Page 154. Mr. Maloney tends to be very agreeable to most any church practice. Then he comes against it, but gently. For example, first he says that the practice called "prayer mapping" along with prayer walks, are needed. In the next breath he says that there is not a lot of Scriptural backing for that kind of "binding." He goes on to define binding his way.

Page 156. He makes the serious claim on this page, that anyone who is not into the miraculous in our day, is preaching another Jesus. I think I understand this a bit, but on the surface this seems to be a comment that is out of order.

Page 167. The church, says JM, is out of order structurally because there are no apostles... Apostles after all are foundational (He fails to see that the foundation was already laid!). Every teacher must have signs and wonders backing him up. In his eyes, every church, or every generation, or every city, must have "foundational" apostles. So we keep laying the foundation over and over. Trouble with that is, the book of Revelation speaks of only one set of foundational apostles. The literature they left behind serves as the ongoing foundation of the church. And oh my how that foundation has been attacked. But not harmed, thank you Jesus!

Page 169. Talks about apostles being first. He then refers people, for whom in this place at least he seems to have a very low opinion, to some "hermeneutics website" to check out what is "the law of first things." He doesn't take the time to do this himself, because, I believer, there is no such law. Is he referring to the "law of first mention", whereby the first time a topic is brought up in Scripture, that episode is definitive of that topic from then on? Hard to say what the Doctor has in mind here.

Page 171. Here he implies that apostles are "territorial", i.e. they have certain spheres of influence (turf). He says that thousands of people are coming into the knowledge that they are apostles! An astounding observance. How does he know this? And really, is the "coming into knowledge" of such a thing consistent with the way apostles were chosen by the Lord, or even in a minor, small "a" sense, by the church, through the years? Would there have been any doubt in the mind of any true apostle of Jesus Christ that that was his office? Would someone have to give me a memo, a text, an email, a memory-jog to wake me up to the fact that I truly am an apostle? Do I need another church member saying such to me?

I have, you know, been dubbed "apostolic" by a couple of these folks. Sends one spiraling into fantastic ideas about what it could mean. But if there is any doubt in my or anyone's mind about who the real apostles are, the Apostolic reformation (the new one, mind you, the NAR) is determined to sort it all out for you. Pastors and prophets are even now being "promoted" by these self-acclaimed apostles. The promotees are at first dazed, then slowly convinced, that, You know, they're right! C'est Moi! I am an apostle! Why did I not think of that?

Muhammad had a similar experience. But we won't go there for now.

Page 172. More of Maloney's definition of what it means to be an apostle. Bottom line: signs, wonders, miracles. Really? Stephen was an apostle? Philip was an apostle? Yep, just because he establishes churches, has a deliverance ministry, or is very aggressive, doesn't make him an apostle. Signs and wonders are the key! Again, we are tempted to agree with his analysis when we realize how very few if any true miracles have been done by these men, in comparison to the Biblical models, whose record was perfect along these lines. We should be challenging claims to the miraculous, but never acting in disbelief to our God, who certainly is able to do whatever we ask Him to do. There's the balance needed. The messengers may be fraudulent but God is not therefore impotent. We must look past the show and see the Saviour, filled with compassion and so willing to bless His people.

Page 174. If a church does not have a prophet or an apostle somehow connected to it, it is incomplete, not properly equipped and activated. Pretty strong statement. Can that be proved by Scriptures, that were written in the age of the true apostles? How many churches were pastored by or regularly attended by or in some way supervised by, an apostle? The direction those churches received are the same ones we have in our New Testament today! Why do we need new directions?

Page 174 Once more using his acquired authority, he says categorically that signs etc. fall into three categories. Life, creation, conquest. He then proceeds to define them. But whence the Bible backing for such definitions?

Page 186, Salvation is to be a by-product of the miraculous! Almost leads one to believe that, if one was not saved via a miracle, his salvation is not valid. James would never say this, but the implication is there. According to Maloney, Jesus' Gospel was signs, wonders, and miracles. He proved everything he said by the miraculous.

Perhaps without knowing it, Dr. Maloney solves his own self-created dilemma here. Fact is, the Gospel was what He said! The miracles backed it up. He and the rest of the charismatic world want it the other way around: Miracles first, salvation secondary. What miracle was performed when Zacchaeus' life was turned around? The rules just won't always work. God saves by HIs Word, and His Son. Signs backed up both.

Page 188. Sheepishly, almost apologetically, he fully endorses dominion theology. That is, the full rule of Jesus comes through His people! Now. Apart from, or even before, His coming! Wrong. The coming of Jesus sets up His rule, when there is hardly any faith left on earth! Knowing there are die-hard pre-Millennialists in his reading audience, he quickly appeases this crowd too: He says that, ultimately, the literal rule of Christ on earth establishes the fullest expression of HIs authority. Double speak? You bet!

He adds that entire cities and people groups will come to Jesus before His return. I've seen practically entire villages saved, he says. I ask, where? I ask it, even knowing that what he says is true. When a chieftain in a tribe goes a certain direction, quite often the entire tribe goes that way. I do not believe, however, that mass conversion, in the Biblical sense, takes place. Christianization of a people group is not necessarily because of rebirth, but peer pressure exerted by the leader. This happened in Latin America when Roman swords forced people to "convert" or die. They converted. But not really. To this day, whole nations are "Christian" but only in name.

Meanwhile, though I accept his premise that entire villages "turn to Christ" at times, I press him again for specifics, which are hard to come by in this volume. Where are these villages? Let me write to their government and confirm that what you say is true.