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

[Alive_Again]

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.

I was talking about giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to offerings, selling books, etc. If we think they're greedy for doing these things, there's a real problem. You won't respect anybody, and it's likely you won't be able to fellowship anywhere. If you polled 100 dedicated believers and asked them if it were wrong to do these things, I would venture at least 99 would say it was just fine.

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.

There's where someones need for healing often comes in when they reject to a warning in scripture that is crystal clear. If someone is just manifesting the enemy you take authority over the enemy. If someone's doctrine went sour (W Branham on the latter), you still don't walk up to him and rebuke him. If you point out (what you believe are) doctrinal errors, you do that in a spirit of love (maybe to someone asking about him). I don't believe you're touching the anointing to do so (IF God gives you space to articulate this).

As mistaken as he ended up being, if you called him a false prophet, I believe you'd be wrong. It would concern you directly, but you'd still have to be led in what you do.

The danger is when some very anointed people (I believe Bill Johnson is one) and someone doesn't agree with their doctrine (and it is of God), well if someone brings them into disrepute (nothing wrong with disagreeing), then you've gone too far. Since we have the example of Gemaliel, who said it will come to nought if it isn't of God, it would be wise to consider this statement before uttering judgments against people. So maybe you're not convinced and you don't agree. You don't call him a "false apostle".

If he's coming to speak in your church and you're a pastor, then that would be different.

How things register with our spirit is subjective at best.

Of course and you present that in truth. It's still what you believe. For example the Kat Kerr thing. I witnessed POWERFULLY to her messages. On the surface, you might not discern the value in this right off, but having experienced the power in it, I'm fully convinced. Someone else needs to give it an ear and weigh it out (if they're led). But to speak against it and you don't really know is very dangerous.

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.

There should be no witness by the Holy Spirit if it is in error. So if someone is getting life ministered to them, they bear witness to that. If it's really life, the other person should hear this (if they're willing).

It's not a conflict and people will agree to disagree. It's always wise to be careful. I mentioned (me) speaking out rashly in a comment about this "Strange Fire" thing. I was wrong to do so (what I said was correct). I wasn't given liberty to do this. In fact, the minister in question is God's servant. He's just ignorant. Since he's not my servant, that means God will work it out.

No big thing to present some of his statements and disagree (with scripture to the contrary). But rebuking and "touching" a servant of God (without being called to is bad news). I will say that his conference does NOT seem to be an exercise of the anointing. It's the exercise of the anointing you really don't want to infterfere with.

I believe Paul learned to discern as he lashed out against the high priest, and then he repented.

I remember listening to a Bill Johnson message one night. Just about everything he said had depth and he had me scrambling for a pen and paper. Now that's good! To speak that way with an anointing means you spent time in God's presence and received revelation. All I can do is tell you about it.

If someone came behind me and said Bill was a false apostle, I'd caution them to doublecheck and at minimum, to think twice before just speaking out like that.

People have absolutely nothing to gain by applying deceiving titles on God's people.

 

[Frogster]

I was talking about giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to offerings, selling books, etc. If we think they're greedy for doing these things, there's a real problem. You won't respect anybody, and it's likely you won't be able to fellowship anywhere. If you polled 100 dedicated believers and asked them if it were wrong to do these things, I would venture at least 99 would say it was just fine.

There's where someones need for healing often comes in when they reject to a warning in scripture that is crystal clear. If someone is just manifesting the enemy you take authority over the enemy. If someone's doctrine went sour (W Branham on the latter), you still don't walk up to him and rebuke him. If you point out (what you believe are) doctrinal errors, you do that in a spirit of love (maybe to someone asking about him). I don't believe you're touching the anointing to do so.

As mistaken as he ended up being, if you called him a false prophet, I believe you'd be wrong.

The danger is when some very anointed people (I believe Bill Johnson is one) and someone doesn't agree with their doctrine (and it is of God), well if someone brings them into disrepute (nothing wrong with disagreeing), then you've gone too far. Since we have the example of Gemaliel, who said it will come to nought if it isn't of God, it would be wise to consider this statement before uttering judgments against people. So maybe you're not convinced and you don't agree. You don't call him a "false apostle".

If he's coming to speak in your church and you're a pastor, then that would be different.
Of course and you present that in truth. It's still what you believe. For example the Kat Kerr thing. I witnessed POWERFULLY to her messages. On the surface, you might not discern the value in this right off, but having experienced the power in it, I'm fully convinced. Someone else needs to give it an ear and weigh it out (if they're led). But to speak against it and you don't really know is very dangerous.
There should be no witness by the Holy Spirit if it is in error. So if someone is getting life ministered to them, they bear witness to that. If it's really life, the other person should hear this (if they're willing).

It's not a conflict and people will agree to disagree. It's always wise to be careful. I mentioned (me) speaking out rashly in a comment about this "Strange Fire" thing. I was wrong to do so (what I said was correct). I wasn't given liberty to do this. In fact, the minister in question is God's servant. He's just ignorant. Since he's not my servant, that means God will work it out.

No big thing to present some of his statements and disagree (with scripture to the contrary). But rebuking and "touching" a servant of God (without being called to is bad news).

I believe Paul learned to discern as he lashed out against the high priest, and then he repented.

I remember listening to a Bill Johnson message one night. Just about everything he said had depth and he had me scrambling for a pen and paper. Now that's good! To speak that way with an anointing means you spent time in God's presence and received revelation. All I can do is tell you about it.

If someone came behind me and said Bill was a false apostle, I'd caution them to doublecheck and at minimum, to think twice before just speaking out like that.

People have absolutely nothing to gain by applying deceiving titles on God's people.

we are all anointed said John, and Paul, and God shows no partiality, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9.

 

[Frogster]

well...all i can say is, i handily proved that there is serious, and probably willfull doctrinal error, with the money issue, and I have yet to hear if those who take money from poor people, for thier ministry using fear and guilt, and text omission, should be confronted, or ignored, because of the touch not verse.

 

[Frogster]

it seems so strange to sit there, and watch a so called apostle, extract money from poor people, wow, why doesn't that make them false anyway, and even if they are not actual false ones, they need to be confronted, sorry if their ego gets bruised, but better that, than burdening the poor.

 

[Alive_Again]

I'm not coming against anyone. It's right to examine doctrine and to demonstrate from scripure, precepts. Stick to examining doctrine and stay away from giving people derogatory titles.

 

[Alive_Again]

it seems so strange to sit there, and watch a so called apostle, extract money from poor people, wow, why doesn't that make them false anyway, and even if they are not actual false ones, they need to be confronted, sorry if their ego gets bruised, but better that, than burdening the poor.

I assume you're not fellowshipping anywhere then? I've never seen a church that didn't take up an offering.

To imply taking up offerings is wrong is to condemn every church. Paul wanted these things done before he got there. He made the distinction of working, but why would he even speak of it if it wasn't unusual?

 

[contango]

I was talking about giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to offerings, selling books, etc. If we think they're greedy for doing these things, there's a real problem. You won't respect anybody, and it's likely you won't be able to fellowship anywhere. If you polled 100 dedicated believers and asked them if it were wrong to do these things, I would venture at least 99 would say it was just fine.

I don't have a problem with people selling products. A worker is worthy of his hire. What I do have a problem with is when a church doesn't miss a chance to sell, when every which way there's something else for sale, and when they sell things that appear to have little to no value while presenting them as having huge value.

There's where someones need for healing often comes in when they reject to a warning in scripture that is crystal clear. If someone is just manifesting the enemy you take authority over the enemy. If someone's doctrine went sour (W Branham on the latter), you still don't walk up to him and rebuke him. If you point out (what you believe are) doctrinal errors, you do that in a spirit of love (maybe to someone asking about him). I don't believe you're touching the anointing to do so (IF God gives you space to articulate this).

As mistaken as he ended up being, if you called him a false prophet, I believe you'd be wrong. It would concern you directly, but you'd still have to be led in what you do.

If someone's doctrine is bad then it seems reasonable to assume that their anointing is not as strong as they might like to think. If we are to judge people by their fruits (as Jesus quite clearly told us to do) then we are given liberty to accept or reject based on what those fruits are.

The danger is when some very anointed people (I believe Bill Johnson is one) and someone doesn't agree with their doctrine (and it is of God), well if someone brings them into disrepute (nothing wrong with disagreeing), then you've gone too far. Since we have the example of Gemaliel, who said it will come to nought if it isn't of God, it would be wise to consider this statement before uttering judgments against people. So maybe you're not convinced and you don't agree. You don't call him a "false apostle".

I don't know for sure whether Bill Johnson considers himself to be an apostle or not, so on that basis alone I wouldn't call him a "false apostle" (if other people refer to him as an apostle but he makes no claim to the title it is unfair to judge based on what others say of him). I do believe he is a false teacher, in that despite his fairly liberal use of Scripture to support the points he wishes to make, I struggle to see how use of Scripture within context provides any such support. Logical conclusions of the theologies expressed within his book "When Heaven Invades Earth" include that there should be no death on earth (in direct contradiction of the observation that God threw Man out of Eden and thereby denied access to the Tree of Life), there should be no tears, no falsehood, no lies, no pain on earth (which is clearly absurd), and that peope who don't think the way he does must reject the resurrection of Jesus as being contrary to Scripture.

If he's coming to speak in your church and you're a pastor, then that would be different.

If he were to be invited to visit my church I would express grave concerns to my pastor. The fact I am not a pastor doesn't mean I'm not a member of the body of Christ. Ultimately I would respect my pastor's decision over whether to extend or retract the invite but that doesn't mean I'd necessarily agree with it. If my pastor continually invited people I considered to be false teachers I would seriously consider whether I had a future at the church.

Of course and you present that in truth. It's still what you believe. For example the Kat Kerr thing. I witnessed POWERFULLY to her messages. On the surface, you might not discern the value in this right off, but having experienced the power in it, I'm fully convinced. Someone else needs to give it an ear and weigh it out (if they're led). But to speak against it and you don't really know is very dangerous.

What we believe is of no value unless it aligns with Scripture. Whatever "resonates" within us is, at best, a subjective experience. A "good vibe" might be the Holy Spirit assuring us everything is OK or it might be our flesh responding to an ear-tickling message. A "bad vibe" might be our spirit clashing with something that is not of God or it might be our flesh squirming as we are convicted of something wrong in our lives. We need more than just a sense of whether a message feels good or not. Otherwise we are indulging in the spiritual equivalent of buying sugar at the market based on our best guess as to the weight. Hence we go back to Scripture, the only objective yardstick we have.

There should be no witness by the Holy Spirit if it is in error. So if someone is getting life ministered to them, they bear witness to that. If it's really life, the other person should hear this (if they're willing).

Of course there should be no witness. I'm sure John had a good reason for writing "test the spirits" and Paul had a good reason for writing "test all things". To say we have the Holy Spirit and are therefore somehow protected from ever getting it wrong seems naive at best.

It's not a conflict and people will agree to disagree. It's always wise to be careful. I mentioned (me) speaking out rashly in a comment about this "Strange Fire" thing. I was wrong to do so (what I said was correct). I wasn't given liberty to do this. In fact, the minister in question is God's servant. He's just ignorant. Since he's not my servant, that means God will work it out.

It's all very well to say "God will work it out" but if someone is spreading false teachings do you not believe we have a duty to highlight them and show why we believe them to be false?

Sometimes we can agree to disagree over matters of doctrine that are unimportant, or over issues where there is little to no spiritual merit. When issues of doctrine are critical there is little space to "agree to disagree" if we are to claim the same faith. For example, I would regard the question of the divinity of Jesus to be crucial. I reject the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching that "the Word was with God and the Word was a god" as I regard this to be a false teaching. Likewise I reject Bill Johnson's teaching that Jesus was not divine while he walked the earth as a man - if this teaching is true and he was merely a man with a high anointing then it logically follows that you or I could do just what Jesus did and therefore lay claim to a higher status than Jesus himself.

Ultimately Mr Johnson will stand before God and be judged, just as we all will. Until then it seems like a good idea to preserve sound doctrine, just as Paul sought to do when he wrote his various epistles.

No big thing to present some of his statements and disagree (with scripture to the contrary). But rebuking and "touching" a servant of God (without being called to is bad news). I will say that his conference does NOT seem to be an exercise of the anointing. It's the exercise of the anointing you really don't want to infterfere with.

So if we see false teaching what do you propose we do? Wait until God specifically tells us it's OK to question it, to call it out? When Scripture explicitly tells us to "test all things", on what basis would you suggest we do anything less? And if we are to test all things, presumably the things that do not pass testing need to be highlighted as being worthy of extra caution.

I believe Paul learned to discern as he lashed out against the high priest, and then he repented.

I remember listening to a Bill Johnson message one night. Just about everything he said had depth and he had me scrambling for a pen and paper. Now that's good! To speak that way with an anointing means you spent time in God's presence and received revelation. All I can do is tell you about it.

Whatever the depth, did you test what he said against Scripture? It's easy to speak with great impact and apparent authority if you quote a lot of Scripture and make a case that sounds good. The question keeps coming back to "test all things" and "rightly dividing the word". If all we want to do is use Scripture to make a point then it's easy to support all sorts of silly assertions with a cherry-picked verse here and there. This is using Scripture like a drunkard uses a lamp-post - for support rather than illumination.

If someone came behind me and said Bill was a false apostle, I'd caution them to doublecheck and at minimum, to think twice before just speaking out like that.

People have absolutely nothing to gain by applying deceiving titles on God's people.

I do not believe Mr Johnson meets the Biblical standard for an apostle. I'm not going to call him a "false apostle" because I don't know if he claims the title of "apostle" for himself. Because I do not see how his teaching aligns with Scripture I have little interest in whatever signs and wonders are associated with him. Because I cannot reconcile his teachings with Scripture I am quite happy to say that I believe he is a false teacher. I don't feel the need to worry specifically about what label to assign him.

Of course in any situation where I disagree with someone it's possible that I am wrong and they are right. If this is the case I welcome Scriptural discussion with a view to seeking truth. But Scriptural discussion requires going back to the Scriptures to seek truth, not a round of going back and forth discussing whether or not particular words "resonated with our spirit" or "made an impact on us". If something goes against Scripture it doesn't matter how powerfully it "resonated with us", it still goes against Scripture.

 

[contango]

I'm not coming against anyone. It's right to examine doctrine and to demonstrate from scripure, precepts. Stick to examining doctrine and stay away from giving people derogatory titles.

So what do we call someone with a high profile who teaches in a way that appears to contradict Scripture?

Personally I'm not really into titles within the church. We have a few functional roles that are needed but once we start worrying over who gets to claim what titles it becomes all about us rather than all about Jesus. And when it's all about us we're in a bad place.

 

[x141]

It all stems from spiritual laziness, just as this was the case in the first garden that Adam did not tend or keep, or when Jesus asked them to pray with him and instead they fell asleep (a picture of something throughout scripture).

Most Christians do not believe that the spirit that is in them can lead them into all truth (as it relates to self) even though no truth can be found outside of this spirit that proceeded from the Father.

The majority of leadership knowingly and unknowingly reinforces this attitude for the sake of making a living, or feeding the monstrosities they have in the name of God built.

The organized church is a harlot (which brings confusion/Babylon to the identity of the sons of God in that she rules over all the kings of the earth) and more like the world then they care to admit.

Jas_4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[contango]

It all stems from spiritual laziness, just as this was the case in the first garden that Adam did not tend or keep, or when Jesus asked them to pray with him and instead they fell asleep (a picture of something throughout scripture).

Most Christians do not believe that the spirit that is in them can lead them into all truth (as it relates to self) even though no truth can be found outside of this spirit that proceeded from the Father.

Of course the Holy Spirit can lead us into all truth. The trouble is we aren't perfect so we need to be sure that any spirits we may hear are actually from God.

The majority of leadership knowingly and unknowingly reinforces this attitude for the sake of making a living, or feeding the monstrosities they have in the name of God built.

The organized church is a harlot (which brings confusion/Babylon to the identity of the sons of God in that she rules over all the kings of the earth) and more like the world then they care to admit.

I don't know that I'd say "the majority of leadership". I'm sure some people in positions of leadership do very well out of their ministries but that totally overlooks the sacrifices made by many ministers who could do very well in commerce but choose a much less opulent lifestyle truly serving God.

 

[x141]

Of course the Holy Spirit can lead us into all truth. The trouble is we aren't perfect so we need to be sure that any spirits we may hear are actually from God.



I don't know that I'd say "the majority of leadership". I'm sure some people in positions of leadership do very well out of their ministries but that totally overlooks the sacrifices made by many ministers who could do very well in commerce but choose a much less opulent lifestyle truly serving God.

The supposed leadership is in the same boat (not that they are for the most part not sincere), and why everyone has a cross that the picking up of is how we walk this thing out, being the only way to be taught and follow the spirit that abides in us. It is a continual feast (Passover) or something that is to be kept.


Sacrifice indeed, does that seem unreasonable (we are to be living sacrifices) ... the well in commerce is a lie that lasts as long as ones short life does.

God calls for our whole soul, every thought, of everyone of us, and he will not stop (as a judgment sent unto victory) until all his enemies be consumed, and his field and floor purged, which is on the individual level first and which without the whole can not enter into to the finished work of God that was before the world was.

The world seeks after these things that the church is presently seeking after and just adds to the confusion of face not seeking only one.

In our day, there are many Christ's, and I don't mean that in a good way.

 

[MikeBigg]

So what do we call someone with a high profile who teaches in a way that appears to contradict Scripture?

The question behind this question is who's view of scripture do they contradict?

I take as an example the people who were (re)discovering the baptism in the Spirit during the charismatic renewal in the 70s. They were certainly "wrong" in the eyes of many. Yet we, that is we charismatics, owe them our gratitude.

I'm sure conversations like this one happened back then - actually, I think they still do, I've been in churches that actively preach against baptism in the Spirit and the operation of the gifts today.

So, who sets the current interpretation of the Bible? Who gets to say: "That's not of God." ?

Personally I'm not really into titles within the church. We have a few functional roles that are needed but once we start worrying over who gets to claim what titles it becomes all about us rather than all about Jesus. And when it's all about us we're in a bad place.

I agree. its about anointing. The problem with positions or titles in the church is that should the anointing for a person in a position move on, its tricky to spot who currently has the anointing and tricky to remove the person from his position.

 

[contango]

The question behind this question is who's view of scripture do they contradict?

Sure, there's always the chance that my interpretation of Scripture is wrong. That's why we have a need to go back to Scripture to search for the truth.

I agree. its about anointing. The problem with positions or titles in the church is that should the anointing for a person in a position move on, its tricky to spot who currently has the anointing and tricky to remove the person from his position.

Perhaps, although I'd be a little careful with an approach that suggests God is fickle, leaving us to second-guess who is supposed to be in charge.

I'm minded to think that anyone who wants to be in a position of ministry is probably not particularly suited to minister - when I think of people who give up successful careers in order to live in very poor areas spreading God's word it's easy to see why their preference would be to go back to their well-paid and respected job. Hence, if someone accepted God's call to go into ministry I'd imagine that as if it became clear they were no longer called to that role they would be out of it faster than you could imagine.

Of course if someone is in a ministry that grants them money, power, prestige etc it's easy to see why they might not want to leave it behind.

 

[contango]

The supposed leadership is in the same boat (not that they are for the most part not sincere), and why everyone has a cross that the picking up of is how we walk this thing out, being the only way to be taught and follow the spirit that abides in us. It is a continual feast (Passover) or something that is to be kept.


Sacrifice indeed, does that seem unreasonable (we are to be living sacrifices) ... the well in commerce is a lie that lasts as long as ones short life does.

God calls for our whole soul, every thought, of everyone of us, and he will not stop (as a judgment sent unto victory) until all his enemies be consumed, and his field and floor purged, which is on the individual level first and which without the whole can not enter into to the finished work of God that was before the world was.

The world seeks after these things that the church is presently seeking after and just adds to the confusion of face not seeking only one.

In our day, there are many Christ's, and I don't mean that in a good way.

I'm not sure if you're being unclear or I'm being slow but I'm really struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. Could I ask you to clarify it?

 

[x141]

I'm not sure if you're being unclear or I'm being slow but I'm really struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. Could I ask you to clarify it?

If you are willing, select a portion and I’ll expand on it so that it does not become to big to fast.

 

[Frogster]

The question behind this question is who's view of scripture do they contradict?

I take as an example the people who were (re)discovering the baptism in the Spirit during the charismatic renewal in the 70s. They were certainly "wrong" in the eyes of many. Yet we, that is we charismatics, owe them our gratitude.

I'm sure conversations like this one happened back then - actually, I think they still do, I've been in churches that actively preach against baptism in the Spirit and the operation of the gifts today.

So, who sets the current interpretation of the Bible? Who gets to say: "That's not of God." ?



I agree. its about anointing. The problem with positions or titles in the church is that should the anointing for a person in a position move on, its tricky to spot who currently has the anointing and tricky to remove the person from his position.

well...there is a conservative view put forth by Paul in scripture, and church life, orderley worship, no kicking for healings, no squirt guns, no rosary bead healings, no talking statues, so lets add feathers, glitter dust, fake gems to the list of things to omit, and everything well be better.

Even the head covering issue, no matter what view one takes on those passages, Paul did not want alpha females out of order, again, confirming a conservative view for the church, in the text.

Also, I raised money and the scriptures, and how we should confront that teaching, whether from a real wolf, or just a teacher who pleads ingnorance to the text, but I can't get a simple answer about them hiding under the touch me not verse.


So I raised scripture, and the money issue, i raised verses that show confrontation, and calling things for what they are.


Nice to see you, be blessed, frog.

 

[Frogster]

There is also scripture that says leaders can't be greedy, that would mean they don't drive a BMW, and live in a mansion, at the expense of others, and there is scripture to prevent pastoral domination, so when I see that not followed, yes, I have clear text to take on one who is not following standard proceedure.

So, in a nutshell, there is scripture to support, confrontation, the money issue, domination, testing prophecy, judging hearts/motives, getting angry at them, orderly church life, and calling them on what they do wrong, using text.

 

[Alive_Again]

it seems so strange to sit there, and watch a so called apostle, extract money from poor people, wow, why doesn't that make them false anyway

Which person are you accusing of "extracting money" from the poor? Do you mean that someone took up an offering? Someone who was poor decided of their own free will to give? Is that wrong?

...even if they are not actual false ones, they need to be confronted, sorry if their ego gets bruised, but better that, than burdening the poor.

So you're in the business of "rebuking" people who take up offerings?

A true man of God doesn't do things (even take up offerings) to stoke their ego. While I"m sure you wouldn't apply to that anyone taking up offerings, consider that with the same swift stroke you apply to ministers of God, you have demonstrated to those who sell books and CDs.

You imply that you know their hearts, having judged them unfaithful and greedy, and worthy of your verbal punishment of shame and dishonor.

Outside of that, I would hope there would still be a "search" by others for how to judge and how to conduct ourselves justly when looking at what people actually say (not what we think they are doing).

 

[TasManOfGod]

Driving a BMW means they are good stewards. God forbid if they were seen driving an US made model

 

[Alive_Again]

...I do believe he is a false teacher, in that despite his fairly liberal use of Scripture to support the points he wishes to make, I struggle to see how use of Scripture within context provides any such support.

It would be interesting to see what you consider to be "liberal". I found him "precept upon precept" with an anointing that showed he'd been listening to the Lord.

...his book "When Heaven Invades Earth" include that there should be no death on earth (in direct contradiction of the observation that God threw Man out of Eden and thereby denied access to the Tree of Life), there should be no tears, no falsehood, no lies, no pain on earth (which is clearly absurd), and that peope who don't think the way he does must reject the resurrection of Jesus as being contrary to Scripture.

I'm guessing there is a little more context than just one paragraph. Even if he was mistaken in his belief in some areas, that wouldn't make him a false teacher.

...Whatever "resonates" within us is, at best, a subjective experience. A "good vibe" might be the Holy Spirit assuring us everything is OK or it might be our flesh responding to an ear-tickling message.

I'm not talking about asking God about it, not really getting anything beyond what you came in with. I'm talking about supernatural fruit of the Spirit in abundance. An abundance to let you know you're pursuing and walk the paths of peace. It's not the "absence" that speaks (although sometimes that DOES speak), the presence and power speak much louder. That's what I'm talking about.

Hence we go back to Scripture, the only objective yardstick we have.

A good place, yet limited to our limited understanding. When God is pouring out, that's when my attention is captured.

I'm sure John had a good reason for writing "test the spirits" and Paul had a good reason for writing "test all things". To say we have the Holy Spirit and are therefore somehow protected from ever getting it wrong seems naive at best.

We're to test and observing those fruits are the very thing we're to look for. If we think a spirit is going to manifest and say "Jesus is Lord and rise from the dead" or not, theirs not a whole lot of testing going on.

It's all very well to say "God will work it out" but if someone is spreading false teachings do you not believe we have a duty to highlight them and show why we believe them to be false?

If there is some understanding to be achieved, we should be open to counter-opinion.

...Likewise I reject Bill Johnson's teaching that Jesus was not divine while he walked the earth as a man - if this teaching is true and he was merely a man with a high anointing then it logically follows that you or I could do just what Jesus did and therefore lay claim to a higher status than Jesus himself.

It could be that he meant that Jesus emptied Himself of His divine privilege and became a man; One that didn't know everything and see everything and able to create. He became like us and had the possibility of being tempted. It takes faith to believe this, but I have to receive it.

Jesus was fully alive in the Spirit when He came here (I"m quite sure of that), but He was filled with the Spirit and ministered under that same anointing. Maybe what he said led you to believe that He was something else. Without a quote (with surrounding text) it is hard to judge.

Ultimately Mr Johnson will stand before God and be judged, just as we all will. Until then it seems like a good idea to preserve sound doctrine, just as Paul sought to do when he wrote his various epistles.

I don't think it is as bad as you're alluding to.

..the things that do not pass testing need to be highlighted as being worthy of extra caution.

That's the hope. Yes, the JWs thing and cultists we are to watch out for. These same discussions were had centuries ago by early church fathers. I've been listening to some teachings about these things. It was only the Arian thing (chiefly) that they really condemned. Even then, Jesus still loved them.