Sunday, December 16, 2007

On Pastor Alexey Ledyaev (part 2)

[continued from here]

And so, we come to Alexey Ledyaer's handling of Scripture to prop up his Neo-Apostolic Dominonism.

Ledyaer wrote:

When Jesus was coming into Jerusalem, the people cried out “Hosanna”, tore off their garments, and spread them on the road before the coming King. But Jesus wept…


Oh but because the revival “from below” is a temporary and fragile phenomenon.

When people with so little impact on the society cry out “Hosanna” to Jesus, it’s not bad. But for some reason He is sad and even weeping.


Oh but because in this exultant multitude He couldn’t notice officials, deputies, ministers and representatives of the supreme authority. They have kept aloof. Tomorrow they will drown this revival in blood, because the power is in their hands.

God’s plan is to bring the revival “from the top”; then it will not be bogged down in couple of years.

Such is a complete misrepresentation of the biblical narrative. Let's look at the reason why Jesus said that he wept:

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” (Lk. 19:41-44)

As the biblical narrative states, the reason why Jesus wept is because the Jews and specifically Jerusalem did not realize that her King is visiting her. And as judgment against the Jews and Jerusalem in general for rejecting their King, the city was destined for destruction, which was aoomplished by the Romans in 70AD. Nowhere is it stated that the reason why Jesus wept is because the leaders were going to "drown this revival in blood", with the only blood being shed later being that of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was destined to die on the Cross for our sins anyway, not lead some great revival in history!

Ledyaer carries on with a total misrepresentation of the text of Scripture in 1 Ki. 18:1 concerning the command to the prophet Elijah. Far from that being an example of how the "river of prophetic annointing will flow in presidents' offices", the fact of the matter is that Elijah was not employed by King Ahab nor was he his personal prophet such that "the prophetic annointing flow" in Ahab's office palace. Elijah was hated by King Ahab, and although God and Elijah won in the battle at Mount Carmel, the evil queen Jezebel attempted to hunt down Elijah to kill him later. Even more fatal to such a comparison was that the Northern Kingdom of Israel, although a monarchy and have long turned apostate, as the Old Testament Church is analogous only to the New Testament Church. As such, Elijah's dealings with Ahab cannot be transferred over to the Church's dealings with secular leaders, as Israel was under obligation to obey God, or face Covenantal curses.

The Eschaton features quite heavily in this article, and although I would prefer not to comment on it, it seems that Ledyaer has no qualms doing so. He quotes a lot of verses talking about how every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is God, of course conveniently ignoring that such will only be fulfilled when Christ comes back in the Final Judgment.

Ledyaer continues:

The task of church is to divide the light from the darkness, the grain from the tares, the sheep from the goats.

Really? I must have miss this in my Bible. According to the Scriptures, Jesus in His parable of the weeds (Mt. 13:24-30) says that He Himself will do it on the Final Judgment. The Church's job is not to divide the grain from the tares, but only to judge the profession and life of Christians by their fruits (Mt. 7:20), and not for the sole purpose of exposing them, but to correct them, and if not possible, to protect the Church against their perverse influence, which is something very different from dividing the grain from the tares (a heart issue).

Ledyaer then misuses the example of Paul's confrontation with the false Jewish prophet Bar-Jesus in Act 13:4-12, to make it some sort of normative behavior for Christians to advise government leaders. Such is most definitely an eisegesis of the text, for the text made it plain that Paul rebuke and judge Bar-Jesus not because they wanted to convert the proconsul. First of all, Paul and Barnabas did not invite themselves to the proconsul, but were summoned by him (Act. 13:7). Secondly, Paul rebuke and pass judment on Bar-Jesus only after he seek to turn the proconsul from the faith. Therefore, the focus of this encounter was not that we should go around seeking to rebuke and remove the non-Christian advisors and take ther place, or to reunite church with state, as Ledyaer would have us believe. In fact, the fact that Paul and Barnabas did not decide to either stay or send another Christian to relace the now blinded Elymas as his advisor speaks volumes about the eisegetical error of Ledyaer in interpreting this particular passage.

The example of Daniel's three friends in the fiery furnace resulting in Nebuchadnezzar praising God and ordering no one who blasphemed God to be left unpunished (Dan. 3:8-30), and the examples of King Darius and King Ahasuerus (book of Esther) are used by Ledyaer to prove that the "The dialogue between church and state will revive and transfigure the latter beyond recognition". However, this is false. All of such changes are of the Lord's doing, not the Church's doing. What the people did were to remain steadfast and commit their lives to God as a witness to Him, not to have a "dialogue between church and state". Ledyaer would very welll read the texts himself to know that it is God who does the work and that for a specific purpose, and Him alone, not the Church.

And now, I would like to close off with a final remark by Ledyaer.

If Jesus is the head of church, then His dominating position in the world is a legitimate position of church.

Such form of reasoning is utterly ridiculous. Using such a trajectory, can we say that since Jesus is the head of the Church, His position as the Mediator between God and Man in the world is a legitimate position of the Church? That of course would be blasphemy, in setting up other christs like what the Romanists do with their priests being Alter Christus (another Christ).

Thus, in conclusion, we have seen Ledyaer's seeming embrace of the "river" concept, and have refuted his embrace of Instituional Redemption, which resulted in his twisted methodoloy of "revival from the top down". We have also seen how it leads to Dominionism and the likely formation of a Church-state reminiscent of Roman Catholicism during its heyday before the Reformation. Also, Ledyaer has been shown to misinterpret the Scriptures to teach and/or support his own pet doctrines. As such, Ledyaer is not to be trusted spiritually. He is a Neo-Apostolic Domionist and such teaching of his is heresy. May God help us that we would not fall into the heretical positions he advocates.

No comments: