Dan Bohi and the NAR

Pastor Voddie Baucham once preached, “When you introduce ideas that sound very similar to it (i.e. Christianity) and put Jesus’ name to it, what you get is a brand of Christianity that is not at all Christian.” The New Apostolic Reformation movement (read my writings about the NAR here) does precisely that. NAR evangelist Dan Bohi’s written work, Holiness and Healing, co-authored by NAR Nazarene pastor Rob McCorkle, openly promote NAR theology. I will examine Bohi’s theological commitments and how they align with the NAR movement. My citations will come directly from his book. For those who wish to dive more deeply, I will encourage all my visitors to read my fuller treatment of the NAR’s scriptural claims in a separate article.

Apostles and Prophets

Bohi believes the office of apostles and prophets exists in the modern world. This statement can be confusing because the terminology is familiar to us. Similar to how Mormons have perverted Christian terminology, the NAR has monkeyed around with Christian terms. Apostles exist when defined Biblically. For example, if an apostle is defined as a ‘missionary’ or ‘church planter’, there is no Biblical inconsistency. However, when the NAR defines an apostle as being someone appointed by God to govern the church because of their privileged ability to receive direct revelation from God, this is a dramatic departure from scripture. 

Bohi openly embraces the NAR definition of an apostle by stating, 

“I believe apostles govern. They hear what is going on in the heavenly realm because God has given them a special calling to see from the perspective of Heaven. They have the responsibility of oversight. They give messages that give guidance and oversight for movements. They have the anointing to bring corporate shifts because they operate from the perspective of the heavenly realm, and so they have great vision and insight as to where churches and movements need to go. We might think of apostles as spiritual fathers, too. They father/parent movements.” (page 159)

The NAR’s definition of apostle is not scripturally rooted. This theological sleight of hand imports the authority of the Christ-appointed apostles of the early church to the functional apostles found in Ephesians 4:11, which would operate as missionaries and church planters. Theologian Wayne Grudem observes, “It is noteworthy that no major leaders in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of ‘apostle’ or let himself be called an apostle.” (Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, page 911). Yet, those in the NAR celebrate and promote this misreading of scripture and practice. 

Secondly, Bohi believes that prophets also hold a God-appointed authoritative office that operates similarly. The implications of NAR theology necessarily entail that the authority of modern prophets is equivalent to Old Testament prophets, which spoke directly for God. If that’s true of modern prophets, those who prophesy are inerrant because they’re speaking for God. Bohi writes about his views on modern prophets,

“I believe prophets guide. They have the ability to see and hear prophetically, so they give words of guidance. Prophets have the ability to alert churches and movements of where the Spirit is leading. They can avert spiritual disaster, too. Sometimes their words bring correction or warning to movements. If the Church is operating with evangelists, pastors, and teachers but not prophets and apostles, then we are operating in a realm that keeps chasing itself around the earthly realm without the heavenly influence. This is why I believe God appointed them in the church first (see 1 Corinthians 12:28). They keep the church attached to the spiritual realm. They help funnel in supernatural activities.” (page 159-160)

NAR apologists disproportionately prioritize supernatural activities and governmental offices over a sound understanding of scripture. When their prophecies fail, they commonly say that modern prophets can’t be expected to be correct 100% of the time. Bill Hamon, who is commonly considered the leading prophet in the NAR movement, states in his book, “prophets ministering in the dispensation of the Church are extended more grace than were the prophets of the Old Testament.” (page 101) Hamon writes in a separate book, “God has ordained that the apostles and prophets will receive the revelations, creative ideas, and divine strategy for bringing transformation to this world as God has ordained from the foundation of the world.” (page 247). It cannot be scripturally reconciled that prophets are divine agents of God’s knowledge while demanding allowances for error. Moses gave us criteria for how to discern the legitimacy of a prophet in Deuteronomy 18:22, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.” Regardless of scripture, the NAR demands that prophets should sit in offices of church government with authority alongside apostles while admitting prophetic fallibility. Those that advance this teaching are promoting false doctrine.

As you can see, Bohi is aligned with those in the NAR movement. Bohi goes further and says, “The job of the apostles and prophets is to help us become aware of the atmosphere of the kingdom, and if we don’t recognize them or acknowledge them, then supernatural activity isn’t as prevalent.” (page 160) By implication, Bohi’s view is that we cannot question those that claim to be apostles and prophets because it’ll severely limit our exposure to “supernatural activity.” Bohi’s obsession with supernatural activity is disturbing, especially when it comes at the expense of perverting the word of God and leading Christ followers astray.


When Dan Bohi, his co-author Rob McCorkle, or any individual who makes claims that reveal their NAR theology, they ultimately resort to imprecise language to cloak their agenda. There are many outlandish assertions made about the nature of apostles and prophets, among many other things, but their justification for their theology isn’t rooted in a contextual reading of the scriptures. As I’ve demonstrated here and elsewhere, the NAR movement is heterodoxical at best and heretical at worst. The NAR doesn’t belong in a healthy church. NAR is not a “brand of Christianity” that is Christian at all, and pastors who promote the NAR from the pulpit, tolerate it from their congregations, or invite Dan Bohi (or any NAR evangelist) to their church will answer to God for their transgressions


One response to “Dan Bohi and the NAR

  1. Pingback: Introduction to Dan Bohi | Worldview of Jesus·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s