Kathryn Krick calls herself "Apostle Kathryn Krick." That is not just a church title. It is a claim of authority.

Krick leads Five-Fold Church in Los Angeles and has become widely known online for deliverance ministry, healing claims, and teachings about spiritual "anointing." In an August 26, 2026, message, she said, "It’s not just accepting Jesus as Lord that brings this spiritual protection." She went on to say that believers need to be planted in a church that is truly anointed and positioned to receive the anointing flowing through God’s chosen vessels. [1]

That teaching should immediately get our attention. It places enormous importance on the spiritual authority of the person claiming to carry that anointing.

Krick also says her own calling as an apostle began in 2016 when Tanzanian minister GeorDavie, whom she now calls her spiritual father, prophesied that she was called to be "an Apostle of Jesus Christ" and to reach the nations. [2] GeorDavie’s ministry goes further. It says he anointed Krick and imparted to her a sacred mantle carrying spiritual authority and responsibility. [3]

Those are serious claims. If Kathryn Krick really is an apostle of Jesus Christ, Christians should take that seriously.

But Scripture tells us to take the opposite possibility seriously too.

Jesus praised the church at Ephesus because they had "tested those who claim to be apostles but are not" and found them false (Revelation 2:2).

So that is what we should do.

Is Kathryn Krick really an apostle of Jesus Christ?

Today, most Christians hear the word apostle and immediately think of a church office. But the Greek word behind it, ἀπόστολος (apostolos), already had a meaning before Christians used it as a religious title.

In everyday Greek, when apostolos described a person, it meant a messenger, ambassador, or envoy - someone sent out on a mission by someone else. The standard Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek lexicon gives exactly those meanings. Ancient writers even used the word to refer to a mission or expedition that had been sent out. [4]

The important idea is not rank. It is being sent.

An apostle is a representative. He does not create his own authority. His authority comes from the one who sent him, and his job is to faithfully carry out the sender’s mission.

Think of an ambassador. An ambassador may speak with great authority, but the authority is not his own. He represents the country that sent him. If he abandons that country’s message and begins making up his own policy, he is no longer faithfully representing the one who sent him.

That makes the biblical question remarkably simple:

Who sent you?

And whose message are you carrying?

The New Testament sometimes uses apostolos in a broader sense to refer to a church’s messenger or representative. Epaphroditus, for example, is called the Philippians’ messenger in Philippians 2:25. But when someone claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, the claim is much greater. The person is claiming to have been sent by Christ to represent Him.

The Twelve did not give themselves the title. Jesus chose them. Luke says Jesus called His disciples to Him, chose twelve of them, and "designated them apostles" (Luke 6:13).

Their authority began with the Sender.

Paul makes the same point even more forcefully. He opens Galatians this way: "Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Galatians 1:1).

Paul seems almost determined to remove any possible confusion about the source of his authority. It did not come from a man. A religious leader did not make him an apostle. Jesus Christ did.

Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. The Lord later told Ananias that Paul was His chosen instrument to carry His name before the Gentiles and their kings and before Israel (Acts 9:15). Paul later said Jesus had appeared to him to appoint him as a servant and witness (Acts 26:16).

The church recognized Paul’s calling. It did not create it.

That distinction matters when we compare Paul with Kathryn Krick.

Barnabas is especially important because Acts 14:14 calls both Barnabas and Paul apostles. So how was Barnabas sent?

Acts 13 gives us the answer.

Prophets and teachers were gathered with the church at Antioch. While they were worshiping and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2).

The church then fasted, prayed, laid hands on them, and sent them out. But Luke immediately tells us who was ultimately sending them: Barnabas and Saul were "sent on their way by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 13:4).

Notice what happened - and what did not happen.

There were prophets present. But no prophet made Barnabas an apostle. No prophet announced that he had the power to transfer an apostolic office. No prophet gave Barnabas an apostolic mantle that now flowed through a spiritual family line.

The Holy Spirit called them. The church recognized that call, prayed over them, and released them to the work.

Then Barnabas and Paul did what sent representatives of Jesus should do. They preached Christ. They proclaimed the gospel. They made disciples. They strengthened believers. They established churches and appointed elders. They endured persecution for the message they carried. Then they returned to Antioch and reported what God had done through them (Acts 13-14).

They were sent on Christ’s mission, carrying Christ’s message.

Krick tells a different story.

She says GeorDavie prophesied that she was called to be an apostle. She calls him her spiritual father. She has also said that the anointing on her life was imparted through him. In May 2026, she thanked him for releasing that anointing upon her so that it could come upon others. [5]

GeorDavie’s own ministry describes the relationship in even stronger language. It says he recognized Krick as God’s chosen vessel, anointed her, and imparted a sacred mantle and spiritual authority to her. [3]

Here is the question that has to be answered:

Where does Scripture give a prophet the authority to make someone an apostle of Jesus Christ?

A prophet can speak. A church can pray. Believers can lay hands on someone and send that person into ministry. Acts 13 clearly shows that.

But Acts 13 does not show a prophet creating an apostle. It shows the Holy Spirit calling people to His work and the church recognizing and sending them.

Paul went even further: his apostleship was not "from men nor by a man."

Krick may sincerely believe GeorDavie’s prophecy came from God. GeorDavie may sincerely believe he recognized what God was doing. But sincerity does not settle the question.

If someone claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, the authority cannot finally rest on another person saying, "God told me you are an apostle." The claim has to stand the test of Scripture.

There is another test, and it may be even more important.

An ambassador must faithfully represent the one who sent him. So an apostle of Jesus Christ must faithfully represent Jesus Christ.

That means the message matters.

This is where Krick’s recent teaching about spiritual protection becomes so troubling. She says accepting Jesus as Lord is not enough for the protection she describes. Believers must be planted under a truly anointed ministry and positioned to receive the anointing flowing through an anointed vessel. [1]

The New Testament certainly teaches Christians to gather with other believers, submit to godly church leadership, pray for one another, and refuse isolation. But it does not teach that Christians need a specially anointed human leader standing over them to protect them from curses, witchcraft, sickness, accidents, financial attacks, or demonic oppression.

When Paul explains spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6, he tells believers to put on the armor of God: truth, righteousness, readiness from the gospel, faith, salvation, the Word of God, and prayer. He does not tell them to find an apostle with a greater level of anointing and get under that person’s spiritual covering.

The difference is not small.

One teaching directs frightened believers toward Christ, His Word, faith, prayer, and the armor God gives every believer.

The other can leave believers wondering whether Christ is enough unless they remain connected to a particular anointed leader.

There is another concern that cannot be ignored.

Krick teaches several "keys" to receiving complete deliverance. In a January 2026 teaching published by her own ministry, she said the "last key is sowing into God’s kingdom" to undo sowing a person previously did into the devil’s kingdom. She says some people may need to give more of themselves to God before they experience total freedom. [6]

To be fair, Krick also says this is not payment and that healing and deliverance cannot be bought. That qualification should be reported honestly.

But it does not remove the problem.

If giving money to God’s work can be a key that unlocks a person’s deliverance, then money is still connected to spiritual freedom. A frightened person who desperately wants freedom can reasonably hear that teaching as: perhaps I have not given enough yet.

That is precisely the kind of spiritual pressure the church should avoid.

When Simon offered money for spiritual power in Acts 8, Peter did not teach him the correct way to sow. He rebuked the very idea that the gift of God could be connected to money (Acts 8:18-23). Jesus told His disciples, "Freely you have received; freely give" (Matthew 10:8).

Christians should give generously. Ministries need financial support. Scripture teaches both. But giving should never become a lever attached to healing, deliverance, spiritual protection, or access to God’s power.

These concerns are not coming only from Christians who reject all modern claims of prophecy, healing, or other supernatural gifts.

The hosts of The Remnant Radio openly believe God still gives supernatural gifts today. Yet after examining Krick’s book, they raised serious concerns about her teaching that apostles and prophets carry greater levels of anointing, the authority attached to her spiritual lineage through GeorDavie, and teachings that can discourage followers from listening to voices outside that circle. [7]

Pastor Costi Hinn has also publicly called Krick a false teacher. He does not believe the church has apostles today in the same sense as the New Testament apostles. But one of his broader points is still important: casting out demons, reports of healing, and other supernatural claims do not prove that someone is an apostle. [8]

Denison Forum has also warned that Krick’s claims can place too much spiritual authority in human leaders rather than in Christ. [9]

And a Christian writer who believes apostles may still serve in the church today has nevertheless challenged Krick’s teaching that financial sowing can be connected to deliverance. [10]

That matters because it keeps us from getting distracted by a different debate.

We do not have to settle every question about whether God could ever send an apostle today before examining Kathryn Krick.

For the sake of argument, we can grant the possibility.

She still has to pass the test.

Put the pieces together.

Krick says a prophet identified her as an apostle. She calls that prophet her spiritual father and says anointing was imparted to her through him. She teaches that believers need to position themselves where powerful anointing is flowing. She says that kind of anointing provides spiritual protection and deliverance. And she teaches that, for some people, sowing into God’s kingdom can be one of the keys connected to complete freedom.

That creates an enormous amount of authority around the person who claims to carry the anointing.

Whether intentionally or not, a system like that can control people.

If followers believe their spiritual protection depends on remaining under an anointed leader, leaving becomes frightening. If criticism of the leader is treated as resisting what God is doing, questioning becomes frightening. And if financial giving can become part of the path toward deliverance, the system can also direct money toward the ministry through spiritual pressure.

We should be careful here. We cannot see Kathryn Krick’s heart, and we should not claim to know her private motives. Only God knows whether she is seeking control, money, influence, or sincerely believes everything she teaches.

But Christians do not have to prove a teacher’s motive before testing the teaching.

The system itself can be tested.

And Scripture commands us to test it.

We asked the question in the title. We should answer it.

Based on the public evidence Krick herself provides about her calling and the teachings she publicly promotes, I see no biblical reason to recognize Kathryn Krick as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Her claimed apostleship rests heavily on the prophecy and impartation she received through GeorDavie. The New Testament does not show a prophet possessing the authority to create an apostle of Christ or to transfer the apostolic mantle to someone else.

Paul said his apostleship was not from men or through a man. Barnabas and Paul were called by the Holy Spirit and sent by the church to a specific work. Jesus Himself chose and sent the Twelve.

And the message must also be tested.

Teaching believers that accepting Jesus as Lord is not enough for the spiritual protection she describes, and that they need the covering of a specially anointed ministry, does not reflect the New Testament pattern. Connecting financial sowing to complete deliverance creates another serious conflict with the way Jesus and His apostles treated God’s gifts.

That leads to two conclusions.

First, important parts of Kathryn Krick’s teaching do not reflect biblical truth.

Second, she is not doing what Scripture shows a true apostle of Jesus doing: faithfully carrying Christ’s authority and Christ’s message as one genuinely sent by Him.

The word apostle is not a badge someone can pin on herself. It is a claim to have been sent.

So the question always comes back to the same two things:

Krick has not provided biblical evidence sufficient to support the authority implied by the title she uses. Whatever her personal intentions, "Apostle" functions as a claim to authority she has not shown that Jesus Christ actually gave her.

That is why Christians should not recognize the title simply because she claims it.

Jesus did not rebuke the Ephesian church for questioning people who claimed to be apostles.

He praised them for testing the claim.

Do not decide whether a teacher speaks for God because people fall down, report healing, claim deliverance, or call that person "anointed."

Open the Bible.

Ask who sent the teacher. Ask what authority that person is claiming. Then compare the message with the message Christ and His apostles actually gave us.

And never surrender your responsibility to test a spiritual leader simply because that leader claims that questioning the ministry means questioning God.

The believers at Ephesus tested those who claimed to be apostles.

Jesus praised them for doing it.