Michael Brown’s “hyper-critics ” are “off-base” and “mistaken”?

Apparently, biblical criticism of Michael Brown from Christians such as Chris Rosebrough, Steven Kozar, Amy Spreeman, Phil Johnson, Jordan Hall and others are “off-base” and “mistaken”.

Dr. Michael Brown.png

Source: Twitter, Michael Brown, https://twitter.com/DrMichaelLBrown/status/824869484913569792, Published 26/01/2017, Accessed 27/01/2017

Even though Michael Brown made these claims, he failed to back them up with facts explaining why and, more importantly, give Biblical answers to support his stance.

Michael Brown, if you were really “all for honest dialogue among believers with differences,” then you wouldn’t have danced around Chris Rosebrough’s second question concerning the NAR, nor would you have dominated the conversation so Rosebrough couldn’t get another word in.

Mutiny Against Dr. Michael Brown

If you were really “all for honest dialogue among believers with differences,” then you wouldn’t have stopped your conversation with Amy Spreeman when she challenged you via twitter.

Dr. Brown attacks pastors; refuses to answer Amy Spreeman’s questions

Dr. Michael Brown.png

If you were really “all for honest dialogue among believers with differences,” then you would be willing to discuss and interview your critics just as often as you interview your heretic friends such as Rick Joyner, Bill Johnson, Lance Wallnau, Joseph Prince, and others rather then slanderously label them as “dangerous.”

Too Dangerous to Debate

Phil Johnson.png

It seems that Phil Johnson is correct when he wrote the following observations about Dr. Michael Brown:

“Evidently @DrMichaelBrown has never met a charismatic miscreant he couldn’t whitewash”.

And in his Facebook post stream Phil Johnson responds to comments:

“I think Brown’s “gullibility” is as willful as it is woeful. It’s kind of hard to portray yourself credibly as the charismatic movement’s most vocal opponent of “hyper-grace” when you’re happily validating Joseph Prince like this.”

“The  problem with the article is that it nullifies the valid elements of Dr. Brown’s own critique of Prince’s antinomianism – without honestly confronting the issues Brown himself had already pointed out. Seriously. Read what Joseph Prince himself has said (not this sanitized account of it by Brown AFTER they made whatever alliance this meeting represents), and then take a look at how Brown himself answered Prince’s errors before this meeting. If you can’t see the problem, I’m sorry, but don’t use my Facebook page to defend Joseph Prince’s brand of antinomianism.”

Source: Facebook, Phil Johnson, https://www.facebook.com/philliprjohnson/posts/10158133123780472?pnref=story, Published: 26/01/2017, Accessed: 27/01/2017)

It looks as though Dr. Michael Brown won’t continue dialogue with his “hyper-critics” because he KNOWS they are CORRECT about Brown’s NAR ties.

And he continues to represent heretics as Bible-believing Christians even though they’re clearly not.

Because Michael Brown cannot honestly defend his position with God’s Word he has to rely on the relationships he’s established with said heretics as “proof” that they’re really Christians. After all, he knows them personally so that’s all the evidence that’s needed, right?

Email all questions & comments to c3churchwatch@hotmail.com

Categories: New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)

Tags: , , , , ,

1 reply


  1. Michael Brown’s “hyper-critics ” are “off-base” and “mistaken”? – gullley
%d bloggers like this: