I first heard the name “Brad Jersak” during the 2002/03 school year. He was a visiting speaker at a youth conference at Briercrest Bible College and I went to hear him give a presentation on a subject he called “listening prayer”. I couldn’t quite hear him in the crowded library where he spoke, but it sounded like he was advocating some sort of contemplative prayer. I didn’t think much of his presentation at the time and from what I heard, it sounded flakey but not too threatening. Brad Jersak came back to Briercrest and taught several more times, but I was never able to hear him again. With the demands of both full time college/seminary and full time work while I was at Briercrest, I struggled for the time to do a “fun” project on the side and examine this “listening prayer” stuff. But after sadly hearing about the hallucinating experiences of several friends of mine who have since discovered “listening prayer”, I decided that I would make time to examine Jersak’s teaching. Upon reading Brad Jersak’s book Can You Hear Me, I realized that Brad doesn’t simply espouse some new form of lectio divina or contemplative prayer at all. The book Can You Hear Me is a charismatic guidebook for becoming a prophet based on superficial use of scripture and the total abandonment of sound biblical hermeneutics.
Understanding Listening Prayer
Can You Hear Me is broken up into three sections. The first section goes through the “what” and “why” questions, attempting to give a biblical basis and argumentation for the reality and necessity of listening prayer. The second and third sections answer the “how” and “when” questions, explaining how listening prayer works and how/when to use it in various situations. In order to properly define and evaluate listening prayer, one only needs to define listening prayer and examine the scriptures from he supports it.
Defining “Listening Prayer”
Brad Jersak introduces the phrase “listening prayer” on the sixteenth page of Can You Hear Me, but takes his time defining exactly what listening prayer is. Walking through the introduction, Jersak comments on how he studied the Bible intently and became proud of his seminary degrees and personal piety but had never heard God’s voice. He says “I had accumulated Bible facts but ended up bankrupt because I didn’t know the Living Word, Jesus”.
He continues in the introduction to record how he “recognized none of the early Christian experience or ministry in my own life”, how the Lord shattered his “rationalistic” master of divinity degree and how he prayed that God would show Jersak his glory. It sounds like Jersak realized that he wasn’t experiencing charismatic phenomena in his life and sought to do so, and this helps one get a general angle at what he means by “listening prayer”.
In commenting on his credentials, Jersak states that his education will not “authorize me as a spokesman for God’s heart”. That seems to sound like prophetic language and he seems to confirm that when he comments about the purpose of his book, writing that “it offers an alternative that appeals to those mystical cravings yet demystifies the process” and that it is written to pastors and leaders to prepare them to “train their congregations to hear God without fear of producing prophetic flakes”.
In the first chapter, Jersak writes that “in listening prayer, we meet none other than Jesus Christ, the voice of the living God”. Meeting Jesus sounds good, but that statement is not a definition in itself. He talks about the frustration of how some people “go around claiming ‘God told me’” (wrongly claiming or utilizing prophetic revelation) and then contrasts that with “Jesus Christ’s approach to hearing God”, which is apparently given in John 10:2-15. Skipping ahead, Jersak comments that Jesus promised Christians the reception of propositional revelation beyond the canonical scriptures, that Acts 2 brought a flood of revelation, that prophecies, visions and dreams are all versions of God’s voice, and that when Jesus poured out the Spirit in the book of Acts, “…he began to pour our the Spirit-the Spirit of revelation in particular-on every believer”. It seems quite clear that despite his nebulous rhetoric, Jersak sees “listening prayer” as essentially “functioning prophetically” and Jersak sees this promise of prophetic function to be for all believers. This claim seems to be a large one and Jersak indeed has a large goal in mind if he is to give adequate biblical proof for his position.
The Biblical Case for Listening Prayer
Jersak’s key text is John 10:1-18, and he reads John 10:2-15 as applying directly to Christians. He extrapolates several promises from the passage: Christ has a voice, he does speak and his sheep do hear his voice. Given that he defines God’s voice as “prophecies, visions, and dreams”, he apparently takes the passage to mean that Christ speaks propositional revelation and his sheep hear his voice prophetically. He comments on John 10:2-15 saying, “Note that Jesus did not say ‘My prophets hear my voice.’…According to Jesus, his voice is not reserved for the spiritually elite, the priest, or the guru”. Just to be clear, Jersak takes John 10:2-15 as “Jesus Christ’s approach to hearing God” and given his definition of “God’s voice”, the passage becomes Christ’s prescription for functioning prophetically.
Jersak then asks why he used to not hear God’s voice. He answers himself with Elihu’s words from Job 33:13-18, learning that God does speak (regardless of personal doubts), he speaks all the time and he speaks in many ways. He goes on to say that “Elihu is telling us that God’s radio station is always on. He’s broadcasting loud and clear, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The trouble is, we are not dialing in”.
Not only is God “broadcasting” his thoughts, but he wants to share what he has to say with people. He comments that Psalm 139:17-18 states that God is constantly thinking innumerable thoughts about Christians (individually) and John 16:12-15 explains that “he (God) is willing-no, longing– to share those thoughts with you”. Commenting on John 16:12-15 Jersak writes,
“Jesus told his disciples that even after we consider everything he told them, both that which is recorded in the gospels and all that was not, he still had much more to say. But he withheld it, because they could not handle it yet…The Holy Spirit would come and continue sharing that which Jesus had left unsaid. He would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). If you wand to personalize this message, what Jesus is really saying is, there is so much more he wants to share with you. Were you to memorize every word of the Scriptures, the Lord would still not be satisfied. There is still more. And this “more” is what the Holy Spirit is sent to deliver.“
So what more beyond the scripture does the Holy Spirit share with us? Jersak writes,
His (Holy Spirit) task is to share “whatever he hears.” What does the Spirit hear? And whom does he hear? The Spirit hears the Father and Son. He eavesdrops on their conversations-on the innumerable thoughts they exchange with one another. Remember, a myriad of those thoughts are about you and for you. The Spirit overhears them and then comes over to say “Do you know what they’re saying? I want to tell you.”.
Jersak comments that “in the Old Testament era, the voice of God seemed rare, sporadic, and exclusive” but when Jesus poured out the Spirit in the New Testament, the pouring out of the Spirit was “generous, continuous, and all-inclusive”. Jersak states that “According to Paul, our God is no speechless idol. He is a God whose Spirit speaks to and through his people (1 Corinthians 12:2-4)”. He also quotes Jeremiah 33:3 and observes,
“As we call out to God, let us rehearse this straightforward promise. God does not say ‘Call to me and the devil will answer and deceive you.’ Nor does he say ‘Call to me and I might answer you when I feel like it.’ Nor does he say ‘Call to me and I will answer you if…’ Rather, he promises us (upon the life of his Son), “I [the Lord and no other] Will [most certainly] answer [respond to, converse with] you [not just the prophets or the priests, but you my children].”
Addressing Skepticism to Listening Prayer
In efforts to explain to his understandably skeptical readers that they already are experiencing what he is talking about, Jersak comments on several ways that God regularly “speaks” to people that they do not recognize. He comments that God already “speaks” to people through salvation, scripture, preaching, worship, conviction of sin, burden of conscience to pray for individual and prompting of conscience to encourage individuals. Jersak notes how “normal” circumstances and convictions are, in actuality, God speaking. He rebukes his readers in missing God’s common methods of speaking, saying how it is wrong to think that “… God will only speak in grandiosity…”.
Jersak then addresses the problem of extra biblical revelation when he writes “God’s voice is heard primarily through the Scriptures”, but when one reads the Scriptures, one is not necessarily hearing God speaking. Jersak asks his readers “…did you know that you could carefully study and faithfully memorize the Scriptures all your life and still never once hear the voice of God?”. He evidences this statement up by quoting John 5:37-40, paralleling cessationists with Pharisees, saying “The doctrine of cessationism taught that once the canon of Scripture was complete, God had delivered his final word; when the last word of the book of Revelation was written, God ceased to speak. Modern-day prophets were said to have crossed the line of orthodoxy”. So what changed his mind?
Jersak records that “The turning point came for me when I encountered a genuine, modern-day prophet for the first time”. After that experience, Jersak explains how he “returned to the Scriptures with new ears to hear the truth concerning God’s voice” and learned, from the Scriptures, that “God’s voice may be heard via at least three broad avenues: messengers, circumstances, and direct messages to our hearts”.
It seems rather difficult to misunderstand what Jersak is suggesting. He seems to clearly expect that though not every Christian does prophesy (receive propositional revelation from the Holy Spirit either audibly or visually), they should. The possibility for every Christian to receive extra-biblical revelation is both promised in the Scriptures and should be part of the normative Christian experience. Is Jersak’s position biblical? Is he faithful to the teaching of Scripture? An examination of his supporting texts and a look at his hermeneutical practices will show whether his position on “listening prayer” stands or falls.
An Examination of Texts Used to Support Listening Prayer
There are essentially four texts of scripture that Jersak takes as prophetic promises regarding ‘hearing” the voice of God; John 10:1-15, Job 33:13-18, John 16:12-15 and Jeremiah 33:3. The verses are used to form the formula of listening prayer:
- God speaks propositional communication to Christians (John 10:1-15).
- God speaks propositional communication regardless of its perception (Job 33:13-18).
- This propositional communication is extra-biblical revelation that the Holy Spirit will make known to Christians (John 16:12-15).
- The Biblically prescribed method for accessing this revelation is by request (Jeremiah 33:3).
It must be noted that John 10:1-21 follows John 9 without transition and the audiences of both passages are likely the same. In John 9:1-12, Jesus heals a man born blind, 9:13-34 the Pharisees interrogate the healed man, attempting to find a way to discredit Christ, and in 9:35-41 Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah to the healed man and condemns the Pharisees for their spiritual blindness. John 10:1-21 then must be read in the immediate context of the Pharisees’ (and Jews’) obstinate rejection of Christ in the face of obvious and unavoidable miraculous testimony to Christ.
In John 10:1-21, Jesus delivers two allegories; 10:1-5 and 10:7-18. In both allegories Jesus uses the metaphor of a shepherd and his sheep. Also, both allegories contain a general contrast. In 10:1-5 the true shepherd is contrasted with the false shepherd and in 10:7-21 the good shepherd is contrasted with the hired man. It seems to be difficult to miss that the Pharisees/religious leaders are the false shepherds/hired men, and Jesus is clearly speaking of himself as the good shepherd. Hendriksen writes, “just as Jesus is both the door and the good shepherd, so also his enemies (the Pharisees) are represented as thieves, robbers, strangers, and hirelings”. Carson writes, “in the context of Jesus’ ministry the thieves and robbers are the religious leaders…” MacArthur writes that the religious leaders in Israel were among a long line of false shepherds. Morris writes “He (Jesus) must have in view the whole of the Jewish hierarchy of his day.”. Burge writes “…the most likely target of Jesus’ criticism is the Pharisees, who have been the subject of Jesus’ teaching since chapter 9.”
If Jesus is contrasting himself with the Pharisees, and the contrast is essentially “belief and unbelief”, then what does Jesus mean when he says “the sheep hear his voice” (10:3)? This is the exegetical key to the passage for Jersak. Again, the contrast is between those who recognize (believe) the voice of shepherd (Christ’s testimony about himself) and follow (like the man born blind) with those who do not recognize (disbelieve) and do not follow (like the Pharisees). There seems to be a consensus among the consulted commentators that the call given to Christ’s sheep was a call to come out of the flock of Judaism into Christianity; a call to salvation. Kostenberger writes that the “sheep” are those called out of Judaism to Jesus’ new messianic community. Hendriksen writes that Jesus gathered his flock, “leading them out of the fold of Israel and of heathendom”. Carson writes that hearing Jesus’ voice was hearing his claims and recognizing him as the revelation from God. Burge writes that those who heard Jesus’ “voice” were those who came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Macarthur writes, “Christ said that his sheep hear his voice when he calls them out of Israel and into his messianic fold. His imagery pictures the human response to the effectual, divine call to salvation”. I could not find a single commentator, even in charismatic literature, that took John 10:1-21 (especially John 10:3) as having anything to do with prophetic ministry and hearing the revelatory voice of God (in the sense of the spiritual gift of prophecy).
Job 33 is a relatively straightforward text. In Job 33:8-12, Elihu repeats Job’s complaint that he is sinless and undeserving of his punishment. Then, in 33:13, Elihu asks Job why he complains that God does not give account of himself. Finally, in 33:14-18, Elihu explains to Job how God does speak to men to keep them from sin, though they may not perceive it aright (and is possibly suggesting that Job’s bad dreams from 7:14 were divine communication). So, the text seems to suggest what Jersak says it does; God does speak through dreams, visions, whispering in the ear. The problem with Jersak’s understanding of the passage is he just grabs an Old Testament text as if it is normative for Christians with no regard to its context. Alden anticipates this question when he writes that the difference between Elihu and modern believers is that “…there is available to us now the inscripturated revelation, which was not the case with the biblical characters”. Though Job 33:13-18 does record that God spoke in Job’s day through various revelatory modes, it must be read through the lens of the New Testament to understand if it is either prescriptive or normative for New Testament believers. If one wishes to claim the theology of Job for the church, one must at least be consistent and teach a clear and obivous prosperity gospel (Job 42:10-17). To my knowledge, Brad Jersak does not embrace or teach a prosperity gospel.
When Brad Jersak comes to John 16, he exegetically strikes out again. Jersak says that the “more” that Jesus wanted to tell (all believers, not just his disciples) was extra biblical revelation that is specifically the content of the internal conversation between God and Jesus regarding individual believers. One cannot but be utterly confounded at how Jersak decided to use Psalm 139:17-18 as an exegetical “key” to decipher John 16:12-15. Does any commentator besides Jersak think this? MacArthur thinks the “more” that Jesus had to share was “the significance of the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension”. Morris agrees with Macarthur and Carson writes that it is “the filling out of revelation nodally present in Jesus himself”. Borchert writes that it was “information about their forthcoming unbearable persecution and even death”. Either way, John 16 does not refer to the Holy Spirit revealing the conversational contents between the Father and the Son regarding believers.
This passage is simply a promise made to Jeremiah; that if he calls on God he will receive an answer. Jerusalem was being besieged by Babylon and Israel was understandably frightened. Is Jeremiah 33:3 a promise made to Christians, or specifically to Jeremiah (and Israel by extension)? Dearman suggests that it is a specific promise made to Jeremiah in a time of desperate need, as does Ryken, Thompson and Huey. The passage is a promise for Jeremiah alone and to grab the passage as a promise for New Testament Christians means to tear Jeremiah 33:3 out of it’s historical, grammatical and covenantal context and insert a foreign message into the text. That’s known as eisegesis, not exegesis.
An Examination of Jersak’s Primary Interpretational Errors
How does Jersak get such consistent misunderstandings and misapplications of scripture? How is it that a person with a several degrees in biblical studies is so opaque to the clear meaning of relatively unambiguous biblical passages? It seems that when Jersak abandoned his “‘rationalistic’ mastery of divinity”, he actually simply abandoned sound biblical hermeneutics and exegesis in two areas; inspiration of scripture recognized in a single intended meaning of scripture and consideration of genre. Though his errors are numerous (like his bizarre attacks against cessationism and sola scriptura), these two theological errors form the foundation of his misunderstanding of scripture.
Single Intended Meaning of Scripture
In the simplest terms, instead of seeking the meaning of any text (what it means), Jersak only seeks the application of a text for the given moment (what it means to him, in the moment) and thus equates application with interpretation. In this respect, Jersak is at odds with historical grammatical exegesis, which holds firmly to the concept of a single intended meaning of scripture. Kaiser writes “No definition of interpretation could be more fundamental than this: To interpret we must in every case reproduce the sense the Scriptural writer intended for his own words. The first step in the interpretive process is to link only those ideas with the author’s language that he connected with them” as well as “God’s meaning and revelatory-intention in any passage of Scripture may be accurately and confidently ascertained only by studying the verbal meanings of the divinely delegated and inspired human writers.” Kaiser would likely have a serious problem with the hermeneutics employed by Brad Jersak; he doesn’t seem to believe, or at least function like, there is a single intended meaning to Scripture.
In embracing an allegorical reading of scripture, Bernard Ramm would also have harsh words for Jersak. Regarding the implicit denial of authorial intent in allegorical reading of Scripture, Ramm writes
“…a very pious Protestant might be in a place of indecision whether he should take a certain trip or not. In his devotions he reads how the Church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas away on a missionary trip. So this Christian feels that God is speaking to him in that passage and it is now God’s will that he should take the proposed trip.
This is a very direct assertion of the plurality in the meaning of Scripture. (i) The first sense is what the record means of Paul and Barnabas setting out on a missionary trip. (ii) The second meaning is that God is telling this pious Christian of the twentieth century to take a trip.
But the pious Christian who does this has no idea that he is asserting a plural meaning of all Scripture. He does not know that much Catholic dogma is supported by allegory which is based on a plural meaning of Scripture; nor does he know that many cults base their theology in Scripture by the use of plural meanings in Scriptural texts. In short the Protestant who uses his Holy Scripture this way is unwittingly in some very bad theological company.”
In fact, I would suggest that if the Bible can mean anything, Chrisitanity ceases to exist. For example, Exodus 3:10 records God saying to Moses “So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.” If that specific passage has any meaning, it either means what the words mean in their original context (divine commission to go to Pharoah to redeem the Israelites) or it means something unrelated to the meaning of the words in their original context. If the message of the scripture isn’t related to the actual words of scripture, then in his effort to reveal himself to mankind, God failed. So much for claiming to know anything about God at all and Christianity, with all it’s bilbically derived doctrine, becomes an ensemble of fools speculating about the divine from a book that is as certain as the stock market.
Narrative Passages and Normative Application
Seeing that Brad Jersak doesn’t seem to function in a historical grammatical hermeneutic that recognizes a single intended meaning of scripture, it is not surprising that he then takes narrative passages (like John 10 and John 16) as prescriptive, and that he selectively reads Old Testament passages as being normative for believers. Kaiser comments on the historic specificity of scripture, writing “its words are most frequently, if not always in the Old Testament, directed to a specific people in a specific situation at a specific time and in a specific culture”. Specific instruction to specific people in a specific time is not universal, nor is it necessarily prescriptive for contemporary readers. Also, regarding this error, Gordon Fee writes a general rule regarding narrative that reads “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e. obligatory) way – unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way”. This is the same hermeneutical fallacy that spawned the post Y2K “Prayer of Jabez” craze, where many people ended up praying 2 Chronicles 4:9-10 without asking “should we even be doing this?’ If scripture means whatever a person wants it to mean and basically any passage can be read in a prescriptive, normative way, then the meaning of the Bible becomes subjective to the point that a person can end up using the Scripture to support anything and can be sure of nothing.
One might retort that a person simply must rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit to understand what the scripture means, but in such a situation one is caught in a wretched circle. One must first prove that the passages that teach about the leading of the Spirit mean what they appear to mean; i.e. that the Spirit actually leads in the way that the specific passage describe. If one cannot have confidence in the passages that talk about the leading of the Spirit, then one cannot have confidence that the Spirit will actually lead in the ways those passages teach.
In reality, the sort of “abandon the meaning and listen to what the Spirit says it means” hermeneutic is a rhetorical mask for someone overthrowing biblical doctrine. If one cannot overthrow a doctrine from the text of scripture, one must overthrow the text of scripture itself. This type of usage of scripture is consistently associated with people who are historically remembered as enemies of biblical Christianity. Brad Jersak uses it to support listening prayer (i.e. modern prophecy), and he has recently used it to abandon a historically orthodox view of the atonement. Though horribly sad, this move is consistent with his established theological direction.
The Verdict on Listening Prayer
After one examines Jersak’s scriptural support, one realizes it falls apart at even a slightly critical examination. When one examines Jersak’s use of scripture and explores his hermeneutical approach to the Bible, one realizes that Jersak interprets the Bible allegorically and ignores all forms of context (literary, covenantal, historical, etc), making his usage of Scripture to be exceedingly flippant. “Listening Prayer” is simply prophecy. Can You Hear Me is a guidebook for becoming a prophet based on frivlous use of scripture and the abandonment of sound biblical hermeneutics. Brad Jersak may certainly hear something, but he provides no biblically compelling reason at all to conclude it is God.
 Brad Jersak. Can You Hear Me (Abbotsford BC: Fresh Wind Press, 2003), 10.
 Ibid. “A spokesman for God’s heart” definitely sounds like Jersak is simply talking about being a prophet, for that definition seems strikingly familiar.
Walvoord defines a prophets as “authoritative channels through which God could give divine revelation, sometimes about the contemporary situation and sometimes about the future.” John Walvoord. 1986. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts. Bibliotheca Sacra 143 no. 570 (April-June): 113.
Stitzinger defines a prophet simply as someone who functioned “as a spokesman for God…on the basis of possessing supernatural knowledge.” James F. Stitzinger. 2003. Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds. Master’s Seminary Journal 14 no. 2 (Fall): 167.
Farnell almost uses the same words as Jersak in defining prophecy, saying that a prophet is a “spokesman or mouthpiece for the Lord”. David Farnell. 1993. When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease? Bibliotheca Sacra 150 no. 598 (April-June): 173.
 Ibid, 12.
 Ibid, 16.
 Ibid, 17.
 Ibid, 21.
 Ibid, 22.
 Ibid, 18.
 Ibid, 21.
 Ibid, 18.
 Ibid, 17.
 Ibid, 20.
 Ibid, 20-21.
 Ibid, 21.
 Ibid, 22.
 Ibid, 26.
 Ibid, 27.
 Ibid, 28.
 Ibid, 30.
 Ibid, 31.
 Ibid, 32.
 Ibid, 33.
 Ibid, 34
 Ibid, 35.
 Ibid, 35.
 Ibid, 37.
 Ibid, 38.
 Ibid, 39.
 Ibid, 40.
 On page 70, Jersak re-lists his “promise verses” as Matthew 28:20; Joshua 1:5; John 10:14,27; Jeremiah 33:3 and Matthew 7:8-11. The verses listed though are the main passages from which Jersak derives his exegetical support in his opening chapters and Matthew 28:20, Joshua 1:5 and Matthew 7:8-11 are not to be found in the first 2 chapters as part of that exegetical support. It is confusing why Jersak changes his supporting texts in the third chapter, but the change is not addressed by Jersak.
 Andreas J. Kostenberger. John. Baker Exegetical Comnmentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2004), 297.
 Ibid, 291.
 William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Gospel According to John. New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 98.
 D.A. Carson. The Gospel According to John. PNTC (Grand Rapids: W.B.Eerdmans, 1991), 382.
 John MacArthur Jr. John 1-11. MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2006), 426.
Leon Morris. The Gospel According to John. NICNT (Grand Rapids: W.B.Eerdmans, 1995), 451.
 Gary M Burge. John. NIVAC. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 290.
 Kostenberger, 297.
 Hendriksen, 105.
 Carson, 382.
 Burge, 299.
 MacArthur, 427-428.
 John E. Hartley. The Book of Job. NICOT (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1988), 443.
 Robert Alden. Job. NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 326.
 John MacArthur Jr. John 12-21. MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2008), 205.
 Morris, 621.
 Carson, 539.
 Gerald L. Borchert. John 12-21. NAC. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2002), 169.
 Andrew J. Dearrman. Jeremiah. NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 305.
 Philip Graham Ryken. Jeremiah and Lamentations. Preaching the Word (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2001), 498.
 J.A. Thompson. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT (Grand Rapids: W.B.Eerdmans, 1980), 598.
 Huey seems to almost humorously write directly against Jersak, saying “The NT equivalent of this verse is John 16:13, but neither of them justifies a “crystal-ball” mentality that seeks to know the future. There is no “secret” formula for unlocking the doors to the future.” F.B. Huey Jr. Jeremiah & Lamentations. NAC (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993), 298.
 Jersak, 11.
 Jersak seems to think the “doctrine” of Cessationism is the denial of extra biblical revelation (Jersak, 39) and he seems to think that sola scriptura means scripture is “our only authority for confirming God’s voice” (Jersak, 82). His errors on these subjects are legion.
 This concept comes from Robert Thomas’ examination of the hermeneutical aberrations of Gordon Fee, where Thomas walks examines how Fee equates application with interpretation. Robert Thomas. 2003. The Hermeneutics of NonCessationism. Masters Seminary Journal 14 no. 2 (Fall): 300.
 Walter C. Kaiser Jr. “Legitimate Hermeneutics” in Inerrancy, ed. Norm Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 118.
 Walter C. Kaiser Jr. “The Single Intent of Scripture” in Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996), 168.
 Barnard Ramm. Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), 112.
 Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Toward and Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981), 37.
 Godron Fee and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 119.
 Jersak has recently (2007) expanded his flight from biblical doctrine, co-editing a book with Michael Hardin that is a compilation of essays critiquing the penal substitutionary view of the atonement from questionable scholars like N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg and Miroslav Volf. It is called “Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ”.