Jonathan Cahn's problematic charismatic associations versus the validity of his book The Harbinger

So now I got a Comment on the Email on the Harbinger post below, taking me to task because of my continuing defense of The Harbinger..  This is a tricky problem.  I continue to believe the main message of the book itself holds up against all the ridiculous criticisms levelled against it by the critics, but at the same time I also have a big problem with Cahn's affiliations with some very extreme charismatics, appearing on their programs to promote the book and so on.   I don't find it easy to resolve these problems. 

Am I wrong to defend the book if Cahn himself does things I can't support?  Should I accept his view of it that he's willing to appear wherever he's welcome in order to promote the book, which he likens to Paul's speaking at Mars Hill?  Well, actually I don't accept that view at all.  I think there is a big difference between what Paul did at Mars Hill and Cahn's appearances with charismatics I myself reject.  Charismatics present themselves as Christians for starters, whereas Mars Hill was clearly pagan.   Some charismatics Cahn has appeared with are so out of line they can't be considered Christian any more, although there are certainly true Christians within the charismatic movement nevertheless.  

I don't know how to resolve all this, but again I'm being attacked for Cahn's appearances on charismatic venues when my main focus has been on defending the book and not Cahn himself.  I continue to believe the critics' attacks on the book are way out of line and that the book's message holds up, AND that Cahn himself does not seem to share in the charismatic excesses of the people he's been associating with. 

But here's the Comment I got and my answer to it:

Anonymous said...
Your defense of Cahn is sickening, especially in your denial of him not being affiliated with the charismatic movement. All you gotta do is YouTube him on heretic Sid Roth's "It's Supernatural" and see he is affiliated with them. Just cause he doesn't "teach" charismania, doesn't make any less in error! Especially when the Bible clearly says we are not to associate with evil doers but rather expose them! I will qoute an excerpt from Elliott Nesch:

"My concerns go deeper than mere charges of “guilty by association.” For instance, on October 24, 2011, Cahn launched his book on the Jim Bakker show. On April 5-8, 2012, Cahn was included with a team of ministers to celebrate Passover with Chuck Pierce, Peter Wagner, Dutch Sheets, Barbara Yoder, David Demian, David Schneier, Judy Jacobs, Kyle Searcy, Paul Keith Davis and Robert Heidler. Dated June 18, 2012, The Jim Bakker show announced, “The prophets are coming – the word is going out! Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, Sid Roth, John Kilpatrick, Rick Joyner, John Shorey, Bobby Conner, Cindy Jacobs.” On September 27, 2012, Cahn appeared on This Is Your Day with Benny Hinn. In a personal e-mail correspondence, I was prompted to ask Cahn if he cautions his congregation against false teachers by name and what his criterion for false teachers is. He responded,
There is distinction between believers who may speak or teach some errors in fact or doctrine, a category that basically includes every believer – And the other category where someone teaches that which clearly contradicts a foundational and central core issue of faith – that would be place them outside the gospel and would justify the label of false teacher. If giving specific identification was warranted to protect believers from falling into error as touching the latter category, we would not be averse to doing so.

I also asked Cahn about his current affiliation and position on the New Apostolic Reformation. He responded:

I have no affiliation – There are those who assume that because one speaks from a specific platform, event, venue, conference, or media outlet, this means that one is in total or any agreement with the host or platform. This is not necessarily the case. By such a standard, they would judge Paul as a pagan for preaching at the pagan platform of Mars Hill. I will go and speak from virtually any platform I can that will allow me to give the warning of The Harbinger and the message of the Gospel unhindered – Whether I agree with that person on any issue or no issue – whether that platform be Christian, secular, Hindu, pagan – or a Mars Hill – as long as I am able to use that platform to preach unhindered, I will go.

I understand Cahn’s conviction about preaching at Mars Hill if need be as the Apostle Paul. But I would compare sharing the pulpit or being a guest in association with these false teachers as equivalent to early Christians sharing a venue with or speaking in a Gnostic congregation. I believe these teachers with which Cahn is affiliating and promoting his book are those which should be called out by name, exposed and avoided. Paul warned of those who would come in the last days with ”a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:5). The Apostle John said, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10,11). Paul said, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). These verses considered, the associations to false teachers are too close for comfort for me."

I also find it quite sad that you seem to be detouring from defending the gospel and now defend a mere man. So sad!
Friday, May 10, 2013

Faith aka Connie said...
If you are going to address me in such a personal way, you should use a name instead of hiding behind "Anonymous." I find YOUR approach to me to be on the sickening side myself.

I'm aware of the problems with Cahn's affiliations, all those you mentioned, I've already commented on them, I have named names where I've been aware of them, and in fact I don't agree with him that appoearing on heavily charismatic venues is the same as Paul's speaking from Mars Hill.

His affiliations are a problem, no doubt at all, and he does believe the spiritual gifts are still in operation. There are true Christians who do believe that, you should know if you don't.

But from my own experience in charismatic circles I don't see any of that in Cahn's basic teachings, and The Harbinger, the book, does not teach any of that. SUPPOSEDLY IT'S THE BOOK THE CRITICS ARE CONCERNED WITH, but the critics are finding problems in the book that are simply not there, and this business about his connections with charismatics just confuses the whole picture. The absurdities of the criticism of the BOOK are what I mostly address. I think the message of the book holds up, and I wish he didn't have the charismatic affiliations.

Teachings on The Harbinger

I got this in email today and it's good enough to post.  This is Part 1 of a series of teachings on Jonathan Cahn's book, The Harbinger, presented by a very articulate teacher who really gets it and knows how to present it. 

I don't know anything about Greg Sharp, except that he is a pastor at Brandon Bible Tabernacle, about which I also know nothing.  He's a standard evangelical in his concepts, rather than Reformed, and he may have some charismatic leanings, I can't really tell how far at this point, but overall really all I know at this point is that I've listened to Part One of his series and it's very well done.

I might add that he mentions a visit to Las Vegas in my very own state, and certainly I agree with his assessment of "sin city" overall, but please, there are Christians there too, Pastor Sharp! However, I bring this up because he mentioned that on his way out to the airport he passed a billboard that said something like "Lust will send you to Hell," which was the only Christian message he said he encountered on his trip, to which he said a hearty "Amen."

I'm mentioning this because a while back I happened to hear Jan Markell of Understanding the Times radio interviewing Joseph Farah of World Net Daily (Yes I have some problems with WND too but it's hard not to have SOME problems with our brethren these days but anyway).

Farah revealed that he'd recently felt called to put up billboards across the country highlighting the Ten Commandments, which have been removed from our public life over the last few decades, and the organization that he formed for this project started in Las Vegas. First report I've heard of anyone seeing the billboard was from Greg Sharp in this video. Praise the Lord! I hope Farah is able to keep putting them up across the country. And here's Part 2 of Greg Sharp's series on The Harbinger:

An Email about The Harbinger

I haven't discussed the Harbinger in some time, but an email I got about it gives me the opportunity:

I came across your blog and was very refreshed to see your posts on discernment issues. However, I am perplexed on The Harbinger issue. Are you defending that book??? Did you know Cahn is very much a part of the charismatic movement as far as his rubbing shoulders with them? Did you know you Cahn heavily endorses gnostic books such as Zohar and Kabalah?

To which I answered:

Thanks for your comment.  Yes, I am definitely defending the Harbinger, and I'm aware of all the issues you raise about it, having commented on them in various posts.  I've objected to Cahn's friendships among the charismatics but I was once a charismatic myself and I give people time to see the light on that one.  None of Cahn's own teachings carries the charismatic message although some unfairly try to pin that on him. 

As for the Zohar and the Kabbalah, no, that has been totally misunderstood.  He does NOT "endorse" those books at ALL and those who have accused him of it are greatly in the wrong and should apologize to him.  The ONLY way he uses the rabbinical writings is to discover the gospel in them, which he's good at.  The rabbis often understood the scriptures correctly, UNTIL the true Messiah came along, when they changed their tune.  Jonathan Cahn enjoys finding out how they understood the true gospel of the true Christ in spite of themselves.

Not sure why I made the remark about time to see through it, that's not really the point.  The point is that he's not a charismatic. 

Faith, with all do respect, but any "Christian" book that is a best seller, in a world that Jesus said "Hated Him first and will hate us too", smells of smoke. Cahn's affiliations with the charismatic movement ARE serious Faith, its like saying "Well Bill Johnson (a known charismatic) wrote this great book and well it takes time to get out of all that. So even though he's involved with heresy, its ok because people need time to get out."  I am sorry but that is wrong. I came out of the charismatic movement too, and they have serious serious errors, ones that cannot simply be looked at with a passive attitude. His associations with it give people the impression that its OK and its not ok!

 With the whole Hebrew Roots movement growing, and I am not talking Messianic Jew, I am talking about these new cults (like Jim Staley and Michael Rood) and teach we have to go back under the law and so on, and their embrace of the Zohar and Kabalah, and Cahn being quite similar, maybe not out right, but he walks that line, I am sorry but it just doesn't seem right. I guess we all have blind spots I guess I don't know, but you seem discerning and I am just saddened that you can't discern this guy. http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2012/harbinger-zohar.htm

Just like too, you mentioned Alex Jones, he did a documentary last year on straight evolution. And then when Christians admonished him he came out with a follow up video bashing christians. He highly esteems David Icke, a very very big theosophic new ager, the man is a wolf! My husband, who has just about walked away from God, listens to him so I know all this first hand. 

I pray Faith that you will be shown the serious errors of these things. God bless you and I will pray for you.

I guess I'm going to have to do another post on the Harbinger after all this time.   Cahn does not teach anything charismatic,  ...  , the book has nothing charismatic in it, and Berit Kjos misrepresents his teaching from the Zohar.  I agree about his associations and have written about that but that's not the same thing as BEING a charismatic.  I've also written against the Hebrew Roots movement.  You'd have a point about the popularity of the book but remember that both the Bible and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress are all time bestsellers so your point only goes so far.  Cahn is not a perfect man but overall he's been misrepresented.  

I really don't know much about Alex Jones but liked that one thing I heard.  Since I don't know much about him and have heard many negatives about him I think I'll take that down. 

Please, if you're going to pray for someone, just pray, don't tell me I'm wrong and you'll pray, that's rather insulting.

Thanks,
Faith

This is my preliminary remark on Berit Kjos' mistaken response to Cahn's interest in a phrase from the Zohar:

Isa 29:20-21	...all that watch for iniquity ..:
	That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

All discernment ministries do in a sense "watch for inquity" but in the case of the supposed discerning of Jonathan Cahn they've gone over the line into condemning a brother in Christ who isn't perfect but is not guilty as charged.  He has his own interests that the discerners can't appreciate.

The Plot to bring down Civilization

Here's how I'm getting it from Chris Pinto in a brief outline.  All the trends and influences we Christians and Conservatives decry in modern society can ultimately be traced back through a line of thinkers to certain predictable sources.  Certainly it's all an expression of human fallen nature, the putting of evil for good and good for evil, but apparently it's more than that, not just a random expression of this trend in human nature, but there are actually plots involved, conspiracies, or ultimately one basic plot or conspiracy that has branched out to some extent but is still of the same basic mentality with the same aim.  And although there are many false leads along the track the main source always turns out to be...  Rome.  Specifically, the Jesuits.

He did a radio show recently that stretched me quite a bit with his revelations of facts I'd known nothing about, on (of all things) the story of Frankenstein's monster, Frankenstein and the French Revolution.  Is this common knowledge out there or am I typical in not knowing anything about a connection between this well known horror story and an event in history, The French Revolution?   And not only that particular event, but the philosophical underpinnings of that event that are still shaping the radical movements of our own time?  In a word, Communism and its softer version, Socialism, and all its separate projects for remaking society by its rules.

Sometimes I'm rather overwhelmed with all the information Chris Pinto offers that is brand new to me.  This particular program covers too much to keep in mind.   He sketched out the life of Mary Shelley who wrote "Frankenstein,"  her having been born into a radical family, her father a well known Anarchist, William Godwin, who was in fact denounced by many Brits for his views.   Later, after the death of her husband she began to have second thoughts about some of the radicalism of her friends, specifically decrying the barbarisms of the French Revolution and the philosophies that supported it. 

The monster invented by Dr. Frankenstein in her story is in fact the "new man" the radicals wanted to create, overthrowing all the old traditions in favor of their own conception.  El sueno de la razon produce monstruo --  that's from Ortega y Gasset I think, but that just came to mind because it seems to echo Shelley's point:  the dream of Reason produces monsters.  This dream has produced more monsters than merely the French Revolution, it has also produced the horrors of Communism and other murderous innovations that are destroying the world.

In her book she has Dr. Frankenstein being educated at a Jesuit-run university, the same university where Adam Weishaupt formed the Illuminati.  Did you know the Illuminati were originally called the Perfectabilists?  That is, they wanted to invent a Perfect world and a Perfect man, the "new man" that Shelley's book shows to be a monster.  Weishaupt's close friend believed Weishaupt was a secret Jesuit.  That would of course fit with Pinto's belief that Jesuits can usually be found behind all the radical plots to destroy civilization.

Well, there's a lot to that radio show that I'm not doing justice, so I can only recommend listening to it.

THIS is a DRONE?!

Got this in an email:


(To see the full picture, right click on it and go to "Properties," copy the link into your browser.)

"Is this a mosquito? No. It's an insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It can be remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone.

It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home."

I dunno. I know they can make minuscule surveillance gadgets, but how do they make such a thing fly? And what's to stop someone from giving it a good smack and sending it to nanotech heaven anyway?

The Boston Marathon bombing, conspiracy theories and some unanswered questions.

No, I'm not really following the Boston bomber news, not carefully anyway, but I did listen to the first part of Scott Johnson's as-usual-conspiracy-focused program, and gave up before the end. He seems to be completely convinced that the FBI set up the whole bombing and that the Muslim brothers were framed, based on the evidence he gave, but I didn't find his evidence all that convincing.  If he's right, which I guess is possible, he didn't prove it to me.  Most of his information seems to have come from Alex Jones' Infowars site, but I didn't go check that out either.  I did pray that God would bring the truth to light.

I just have a few comments and questions from what Johnson presented.  Here's his PDF for this program, which includes a series of pictures of the bomb scene.

First, he did convince me that there is something mysterious about those two figures in the first picture he keeps calling "contractors."   Why he calls them that I have no idea, especially since he also says he doesn't know who they are or what they are doing.   It's mysterious the way they are standing back from the crowd apparently in the area where the bomb was to explode not long afterward, but then appear in another picture after the explosion standing out in the street looking toward the explosion site.  The idea is that they apparently left the bomb area just before the bomb went off, but the timing in the pictures isn't given, and I can't be absolutely sure it's the same two men although they are dressed similarly.  It probably is but I can't be sure.  One of them has gray hair in the first picture and I can't see that in the second.  Anyway, if it's the same two, the question does occur how they happened to move away from the area where the bomh was to go off and now are standing rather nonchalantly, so it appears, back from the site.  Not excited, not upset, not rushing to anyone's aid, etc.   But perhaps this is long enough after the event for people to be calmer, the timing isn't clear from one picture to the next, or I missed it if it is.

Then in subsequent pictures they are closer to the bombed area, next to an SUV with something on its roof Johnson identifies as "communications" gear, then involved with investigating something under the bleachers across from that area, and then others dressed similarly are also now present.  The black jacket, the black backpacks.  The original two seem to be talking to a female FBI agent in one of the pictures.

So, yes, I'd like to know who these guys are, and as Johnson, or maybe first Jones, asks, why, since they appear to have some kind of official function, aren't they wearing some kind of identifying information?  The FBI agents have "FBI" on their jackets, the marathon security people are wearing yellow jackets.  And so on.  But these guys are in nondescript black.  Who are they?

Then Johnson goes on to assert that the second accused bomber, the younger brother whose name is apparently pronounced "Jahar," is shown walking away from the scene with his backpack still on his back, which supposedly proves he didn't have anything to do with the bombing.

Well, I can't see a backpack on his back myself, but then I'm having monitor problems and there may be something there, but the background is black, and Johnson seems to think his backpack is also black, so who knows.  I don't see anything anyway. 

He also says his backpack is the same as those being carried by the "contractors" identified above.  He claims it has exactly the same white patch on it theirs have.  Now THAT is an intriguing prospect if so.  I looked at those patches close up and they're all white and shaped sort of like Saturn with its rings in outline form.  So I went back to the original pictures released by the FBI of the two brothers walking toward the area just before the bomb was set off, looking for that mark on the backpack.  But guess what?  The older brother Tamerlan's backpack was dark, maybe black, but I saw no white patch on it.  The backpack Jahar was carrying wasn't even black, it was white or at least light colored, and he wasn't wearing it on his back, he was carrying it slung over his right shoulder.  No similar marking, not even the same color, and if he left the scene wearing one that looked like that he'd have to have acquired it after the bombing.  But I don't even think there is a backpack in that picture.  If there is, then we have a whole nother mystery than the one Johnson has in mind.

I did have the thought that that white hat he wore stands out in the crowd to such an extent that one could easily suspect it was part of a set up, if there was one.  That's of course Johnson's theory, a set up, they were framed.  Well, that's what the brothers' parents think, and they must be right, right?  I have trouble finding a motive for a set up myself, but I'm not claiming to know anything here, a set up is still possible, it's just that Johnson's facts aren't supporting the idea very well so far.

Since Johnson thinks it was a setup and that Jahar probably didn't have anything to do with actually planting the bomb, I have to assume he didn't see the news coverage about a Jeff Baumann who was standing right next to the bomb and had his lower legs blown off by it, who notified the authorities from the hospital that just moments before the bomb went off he had looked the guy in the eye who put it there.  He saw him put down a "bag," that's the word he used, not "backpack" though that may in fact have been what it was, he looked him in the eye while he was putting it down, and then a short time later it went off.  He was identifying him in response to the pictures the FBI had released earlier, and I believe it was Jahar he identified rather than the older brother.

Speaking of those first pictures, the video from the surveillance cameras of the two brothers walking toward the marathon finish line area, the younger following a few steps behind the older:  How did those two get singled out of that crowd?  I'm sure the FBI are well trained to identify suspects, but did someone sit watching the film over and over and over, and out of that whole moving crowd of people thought those two suspicious enough to send out their pictures as actual suspects?  I admit my question may have to do with simple ignorance of how such sleuthing is done.

And I have one more question about the bomb site.  Why haven't we heard anything about the other bomb?  The first pictures of the bombing caught the first bomb AND the second, the second on the other side of the street and farther away.  I have to suppose nobody got hurt at that location but it's still a question.  One question is how did either of the two brothers get to that location, across the street and back in the direction they had originally come from, after the first bomb went off?

There are also unanswered questions about their doings after that day, and how they got involved in that shootout and so on.  There are no photos of any of that.  Also how the boat Jahar was eventually found in could have been riddled with bullets and he still be able to get out of it without help.  Just questions it would be nice to have answered.

Was it a setup?  What could the motive have been?  It's certainly disturbing to have to wonder if the FBI would actually have set up an attack that would kill and maim Americans.  And who ARE those guys Johnson calls "contractors" anyway?

========================================

UPDATE 4/28:
Looks more and more to me like the general media presentation of the situation is the correct one, not that there may not be points here and there to dispute.  I'd still like to know who those two men are that Johnson calls "contractors" and the others who showed up later in the same garb.

But the story of the Chinese man who wants to be called by his American name Danny, whose car was hijacked by the two brothers, is credible, including his account of how he got away from them.  That's where we find out they were thinking of going to New York probably to do another bombing.  They seem to have loaded some paraphernalia for such a purpose into the hijacked car.  And how it all unfolded after the driver got away is credible too.  The authorities were alerted and the shootout followed in which the older brother Tamerlan was killed and the younger, Jahar, escaped to the boat in a backyard. 

In all that there doesn't seem to be room to add in anyone else, just the two brothers on their own having concocted this crime.

But very possibly, even probably, with the encouragement of their mother, who along with Tamerlan was identified a couple years ago as a possible terrorist.  She's also wanted for theft in the US.  Since they are planning to come to the US I suppose she can be arrested for that. 

4/29  They seem to have changed their minds about coming to the US.

A message on the Holiness of God

Wouldn't normally post just a link to a sermon but this one is so good I'm going to.   Heard it on local Christian radio, Pilgrim Radio .  I've heard this pastor before, Mike Preston, and been impressed with him.  He's pastor of what must be a very small congregation in Graeagle, California (population 737), but he's got a depth of Bible understanding that is rare in preachers.  So I found his web page and hope to listen to more of him. 

The one that so impressed me tonight is his sermon on Leviticus 8, which is one in a series he did on Leviticus.  In our day of casual attitudes in the churches, treating God like our buddy instead of the Holy God, we desperately need to recover a true fear of God and to hear a message about the unapproachable Holiness of God.  You can find it at Graeagle Community Church on the Sermons page, though it will be aired twice again on Pilgrim Radio Saturday and also on Sunday -- check their schedule.