Can I question some things I hear, in our Charismatic movement?

[Frogster]

Frogster You seem to have a problem with people asking for money. They do it in shops all the time. It seems that it is a prerequisite to paying bills

i have a problem with text twisters, that use fear and guilt, to take money.

should they be confronted if they take a clear story, like 2 cor 8-9, an offering for the poor, and turn it into a lifelong give to pastor teaching?

 

[Alive_Again]

You imply because they take up a collection that their heart condition is wrong. Also, just because 2 Cor does not mean we go rebuking pastors and other ministers for taking up offerings.

 

[Frogster]

You imply because they take up a collection that their heart condition is wrong. Also, just because 2 Cor does not mean we go rebuking pastors and other ministers for taking up offerings.

no, your forgetting the point, they do not present the story context, in 8-9 truthfully, or fully, and they never stress how beaten up paul, for the most part worked, not to burden, and so did Titus, timothy, Silas, priscila and Aquilla, Barnabas, but nooooo....they just keep hamering out of 2 cor 8-9, acting like it means that people have to every sunday, give to them forever, not mentioning the poor as Paul did in 2 cor 9:9, and in Acts 20, where he stressed working and giving to the poor quoting Jesus in 20:35. What they pretend 2 cor 8-9 was NOT AT ALL, what went on in Corinth with the collection for the poor, the one time collection. was it?

Are we to believe these fellows can't read 2 chapters in the Bible, and not understand that Paul was not seeking the money for his ministry, as the people of today use 2 chapters to seek money for themselves? Not to mention the other things I pointed out, the poor should not give, it was a 1 time thing, etc.

So again, should they, the "Dr's" be confronted for their scritpure twister, or get a free ride, on the anointed touch me not train?

 

[contango]

The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.

We can't know peoples' hearts but we can see their teaching. If someone's teaching does not align with Scripture then we shouldn't follow them regardless of whether they have a good heart or not.

If all we focus on is whether someone's heart is sound we end up in all sorts of silly places where being devout and sincere trumps being right. There are devout and sincere Hindus, Muslims, atheists, occultists etc. Should we regard all of these people in the same light as someone presented as a Christian leader who teaches contrary to Scripture?

If anything I would say the "Christian" leader who teaches contrary to Scripture is more dangerous than the Muslim leader who does the same.

You seem to take issue with many people. You would be much happier just turning it over to the Lord.

Taking issue with bad teaching is not a bad thing. "Turning it over to the Lord" seems like a generic catch-all statement suggesting people should do nothing to counter bad teaching. If we see something that appears to run against Scripture why is it a bad thing to point it out?

 

[Frogster]

We can't know peoples' hearts but we can see their teaching. If someone's teaching does not align with Scripture then we shouldn't follow them regardless of whether they have a good heart or not.

If all we focus on is whether someone's heart is sound we end up in all sorts of silly places where being devout and sincere trumps being right. There are devout and sincere Hindus, Muslims, atheists, occultists etc. Should we regard all of these people in the same light as someone presented as a Christian leader who teaches contrary to Scripture?

If anything I would say the "Christian" leader who teaches contrary to Scripture is more dangerous than the Muslim leader who does the same.



Taking issue with bad teaching is not a bad thing. "Turning it over to the Lord" seems like a generic catch-all statement suggesting people should do nothing to counter bad teaching. If we see something that appears to run against Scripture why is it a bad thing to point it out?

excellent point, good hearted people can be wrong, but text stands.

 

[TillICollapse]

The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.

I do, and I don't, understand why people say this.

You can see people's hearts. Some you can, some you can't.

To me, this is actually used more than the "Touch not the anointed," thing. I personally hear, much more often, "You don't know that person's heart," etc and so forth. Though it may be true in context if a person has not been shown the heart of another, it's often implied that it is impossible to know or something. Which in my experience it isn't.

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting it's impossible to see someone's heart ?

 

[Frogster]

I do, and I don't, understand why people say this.

You can see people's hearts. Some you can, some you can't.

To me, this is actually used more than the "Touch not the anointed," thing. I personally hear, much more often, "You don't know that person's heart," etc and so forth. Though it may be true in context if a person has not been shown the heart of another, it's often implied that it is impossible to know or something. Which in my experience it isn't.

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting it's impossible to see someone's heart ?

Yes, Paul judged motives in Galatia, and Corinth.

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes, Paul judged motives in Galatia, and Corinth.

Another scriptural example would be with Simon the Sorcerer

 

[Frogster]

Another scriptural example would be with Simon the Sorcerer

ahhh...good one, i forgot about that.

 

[TillICollapse]

ahhh...good one, i forgot about that.

I thought I would toss that out there, as it involved money as well.

 

[Frogster]

I thought I would toss that out there, as it involved money as well.

trueth....

 

[Alive_Again]

Originally Posted by Alive_Again

The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.
​

You can see people's hearts. Some you can, some you can't.

Yes you can by discernment of spirits. You can bear witness or be quickened in some capacity. In all of these cases you "receive" judgment (which is what I'm advocating).

If the gifts don't belittle or condemn believers then when that starts taking place, we know it isn't God doing this.

In each case that Paul spoke, if he spoke by the Spirit of God, he received that judgment. This should be a norm for those in authority. When he spoke on his own, he said he spoke by permission and spoke what he considered to be his judgment. The pastor's anointing certainly has everything to do with spotting wolves around the flock.

The watchman will also be shown things, but that is the emphasis. That is often for intercession, not for making a public spectacle out of a person. Someone might speak to their pastor or elders, but it's not a "free-for-all".

To see someone contradict scripture would be an occasion to speak out (if you're given the space). We don't always have a perfect understanding of scripture though, so if it is not clear, it will be ill-advised. Also, in the Evangelical section of the church, they don't have the foundation Spirit filled believers have and more readily would speak wrongly of what they don't understand. We don't condemn them either.

To issue an admonition to not forget about (i.e. not calling someone a fool, etc.) would be a good one. Not meant to condemn. If someone boldly stands firms in direct opposition, then there is a problem.

I saw someone in GT insist tongues and other manifestations today were part of the Kundalini thing. That was extremely ill advised. But it would be wrong to belittle that person. To some, ANY opposition is to judge and belittle.

We should be able to speak to one another and remind each other to not judge un-righteously. Everyone does it from time to time and we endure a state of hardness of heart when we do so. We need the reminder. I remember someone said something that made Charles Capps look bad. When someone said something about it, they immediately retracted and thanked the person for pointing that out. A perfect example of how we help one another.

 

[Alive_Again]

I also want to say that most American churches usually have a budget, and the pastor is salaried. When the offerings are taken, it is for the church, and there is an understanding among the leadership (elders, deacon board if their is one) that the pastor and other staff will be getting paid. If you work in the field, you get to partake.

Paul kind of let it be known that he had authority he was not using when he worked. He could have received money from the church collections to fund his preaching.

When they chose the first deacons (as we know them), it was so it would free up the apostles from the more menial tasks and they could focus on the Word and prayer. That's what we want our pastors to be doing too. You stand to benefit from that.

So we can't activate the "gift of suspicion" because a church takes up an offering (even mentioning the 2 Cor or Malachi scriptures to do it). Yes, I believe that would be out of context, but the collection is not and the purposes in the management of the church.

Yes, some no doubt abuse it, but (unless you know something specific), who are we to accuse? In love you give someone the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Frogster]

I also want to say that most American churches usually have a budget, and the pastor is salaried. When the offerings are taken, it is for the church, and there is an understanding among the leadership (elders, deacon board if their is one) that the pastor and other staff will be getting paid. If you work in the field, you get to partake.

Paul kind of let it be known that he had authority he was not using when he worked. He could have received money from the church collections to fund his preaching.

When they chose the first deacons (as we know them), it was so it would free up the apostles from the more menial tasks and they could focus on the Word and prayer. That's what we want our pastors to be doing too. You stand to benefit from that.

So we can't activate the "gift of suspicion" because a church takes up an offering (even mentioning the 2 Cor or Malachi scriptures to do it). Yes, I believe that would be out of context, but the collection is not and the purposes in the management of the church.

Yes, some no doubt abuse it, but (unless you know something specific), who are we to accuse? In love you give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Then why don't todays leaders work? as Paul told that to ELDERS, in acts 20. Are today'a leaders floating at sea, getting stoned, whipped, beat up all the time as Paul was, but still worked, as did barnabas? What is their excuse for not working, and what about the burden issue, and what about the context of 2 cor 8-9, as they twist it to get money for themselves???...I could go on and on, with the tithe money issue, feel free to start a thread if you so desire.

Now, the point is, after all the text manipulation to get money, often from poor hard working families, or elderly, as they contort the text people to get money from people that often have less than they, the preacher has, as some preachers really live high, should the teacher using Mal 3, with fear, and using the gift FOR THE POOR, in 2 cor 8-9, be confronted for the abuse, or get a free ride, under the touch not verse?

 

[Alive_Again]

We can't know peoples' hearts but we can see their teaching. If someone's teaching does not align with Scripture then we shouldn't follow them regardless of whether they have a good heart or not.

For sure!

I have had differences of understanding with pastors before, and it's something you just have to pray about. Quite often what they object to is their perception of what you're saying and not what you're saying. (Very much like these threads.)

If all we focus on is whether someone's heart is sound we end up in all sorts of silly places where being devout and sincere trumps being right.

That's how I feel about a lot of Catholic teaching. I just flat don't agree with indulgences, praying to saints, veneration of saints, the whole "Mary mother of God" thing. Each person has to judge for themselves where God wants them to fellowship. It may be for a time in a place where you agree very little with doctrine. The Sandford's had to stay in their denomination (according to their guidance) even though the leadership approved of gay ministers! They were obedient.

If anything I would say the "Christian" leader who teaches contrary to Scripture is more dangerous than the Muslim leader who does the same.

I guess it depends on what it is. If we only hung out with people we only agreed completely with, we'd be alone a lot.

I said: You seem to take issue with many people. You would be much happier just turning it over to the Lord.

Taking issue with bad teaching is not a bad thing. "Turning it over to the Lord" seems like a generic catch-all statement suggesting people should do nothing to counter bad teaching.

I think if it gets in the way with believing the best in people (in love) and being suspicious of people's motives a lot, it would be better to let it go completely!

If we see something that appears to run against Scripture why is it a bad thing to point it out?

We can do that here. It's how it's done that matters. Do it like you'd like your words to be judged. Realize that we know in part and our take isn't always correct.

We're supposed to put on the table how things agree or not with scripture and you can chime in with how things register in your spirit. Is it for the purpose of finding the things we approve of and judging associated fruits, or is a "so and so" is a doofus? Are we willing to be convinced otherwise? Is it a search?

 

[Alive_Again]

Then why don't todays leaders work? as Paul told that to ELDERS, in acts 20. Are today'a leaders floating at sea, getting stoned, whipped, beat up all the time as Paul was, but still worked, as did barnabas?

What they do for us IS work. In fact, they often do it 16 hours a day, and some without vacations. If people are set apart to the Word and prayer, then why is that a problem?

What is their excuse for not working, and what about the burden issue, and what about the context of 2 cor 8-9, as they twist it to get money for themselves???...

I can see you're having trouble letting it go as you seem to judge all ministers who take offerings as someone taking it illegally. You'd be lot happier not being suspicious of the motives of these ministers. Let God sort them out.

 

[Frogster]

What they do for us IS work. In fact, they often do it 16 hours a day, and some without vacations. If people are set apart to the Word and prayer, then why is that a problem?


I can see you're having trouble letting it go as you seem to judge all ministers who take offerings as someone taking it illegally. You'd be lot happier not being suspicious of the motives of these ministers. Let God sort them out.

please...Paul made a distinction, from the two works, ministry, and all of his personal labor, sleepless nights, working with out own hands, etc, if you want text, let me know...I mean please, do we confront the false teaching or not, or do they get to hide under the touch not verse?

please advise...

 

[Frogster]

What they do for us IS work. In fact, they often do it 16 hours a day, and some without vacations. If people are set apart to the Word and prayer, then why is that a problem?


I can see you're having trouble letting it go as you seem to judge all ministers who take offerings as someone taking it illegally. You'd be lot happier not being suspicious of the motives of these ministers. Let God sort them out.

God "sorted people out" through his ministers, that is why we have text, that was the sorting out...they were letters written to people/places where false doctrine was taught, and paul did not think about the touch not verse, bro, he touched...touching is scriptural, and yes, can be rewarding too.

 

[contango]

For sure!

I have had differences of understanding with pastors before, and it's something you just have to pray about. Quite often what they object to is their perception of what you're saying and not what you're saying. (Very much like these threads.)

Sometimes a difference of opinion is trivial. My pastor is very much into football and I consider football a total waste of time. This isn't a theological problem. If my pastor didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ that would be a bigger issue.

That's how I feel about a lot of Catholic teaching. I just flat don't agree with indulgences, praying to saints, veneration of saints, the whole "Mary mother of God" thing. Each person has to judge for themselves where God wants them to fellowship. It may be for a time in a place where you agree very little with doctrine. The Sandford's had to stay in their denomination (according to their guidance) even though the leadership approved of gay ministers! They were obedient.

I'm not familiar with the Sandfords so can't comment on their guidance. In theory it is possible God could call us to do just about anything but if doctrine is badly wrong I would be cautious.

I guess it depends on what it is. If we only hung out with people we only agreed completely with, we'd be alone a lot.

This is where we have to determine what we consider doctrinally critical and what we consider doctrinally acceptable. For example I disagree with the baptism of infants but wouldn't consider those who practise it to be in grave error. Someone who denied the divinity of Jesus, or who believed that God is in everything in a pantheistic sense, is in a very different place.

I said: You seem to take issue with many people. You would be much happier just turning it over to the Lord.
I think if it gets in the way with believing the best in people (in love) and being suspicious of people's motives a lot, it would be better to let it go completely!

We shouldn't always believe the best in people. Unity is a good thing but unity at the expense of sound doctrine is a pathway to destruction. Even if we do believe the best in people that doesn't help us - if someone preaches false doctrine and we follow them it makes little difference whether they believed it to be true or knew it to be false. It's like someone giving directions to a person who is lost - if the directions send the seeker in the wrong direction the intentions of the person who led them astray do nothing to recover the lost time and fuel.

We can do that here. It's how it's done that matters. Do it like you'd like your words to be judged. Realize that we know in part and our take isn't always correct.

Of course. If I believe someone is teaching contrary to Scripture I'll say so. Likewise if someone believes I am teaching contrary to Scripture I hope they will say so. But either way it needs to be demonstrated using Scripture in context, not vague comments like "touch not the Lord's anointed" - if someone teaches contrary to Scripture it is hard to see how they can claim to be so anointed.

We're supposed to put on the table how things agree or not with scripture and you can chime in with how things register in your spirit. Is it for the purpose of finding the things we approve of and judging associated fruits, or is a "so and so" is a doofus? Are we willing to be convinced otherwise? Is it a search?

How things register with our spirit is subjective at best. We need an objective source as a fallback because in the absence of an external objective measure we have no way of resolving the conflict if one says it agrees with their spirit and another says it clashes. Hence, however something might register with our spirit, if it contradicts Scripture we need to be wary of it.

I have no interest in comments like "X is a doofus". I mentioned Bill Johnson by name further up so I'll stick with him as an example. If someone can demonstrate, using Scripture in context, why his teachings are sound I will gladly consider what they have to say and test it against Scripture. I'd certainly hope anyone reading my words wouldn't just reject Mr Johnson's teachings based on my say-so, I'd hope they would go back to the objectivity of Scripture and test both of our teachings against the one unchanging yardstick we have been given. Frankly, to do anything less would be to elevate one of us to a level above God himself.

 

[TillICollapse]

Originally Posted by Alive_Again

The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.
​

Yes you can by discernment of spirits. You can bear witness or be quickened in some capacity. In all of these cases you "receive" judgment (which is what I'm advocating).

Well, I would put discernment of spirits in a different category than seeing someone's heart. They have a link, but I get what you're saying about "receiving judgement".