and deeds of the Nicolaitans who emerged in the first century, and whose influence eventually led to the emergence of an apostate “universal church.” These hyper-authoritarian doctrines and deeds of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus said He hated, eventually led to a hierarchical system of church government comprised of priests, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, and so forth, under the ultimate authority of the Pope.

Indeed, what is imperative to understand about this issue is that it is an indisputable fact that the Nicolaitan heresy was the primary force leading to the supplanting of apostolic authority in the Early Church, which in turn ultimately led to the corporate ecclesiastical apostasy of the Dark Ages. So also the heretical Discipleship/Shepherding teachings advocate a counterfeit authority system that in effect supplants apostolic authority. The similarity is just too striking to be merely ironic or coincidental. Rather, it is my confident conviction that the Nicolaitan doctrines were planted by Satan in the Early Church to supplant and effect the abrogation of apostolic authority, and in identical fashion the Discipleship/Shepherding doctrines were implanted by Satan in the End-times Church with the express intent to supplant apostolic authority, and impede, or if possible, preclude, the restoration of same. In the case of the latter, however, Satan’s hysterical efforts, in the end, will not be successful, for apostolic authority and anointing will indeed be restored to the Church.

We are told through the writing of Solomon that in reality there is nothing that is truly “new”:

That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new? Already it has existed for ages which were before us. (Ecc. 1:9,10)

And so it also is with the unscriptural hypotheses brought forth in the heretical Discipleship doctrines. They are virtually identical to those promulgated by the Nicolaitans, which, as I have said repeatedly, was the seed from which the fallacious hierarchy of the universal Roman church was germinated.

The reason for the similarity lies squarely in the fact that these doctrines were not merely contrived in the minds of men. Rather, they genuinely are “doctrines of demons” of the sort prophesied by the Apostle Paul in his letter to his younger protégé Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1ff). He foretold that in the last days there would arise patently demonic but subtle and impelling doctrines of deception that would actually be promulgated by lying, deceiving spirits through the agency of human teachers. These false teachings would be so subtle and impelling that many genuine and sincere believers would be duped by and give heed to them, with the result that bona fide believers will fall away from a true relationship and rightstanding with God into apostasy and perdition.

Indeed, this egregiously erroneous Discipleship/Shepherding teaching, I am absolutely persuaded, is a doctrine of this sort. It is contrived by the devil himself and promulgated by his fallen cohorts, demons, with the objective of craftily leading unsuspecting believers into spiritually idolatrous and adulterous covenants with mere men, and away from effectual relationship and rightstanding with God. As I have been establishing, these doctrines and practices are essentially the same age-old attempts by Satan to captivate and control people through the mythical utopian bliss of religious collectivism: promising them freedom while they (Satan and his cohorts) are the slaves of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19, parenthesis added by the author).

Jesus’ Disdain for the Nicolaitan Deeds and Doctrines

Considering the eventual denouement and consequences of the Nicolaitan heresy, it is little wonder why Jesus issued such a terse but severe warning to the Early Apostolic churches through the Apostle John regarding the Nicolaitans in the apocalyptic vision comprising the book of Revelation. It is in His commendation to the church of Ephesus in which Jesus expresses His utter disdain for the premise of such ecclesiastical predomination as that proposed and promulgated by the Nicolaitans: “Yet this you do have, that you hate the DEEDS of the Nicolaitans, WHICH I ALSO HATE” (Rev. 2:6).

Jesus’ commendation of the Ephesians for recognizing the hereticalness of the ungodly teaching and practices of the Nicolaitans, and their consequential resistance and rejection of the false doctrine, is a tribute to the Apostle Paul who founded the church, to Timothy, who Paul personally tutored and sent to be their chief elder, and to all the other Fivefold ministers who contributed toward the spiritual development of the Ephesians. They had been so well taught that they were not deceived by men who came to them claiming falsely to be apostles (Rev. 2:2), and they did not succumb to the demonic doctrines and deeds of the Nicolaitans.

Though the Ephesian church was not taken in by the hypothesizing and attempted hijacking by the Nicolaitans, unfortunately, this was not the case with another of the seven Asia Minor churches explicitly addressed by Jesus in the Revelation communicated through John-the Pergamum church. Jesus sharply condemned the Pergamum church because “some” among them (some of which apparently were among the leadership of the church, else it could not have existed in the church long) had indeed been deceived into accepting and espousing the teaching and practices of the Nicolaitans: “Thus you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching (doctrine) of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15).

The Nicolaitan heresy was not the only deception by which the Pergamum believers had been bewitched, however. For, Jesus also rebuked them because some of their membership also espoused some other form of false teaching leading to some form of idolatry and immorality that the Lord said was akin to the teaching of the prophet Balaam:

But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit acts of immorality. (Rev. 2:14)

(Note: The book on which this article is based, Charismatic Captivation, contains an entire chapter devoted to the history of the Nicolaitans.)

Are We Heading Toward Another Corporate Apostasy?

Jesus’ apocalyptic warning against the doctrine and the deeds of the Nicolaitans is more than just interesting. The truth of the matter is that had the early churches given heed to those Divine warnings, the course of Church history would have been totally different than what it was, because as mentioned before the demonically inspired teaching and practices of the Nicolaitans resulted ultimately in the Papal system that supplanted the apostolic authority upon which the Church was founded. This, indeed, was not only the most grievous and egregious effect of the Nicolaitan heresy, but no doubt also the very objective of the arch-enemy of the Church, Satan, who personally contrived this diabolical deception.

The question before the Church today is: will we allow ourselves to be taken into the error and resulting apostasy that was the fate of the Pergamum Church by continuing on this path of displacement of apostolic authority by a Scripturally-invalid system of government and authority, i.e., bishops and the rest that comes after that, or shall we cease and desist from that trend and opt instead to return to the apostolic-prophetic foundation so that indeed “the glory of the latter house shall be greater than the former?” The Worldwide Universal Church will not cease and desist from that path, but will follow it to the end to in the name of ecumenicism, align all the “religions” of the world under the Roman Papal System. Sadly, the Spirit tells me that huge blocks of even the Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal Church will ultimately depart from the true Church that Jesus is building and ally with the apostate Antichrist universal church, taking multitudes of their adherents with them, in fulfillment of the Spirit’s prediction set forth in First Timothy 4:1,2.

As sad and distressing as that is, the most important question of all to you, the reader, and to every believer is: Which church will you be a part of—the one whose ultimate architect is the arch-enemy of God which will be led by the false prophet in alliance with the AntiChrist, or the End-time Remnant Church that Jesus is building and whose Architect is God?

[Editor's note: This article is adapted from the book, CHARISMATIC CAPTIVATION, by Steven Lambert. The book exposes the widespread problem of authoritarian abuse in Neo-Pentecostal church-groups, and explains how it became infused into the very fabric, foundation, and functions of the Neo-Pentecostal church arising out of a false movement known as the "Discipleship or Shepherding Movement (1970-77)." References to "Discipleship" or "Shepherding" (and variations thereof) doctrines, teachings, proponents and participants, and so forth, allude to those pertinences that arose out of that movement.]