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

[Frogster]

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?

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).

my dear brother, this post acts like the simple facts i presented about mal 3, and 2 cor 8-9 are not obvious.

and still, no answer about them getting a free ride, on the touch not verse, protection umbrella.


Also, when they twist those texts to get money from the poor, or elderly, that is in fact extraction/manipulation.

Bro, it might just be best here, to just see my point, with all due respect, it would be easier.

you did not disprove my verses about 2 cor 8-9, or curses and fear, from the old cov in mal 3, verses about a long gone temple and priesthood. So maybe that would be a good place to start, then after the frog has proved the obvious, that the so called doctors of the Bible ignore, then we can talk about confronting them, for ignoring the obvious truth to the texts I speak of. In other words, once I prove to you how simple my point is, then you will consider the next step, that being confrontation for mangling the text, to extract money from poor, and elderly, and also how some live higher in life, cars homes, etc, than the very people they extract from.

If it will be made easy for us too see how wrong the usage is by these folks as they extract, then we will have to wonder how, after all their years, they did not know better, about the context, meaning, and direction, the text was headed to.


Ok, let me know when you wish to begin with step 1, thanks! frog.

 

[contango]

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).

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

I would agree that God isn't about belittling people but we need to be careful that conviction and condemnation don't get mixed up here. We also need to be careful to strike a balance about public and private. If someone is presenting their teaching to a wide audience it isn't unreasonable to present our concerns about it to an equally wide audience. Texts about approaching a brother in private refer to when a brother sins against us - it keeps private matters private as far as possible.

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.

It's always possible that the pastor has missed something specific. The pastor doesn't necessarily have the same prophetic gifting that a member of the congregation may have.

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".

Arguably, although it still depends on context. Unless something is horribly out of line it seems unlikely that anyone would be called to, say, shout down a visiting preacher. Truth be told if they were that badly out of line one would hope the resident preacher would lovingly cut them short and lead on with the service.

That said if we read teaching somewhere like the internet I see no reason why we shouldn't use the same medium to express our concerns about that teaching.

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.

This is where we need to accept that we might be wrong and present our concerns in that light. If someone can demonstrate to me, using Scripture, why my opinion that some teachers present a message that does not align with Scripture, I would be very pleased to consider it. This comes back to "test all things", and when we need to test we need an objective standard to use as a baseline. The "burning bosom", the sense that we just know something is from God, or anything else that could be referred to as "spidey senses tingling" is subjective. It might be a useful guide for us but is unlikely to convince others unless they already know us.

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.

This sounds curious - if they wanted to highlight what they saw as an error in his teaching why would they retract rather than clarify? If they just said something that looked like a personal attack when it was unintended then I'd agree. (To be clear I don't know Charles Capps' teachings so can't comment on him as an individual.)

 

[contango]

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.

I meant in the sense he used lots of quotes from Scripture rather than interpreted Scripture in a politically or theologically liberal sense. Sorry if that wasn't clear (maybe it's a UK/US thing)

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.

Feel free to read the full context. In many areas I wouldn't claim that a disagreement in one area makes someone a "false teacher". I don't necessarily agree with people on everything. When I simply can't reconcile the Jesus described in WHIE with the Jesus I see described in the Bible I'd say that justifies the "false teaching" label, just as when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses with their "the Word was a god" translation of John's gospel.

ETA: Since Jesus is the foundation of everything we do as Christians, it's important that we get the foundations right. We might quibble over our views on the timing of the Rapture, on our preferences for infant or adult baptism and the like but if we can't agree on who Jesus Christ is then I'd say we need to address that before anything else.

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.

Jesus said there would be false teachers and we would know them by their fruits. So to argue that power trumps fruits flies in the face of what Jesus taught us. It also flies in the face of "test all things" and "test the spirits".

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

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.

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

Things might catch our attention but they still need to be tested against Scripture. We need to accept that it may be our understanding of Scripture that is flawed, as you say we should be open to counter-opinion, but the solution has to be to go back to God's word and seek the truth. When people respond to Scriptural concerns with subjective senses that "they know this person is good" or that "they can feel the anointing" or similar, without going back to Scripture the risk is that their subjective opinions end up trumping the objective truth of Scripture.

If you say "I know John Doe is good" and I say "I know John Doe is bad" we hit a stalemate.

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.

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

I struggle to read that into the full text. I can't say I'm inclined to retype big chunks of the text - if you want to read the full context perhaps the best thing to do is to read the book for yourself?

With the full text in front of me it's hard for me to see anything other than Jesus described as a man in a right relationship with God, rather than a man who is God.


(I cut the rest out because it looked like quote tags were muddled and I didn't want to misquote anything you had said.)

 

[Alive_Again]

Jesus said there would be false teachers and we would know them by their fruits. So to argue that power trumps fruits flies in the face of what Jesus taught us. It also flies in the face of "test all things" and "test the spirits".

What fruits do you think He was talking about? He pointed to the signs to validate who He was. Also whether or not they're walking in love; with the fruits of patience, goodness, gentleness., etc. Of course He got onto some people (not so gently), but He dealt with people who were seeking God's will with these fruits.

As far as "power trumping fruit", those fruits (power) should ALWAYS be something we look at. But the Holy Spirit confirms the Word with signs following (not just miracles and healings), He ministers LIFE and the presence of God.

I have been to a meeting where someone was telling us of their experience after death in my church. It was amazing and God was there. At the end he started preaching doctrine about "darkness" (I think it was) that was out of context and in a way that supported his views on something. It was like someone turned the lights on after a movie. The contrast was stark.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit was confirming (truth) what was said. These are types of judging for fruits that we do. We do compare with scripture and that is the more excellent way (more complete), but we know scripture in a very incomplete way. We're good on a lot of foundational stuff and in areas we've been dealt with, but beyond that, it is important to receive from the five-fold ministry. We judge that too, but the main thing is, our scripture as the final judgment is secondary (because we're incomplete) to having scripture and the power and presence of God as a confirming thing (loudly bearing witness to the truth).

...When people respond to Scriptural concerns with subjective senses that "they know this person is good" or that "they can feel the anointing" or similar, without going back to Scripture the risk is that their subjective opinions end up trumping the objective truth of Scripture.

People like Bill Johnson are literally teaching the scripture. Everything is built upon that, so again, it goes back to being established in underlying precepts in the Word so you can receive the ones being built upon. That's why it's important to provide more than a line here and there to establish whether one is a "false teacher" or not. His reputation is on the line. We have to treat someone like we'd like to be treated.

If someone on the Net were to take some of your writings and come up with a judgment like "false teacher" (rather than disagreeing on some points of doctrine), you'd want the full context (someone taking the trouble to provide) to be presented. Wouldn't you?

If you say "I know John Doe is good" and I say "I know John Doe is bad" we hit a stalemate.

There is always going to be some of that. When the big revivals start to hit, and denominations join together in services, it won't be because they miraculously had an understanding of doctrine, it will be because the power and presence of God is so strong, it won't matter that we think differently about baptism. I think that learning under that kind of anointing opens up the understanding to be able to receive far beyond what we've known.

I've experienced some of that with Bill's ministry. Listening to Bill, I learned that the Holy Spirit will heal you even if you're not a believer. I used to think that you had to get them saved first (because it is the most important thing). But God will get someone's attention in the world by healing them (on just yours and His faith). I NEVER would have guessed that. It took the anointing and witness during the message to be able to receive that.

...I can't say I'm inclined to retype big chunks of the text - if you want to read the full context...

 

[contango]

What fruits do you think He was talking about? He pointed to the signs to validate who He was. Also whether or not they're walking in love; with the fruits of patience, goodness, gentleness., etc. Of course He got onto some people (not so gently), but He dealt with people who were seeking God's will with these fruits.

Paul tells us about the fruit of the spirit. Signs alone don't validate a ministry, Jesus himself warned us that false Christs would arise and show signs and wonders. So the fact someone demonstrates signs and wonders doesn't tell us whether they are good or not.

As far as "power trumping fruit", those fruits (power) should ALWAYS be something we look at. But the Holy Spirit confirms the Word with signs following (not just miracles and healings), He ministers LIFE and the presence of God.

Signs and wonders alone don't prove anything. If I can't see the fruit of someone's life because of distance I can look at their teachings. If the teaching doesn't align with Scripture then we need to be careful.

I have been to a meeting where someone was telling us of their experience after death in my church. It was amazing and God was there. At the end he started preaching doctrine about "darkness" (I think it was) that was out of context and in a way that supported his views on something. It was like someone turned the lights on after a movie. The contrast was stark.

Are you saying the same person spoke of a powerful experience, with God's anointing, and then subsequently spoke of something very dark that wasn't Scriptural? I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit was confirming (truth) what was said. These are types of judging for fruits that we do. We do compare with scripture and that is the more excellent way (more complete), but we know scripture in a very incomplete way. We're good on a lot of foundational stuff and in areas we've been dealt with, but beyond that, it is important to receive from the five-fold ministry. We judge that too, but the main thing is, our scripture as the final judgment is secondary (because we're incomplete) to having scripture and the power and presence of God as a confirming thing (loudly bearing witness to the truth).

So if Scripture is secondary how do you deal with a scenario where some people say a particular teacher is sound and others say he is not sound? Both can't be right, so you have to determine which is wrong.

People like Bill Johnson are literally teaching the scripture. Everything is built upon that, so again, it goes back to being established in underlying precepts in the Word so you can receive the ones being built upon. That's why it's important to provide more than a line here and there to establish whether one is a "false teacher" or not. His reputation is on the line. We have to treat someone like we'd like to be treated.

If someone on the Net were to take some of your writings and come up with a judgment like "false teacher" (rather than disagreeing on some points of doctrine), you'd want the full context (someone taking the trouble to provide) to be presented. Wouldn't you?

Since his books are widely available there seems little point endessly retyping what he has already written. If my teachings were only available to a select few then I would accept your point but if anyone could take a few mouse clicks on Amazon and get their own copy I'd say it was eminently reasonable to say something like "read pages 46-48 and tell me if you think the teaching is sound".

Just so you know, when I first read When Heaven Invades Earth I thought it was an astounding work. A person I know actually went to Bethel to study there and when I first heard I was thrilled for him and almost wished I could go as well. Since then I have grown increasingly concerned for my friend (and also became concerned for other reasons too lengthy to go into here), to the point I re-read WHIE through a more critical lens and started to conclude the teaching wasn't as good as it first appeared.

There is always going to be some of that. When the big revivals start to hit, and denominations join together in services, it won't be because they miraculously had an understanding of doctrine, it will be because the power and presence of God is so strong, it won't matter that we think differently about baptism. I think that learning under that kind of anointing opens up the understanding to be able to receive far beyond what we've known.

I guess it would depend on how different a doctrine you would accept before you cease to consider differences to be denominational. Muslims, Hindus, satanists and Christians have different doctrines but I don't imagine we're going to see those four groups join together in services under some great anointing.

I've experienced some of that with Bill's ministry. Listening to Bill, I learned that the Holy Spirit will heal you even if you're not a believer. I used to think that you had to get them saved first (because it is the most important thing). But God will get someone's attention in the world by healing them (on just yours and His faith). I NEVER would have guessed that. It took the anointing and witness during the message to be able to receive that.

You never would have guessed that? Doesn't the list of people Jesus healed, the beggar at the Beautiful Gate in Acts 3, not to mention other healings throughout Acts, indicate you don't have to be a Christian to be healed?

When you say "on just yours and His faith" did you intend to capitalise the H to indicate God's faith?

God may get someone's attention in the world by healing them. Presumably he uses other methods for people who don't need healing, which can also work on people who do need healing.

 

[Alive_Again]

... If someone is presenting their teaching to a wide audience it isn't unreasonable to present our concerns about it to an equally wide audience. Texts about approaching a brother in private refer to when a brother sins against us - it keeps private matters private as far as possible.

Yeah. But rebuking an elder (we're assuming it's not for preaching in your case). If someone "comes against" an elder (minister), being rebuked for bad doctrine, there are guidelines for leveling the accusation (because it IS serious), and then it goes beyond the realm of heresay, someone goes with you and the matter is to be addressed. It doesn't assume there is heresy. It would seek to establish that there is a problem reasonably. It doesn't just dismiss the minister.

In this and some threads like this, many of the big bad wolf scriptures were applied or implied against (whom I would consider elders). There was no context or even quotations being provided. It should be re-stated that an accusation if a serious (not a casual) thing. It has repercussions. All the more reason to remind people not to judge in the flesh because (no flame, it's the Word) it will come back on you.

It's always possible that the pastor has missed something specific. The pastor doesn't necessarily have the same prophetic gifting that a member of the congregation may have.

Right, we're talking like a "perfect world) not the world, though. But the pastors anointing does help identify predators. People like elders and watchmen are also in place to identify when someone needs to be addressed. Jeering from the gallery is out of order.

That said if we read teaching somewhere like the internet I see no reason why we shouldn't use the same medium to express our concerns about that teaching.

I can tell you want to be fair. Yes, if they're putting something out for the flock, it should be objective and potentially challengable.That's not touching the anointing to question. It's when your flesh rises up and condemns and seeks to circumnavigate or prevent. When the flesh rises up to criticize and speak out of place, that is getting into trouble too. The whole "flesh" thing should be out of the way completely.

If someone can demonstrate to me, using Scripture, why my opinion that some teachers present a message that does not align with Scripture, I would be very pleased to consider it.

That's what we'd hope to establish as an example in this thread, rather than providing just an "avenue for venting" further division.

The "burning bosom", the sense that we just know something is from God, or anything else that could be referred to as "spidey senses tingling" is subjective. It might be a useful guide for us but is unlikely to convince others unless they already know us.

An excellent example that I'm familiar with. We do have the extra "layers' of protection the Word instructs us with testing and proving and looking at fruits and keeping what is good; a multitude of counselors and the scripture to go back on. Also, established order and not just lashing out with a pitchfork and torches without evidence.

I would say that there is a false anointing and a real one and you can tell the difference. Also, feelings can mislead, but there is absolutely no counterfeit for the power and presence of God. But as the Lord said (locally), even the angels were deceived and we should not trust in ourselves. But receiving and judging (for us) is the first step.

This sounds curious - if they wanted to highlight what they saw as an error in his teaching why would they retract rather than clarify? If they just said something that looked like a personal attack when it was unintended then I'd agree.

A statement was made that made him look a little kooky (rather than calling him a heretic). When it was pointed out, they realized that it put him in a bad light, and they retracted.

 

[Alive_Again]

I said: 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).

my dear brother, this post acts like the simple facts i presented about mal 3, and 2 cor 8-9 are not obvious.

I understand Frogster that SOME PEOPLE preach the law in Malachi when taking up tithes. MANY churches (ignorantly) preach 2 Cor when taking up offerings (citing increasing their fruit here in the world). (I believe) that their heads are wrong, but it does not give you license to judge their heart. You cannot blanketly imply greed in every instance and TO DO SO IS PROFOUNDLY WRONG.

Anyone who reads this knows that you're accusing every pastor (of being covetous) they've had who mentioned Malachi when taking up an offering. This is why you fling the "false apostle" thing so quickly because they "extract money" (take up offerings) from the flock. Sid Roth's guests provide their books for sale (and that disqualifies them as "true") because you have this thing "established" in you that judges this way. It's going to affect your peace of mind and ability to receive from some people put here to bless you.

...and still, no answer about them getting a free ride, on the touch not

verse, protection umbrella.

To "not give them a free ride" (in your thinking) would properly be rendered, "Give them the benefit of the doubt in Christian love". Are you willing to do that? Or, are you willing to judge them unrighteously?

You can be wrong in the head and right in the heart.

The ONLY way you can judge them that way correctly is if the Spirit of God tells and provides that judgment in your spirit. To apply this across the board is NOT receiving that judgment, It totally proves that what you're doing (if you choose to do this) is flat wrong.

Is there a more polite way to say this? Do I have to tip-toe around this and apologetically and sheepishly tell you that we don't generalize like this and condemn?

Also, when they twist those texts to get money from the poor, or elderly, that is in fact extraction/manipulation.

Now we'll throw the poor in here (they came and gave willingly). You assume they're taking it up for greed and not to meet the needs of the church.

In other words, once I prove to you how simple my point is, then you will consider the next step, that being confrontation for mangling the text, to extract money from poor, and elderly, and also how some live higher in life, cars homes, etc, than the very people they extract from.

Your point, however simple, is that you would judge them covetous whenever the scriptures are provided and that you feel some kind of calling to "confront" these preachers. That to give them the benefit of the doubt is to give them a "free ride". It's like you're being a crusader for the wrong cause. We're (our flesh) not supposed to judge them.

Even if someone's heart was wrong, the Lord doesn't call everyone to go around correcting everyone. It's His church. We're not supposed to carry the burden.

 

[Alive_Again]

Enjoying the discussion...

Paul tells us about the fruit of the spirit. Signs alone don't validate a ministry, Jesus himself warned us that false Christs would arise and show signs and wonders. So the fact someone demonstrates signs and wonders doesn't tell us whether they are good or not.

I agree. Jannes and Jambres did false signs and it didn't validate them one bit (except that they did it by the wrong power). It validated that there WAS A wrong power. For some, that is even a revelation.

Signs and wonders alone don't prove anything. If I can't see the fruit of someone's life because of distance I can look at their teachings. If the teaching doesn't align with Scripture then we need to be careful.

Yes. If you don't gather grapes from brambles (and we're gathering), then we're looking at what's visible to us. Are the works of God being presented? Is he manifesting darkness? We can always be careful.

Are you saying the same person spoke of a powerful experience, with God's anointing, and then subsequently spoke of something very dark that wasn't Scriptural? I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

I guess what I am saying is that when his doctrine seemed to take a left turn, the light got turned down. He wasn't blessing what He didn't agree with.

So if Scripture is secondary how do you deal with a scenario where some people say a particular teacher is sound and others say he is not sound? Both can't be right, so you have to determine which is wrong.

That's what we frequently have here in the forum. Two opinions that contradict. As is often the case one is more correct and the other is not. Only God knows. But if someone is telling me that the Strange Fire thing is more correct and someone preaching the opposite of that AND the power and presence of God are available, guess which one I'm choosing?

I look at it much like the people who have been to Heaven. Our modern versions of the Bible seem to say that we can't see the One who is on the throne. Yet we have descriptions of Him. They said, "I've seen...". Yet we have people say they've been and seen and the power and presence was there. Are you going to rely on your knowledge of scripture?

Has God ever revised your doctrine suddenly about something (for the better)? He put the last piece of the puzzle in there and then you saw the foundation (I think of it like playing Tetris.). Maybe you held fast to a contrary opinion until that happened. If you were "holding fast" to what your take on the Word, you'd be mistaken.

I guess it would depend on how different a doctrine you would accept before you cease to consider differences to be denominational. Muslims, Hindus, satanists and Christians have different doctrines but I don't imagine we're going to see those four groups join together in services under some great anointing.

I'm talking about Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. When the fruit is abundant and they can hardly stand and they just love each other, it won't matter that you believe you received the Holy Spirit when you were baptized in water. It is that learning environment though when the mental stances on parts of the Word will go by the wayside and we'll be able to receive more in depth.

You never would have guessed that? Doesn't the list of people Jesus healed, the beggar at the Beautiful Gate in Acts 3, not to mention other healings throughout Acts, indicate you don't have to be a Christian to be healed?

I'm talking about walking up to a (potentially) non-believer (or a non--believer) and asking them if you can pray for their leg or back. (They're limping visibly.) They weren't seeking God, but God is seeking them. So they say, "Yes" and you pray and they are healed!

That usually only happens to baby Christians (getting healed on someone elses faith). I thought you'd have to get them saved first. But I bore witness to God healing first as a testimony of His love. I don't see too much of that in the Word (they're usually seeking Him).

I guess you could look at the high priest servant's ear (it wasn't his idea or faith!). But yes, that surprised me greatly. The only way I would have received that is to get the revelation.

When you say "on just yours and His faith" did you intend to capitalise the H to indicate God's faith?

No, HIS faith. The gift of faith. Sometimes your faith; but I think sometimes your faith is His faith (because it's His leading and the KNOWING). Rather than dissect it too much, I recognize that we're not independently empowered (even with the anointing). He leads, you move, He manifests. His voice/faith comes/He moves.

 

[Alive_Again]

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

I guess if you worked 60 hours a week you'd be afford one more readily. We don't know what people put into the gospel so we can't judge them. They might have saved for it, or as if often the case, someone GIVES them one.

People get cars, houses, planes, etc. It seems extravagant to us because if we were paying for it it would be more precious.

I look at it (try to) like Paul in that Paul could have been married and not have worked. But he attended more closely to the things of the Lord. The wife would have been legitimate. The not working would also have because he drinks the milk of the cow (so to speak). He works the field, and he eats the crops. But he wanted to set a good example that would not risk others (more judgmental types) to stumble.

I was standing outside one church I was visiting and it was a Mercedes right where we were standing. My friend and I were talking and we and the preacher were one of the last ones to leave. I wondered if he were embarrassed (not coming out) for driving the Mercedes? It was my wrong thinking!

I would be very hesitant to buy the BMW because I look at things like, "If giving $100 is a lot for many people in the offering, how can I justify having a larger car payment? But God DOES bless people with nice cars and encourages them to move into nicer houses (they must have faith). It's our thinking that often needs to be revised.

But if we're covetous (that's the catch), then we're deceiving ourselves to think that having the BMW just proves how successful we are. It would be an idol to be removed eventually. God might even tolerate it for a while then it would be gone! (Maybe our praying in tongues even prayed the prayer!).

I had to laugh at one preacher who said something like "I want a nicer car". In tongues he was praying, "God take away some of my riches because I've been getting a little covetous! (Bob Mumford)

When his stuff starting going away, he (his example) looked at it like it was the devil stealing it, but it was God answering the prayer of his deepest need.

If you're heart is pure, maybe you've got a BMW on the way, and God just wants to show you that He isn't offended by it and you've proven yourself and He wants to bless you and think more kingdom like. Is that outside the box?

But Paul, being the apostle, knew that they are often the spectacle. Seemingly having nothing, yet having it all.

 

[Frogster]

I said: 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).
I understand Frogster that SOME PEOPLE preach the law in Malachi when taking up tithes. MANY churches (ignorantly) preach 2 Cor when taking up offerings (citing increasing their fruit here in the world). (I believe) that their heads are wrong, but it does not give you license to judge their heart. You cannot blanketly imply greed in every instance and TO DO SO IS PROFOUNDLY WRONG.

Anyone who reads this knows that you're accusing every pastor (of being covetous) they've had who mentioned Malachi when taking up an offering. This is why you fling the "false apostle" thing so quickly because they "extract money" (take up offerings) from the flock. Sid Roth's guests provide their books for sale (and that disqualifies them as "true") because you have this thing "established" in you that judges this way. It's going to affect your peace of mind and ability to receive from some people put here to bless you.
To "not give them a free ride" (in your thinking) would properly be rendered, "Give them the benefit of the doubt in Christian love". Are you willing to do that? Or, are you willing to judge them unrighteously?

You can be wrong in the head and right in the heart.

The ONLY way you can judge them that way correctly is if the Spirit of God tells and provides that judgment in your spirit. To apply this across the board is NOT receiving that judgment, It totally proves that what you're doing (if you choose to do this) is flat wrong.

Is there a more polite way to say this? Do I have to tip-toe around this and apologetically and sheepishly tell you that we don't generalize like this and condemn?

Now we'll throw the poor in here (they came and gave willingly). You assume they're taking it up for greed and not to meet the needs of the church.
Your point, however simple, is that you would judge them covetous whenever the scriptures are provided and that you feel some kind of calling to "confront" these preachers. That to give them the benefit of the doubt is to give them a "free ride". It's like you're being a crusader for the wrong cause. We're (our flesh) not supposed to judge them.

Even if someone's heart was wrong, the Lord doesn't call everyone to go around correcting everyone. It's His church. We're not supposed to carry the burden.

ok, you finally say, they are wrong, (red above)well, do they confronted, and what about loving those who are being extracted from, no love for them? Why do you seek to protect the teachers so much, but not those bweing extracted from, incorrecty?

And please don't tell me you think it is ok to drive a BMW, when that came off the backs of the poor, all while you admit they don't use mal 3, or 2 correctly?


Jesus connected greed with possesions, and elders are not to be greedy, as usual, you never rebutt my text, with text, and as i do, and I will judge those who are wrong, like the text says to, I do not maek emotional decisions, but scriptural ones.

So now we have more from you, an eagerness to protect the tithe extractors, but seemingly no protection from ythose being robbed, why is that, and is that love for the bretheren?.

 

[Frogster]

and please don't raise pators working long hours, did they outwork Paul and are they being attacked as he was, getting beat up all the time?

and you did not cover the burdening issue, it just seems like you just want to protect those, who you admit, use text wrong, and burden others, and again, that is not love, is it?, paul confronted, and taught others to rebuke!

 

[Frogster]

Yeah. But rebuking an elder (we're assuming it's not for preaching in your case). If someone "comes against" an elder (minister), being rebuked for bad doctrine, there are guidelines for leveling the accusation (because it IS serious),

rebuking and elder guidelines? Did you ever read in Galatians 2, about the antioch event, where peter was wrong, doctrinally, and paul confronted him to his face, in front of all the church... and judged him, oh my! Peter stood condemend!

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Yet, you do not seem to want guidelines for the sheep either being dominated by elders, which is against text, or having thier money extracted, having text twisted, to get it. With all due repsect, lets not have a double standard, they are servants, as Paul called himself, they are not gods....

be blessed, thanks! frog.


Oh, here ia another "guideline" about elders ferrryaaa... Open rebuke...

1 Tom 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

and then it goes beyond the realm of heresay, someone goes with you and the matter is to be addressed. It doesn't assume there is heresy. It would seek to establish that there is a problem reasonably. It doesn't just dismiss the minister.

In this and some threads like this, many of the big bad wolf scriptures were applied or implied against (whom I would consider elders). There was no context or even quotations being provided. It should be re-stated that an accusation if a serious (not a casual) thing. It has repercussions. All the more reason to remind people not to judge in the flesh because (no flame, it's the Word) it will come back on you.
Right, we're talking like a "perfect world) not the world, though. But the pastors anointing does help identify predators. People like elders and watchmen are also in place to identify when someone needs to be addressed. Jeering from the gallery is out of order.
I can tell you want to be fair. Yes, if they're putting something out for the flock, it should be objective and potentially challengable.That's not touching the anointing to question. It's when your flesh rises up and condemns and seeks to circumnavigate or prevent. When the flesh rises up to criticize and speak out of place, that is getting into trouble too. The whole "flesh" thing should be out of the way completely.
That's what we'd hope to establish as an example in this thread, rather than providing just an "avenue for venting" further division.
An excellent example that I'm familiar with. We do have the extra "layers' of protection the Word instructs us with testing and proving and looking at fruits and keeping what is good; a multitude of counselors and the scripture to go back on. Also, established order and not just lashing out with a pitchfork and torches without evidence.

I would say that there is a false anointing and a real one and you can tell the difference. Also, feelings can mislead, but there is absolutely no counterfeit for the power and presence of God. But as the Lord said (locally), even the angels were deceived and we should not trust in ourselves. But receiving and judging (for us) is the first step.

A statement was made that made him look a little kooky (rather than calling him a heretic). When it was pointed out, they realized that it put him in a bad light, and they retracted.

 

[contango]

Enjoying the discussion...

Me too

I agree. Jannes and Jambres did false signs and it didn't validate them one bit (except that they did it by the wrong power). It validated that there WAS A wrong power. For some, that is even a revelation.

Sure, some people seem unwilling to accept that any miracles can possibly happen, others assume there are no evil forces out there and still others assume God doesn't do miracles any more so anything supernatural must be evil. Of course if anything supernatural is evil then a false prophet showing signs and wonders can be automatically written off because "God doesn't do that".

Yes. If you don't gather grapes from brambles (and we're gathering), then we're looking at what's visible to us. Are the works of God being presented? Is he manifesting darkness? We can always be careful.

When we can only see teaching we can test the teaching. If the teaching is bad, if the doctrine is bad, we can question what comes forth from that teaching. In Deuteronomy 13 God told the Israelites not to listen to a prophet who called them to go after other gods, even if he did demonstrate signs and wonders and prophesied correctly. If someone preaches bad doctrine how far do we let that go before we consider them to be leading us after other gods.

That's what we frequently have here in the forum. Two opinions that contradict. As is often the case one is more correct and the other is not. Only God knows. But if someone is telling me that the Strange Fire thing is more correct and someone preaching the opposite of that AND the power and presence of God are available, guess which one I'm choosing?

I wouldn't choose anything supernatural just because it's supernatural. I've seen enough supernature during my time practising the occult to know that a lot of it isn't from God at all. I've also seen several churches where it felt like God was present but looking back it looked more like a physical emotional response than a spiritual response.

I look at it much like the people who have been to Heaven. Our modern versions of the Bible seem to say that we can't see the One who is on the throne. Yet we have descriptions of Him. They said, "I've seen...". Yet we have people say they've been and seen and the power and presence was there. Are you going to rely on your knowledge of scripture?

I'd still want to test all things, and a vision that can't be verified (as most visions can't) still needs to be tested somehow. Someone saying they saw something breathtaking, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily prove anything.

With respect, what you seem to be doing here is saying "The Bible says this can't happen", adding "people say it has happened" and therefore concluding the Bible is wrong? How does what we think we see trump what the Bible says?

If someone had a "revelation" that Jesus didn't actually die but was in a coma, coming round in the coolness of the tomb, and "the power and the presence was there" would you assume this to be true, or question it because it contradicts Scripture? How do we end up in a place where experience comes first and Scripture is only accepted if it appears to validate the experience, or interpreted in such a way as to validate our subjective experience?

When John wrote "test the spirits" he didn't mean to assume our experience was good and test Scripture against it. Paul warned us that the devil masquerades as an angel of light. This is exactly why we need to be careful.

Has God ever revised your doctrine suddenly about something (for the better)? He put the last piece of the puzzle in there and then you saw the foundation (I think of it like playing Tetris.). Maybe you held fast to a contrary opinion until that happened. If you were "holding fast" to what your take on the Word, you'd be mistaken.

I frequently consider and reconsider different aspects of doctrine, looking at areas they seem to fall down, considering alternatives, and then exploring the logical consequences of those alternatives.

I'm talking about Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. When the fruit is abundant and they can hardly stand and they just love each other, it won't matter that you believe you received the Holy Spirit when you were baptized in water. It is that learning environment though when the mental stances on parts of the Word will go by the wayside and we'll be able to receive more in depth.

Sure, but if you're talking about Baptists and Presbyterians why would you exclude Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?

I'm talking about walking up to a (potentially) non-believer (or a non--believer) and asking them if you can pray for their leg or back. (They're limping visibly.) They weren't seeking God, but God is seeking them. So they say, "Yes" and you pray and they are healed!

That usually only happens to baby Christians (getting healed on someone elses faith). I thought you'd have to get them saved first. But I bore witness to God healing first as a testimony of His love. I don't see too much of that in the Word (they're usually seeking Him).

I guess you could look at the high priest servant's ear (it wasn't his idea or faith!). But yes, that surprised me greatly. The only way I would have received that is to get the revelation.

Why couldn't you have got that from reading the text? Jesus healed the man, it's not hidden away.

No, HIS faith. The gift of faith. Sometimes your faith; but I think sometimes your faith is His faith (because it's His leading and the KNOWING). Rather than dissect it too much, I recognize that we're not independently empowered (even with the anointing). He leads, you move, He manifests. His voice/faith comes/He moves.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Frogster]

Yeah. But rebuking an elder (we're assuming it's not for preaching in your case). If someone "comes against" an elder (minister), being rebuked for bad doctrine, there are guidelines for leveling the accusation (because it IS serious), and then it goes beyond the realm of heresay, someone goes with you and the matter is to be addressed. It doesn't assume there is heresy. It would seek to establish that there is a problem reasonably. It doesn't just dismiss the minister.

In this and some threads like this, many of the big bad wolf scriptures were applied or implied against (whom I would consider elders). There was no context or even quotations being provided. It should be re-stated that an accusation if a serious (not a casual) thing. It has repercussions. All the more reason to remind people not to judge in the flesh because (no flame, it's the Word) it will come back on you.
Right, we're talking like a "perfect world) not the world, though. But the pastors anointing does help identify predators. People like elders and watchmen are also in place to identify when someone needs to be addressed. Jeering from the gallery is out of order.
I can tell you want to be fair. Yes, if they're putting something out for the flock, it should be objective and potentially challengable.That's not touching the anointing to question. It's when your flesh rises up and condemns and seeks to circumnavigate or prevent. When the flesh rises up to criticize and speak out of place, that is getting into trouble too. The whole "flesh" thing should be out of the way completely.
That's what we'd hope to establish as an example in this thread, rather than providing just an "avenue for venting" further division.

why is using scripture, making for 'futher division"?

An excellent example that I'm familiar with. We do have the extra "layers' of protection the Word instructs us with testing and proving and looking at fruits and keeping what is good; a multitude of counselors and the scripture to go back on. Also, established order and not just lashing out with a pitchfork and torches without evidence.

I would say that there is a false anointing and a real one and you can tell the difference. Also, feelings can mislead, but there is absolutely no counterfeit for the power and presence of God. But as the Lord said (locally), even the angels were deceived and we should not trust in ourselves. But receiving and judging (for us) is the first step.

A statement was made that made him look a little kooky (rather than calling him a heretic). When it was pointed out, they realized that it put him in a bad light, and they retracted.

 

[Alive_Again]

why is using scripture, making for 'futher division"?

Of itself, it is not. But without any quotations from concerned parties, you're imposing "truths" about deception working against the body against unverified signs (in a manner that directly implies they are false, and the people who minister where they occur). You can state an opinion about it, but you cannot state categorically that because you don't recognize the sign that it is demonic. If you feel that way it is your opinion (which you can state).

If someone speaks against a family member, you must provide evidence that they are ministering deception, not scripture that says that it does take place in the world.

If you changed your tactic, we cold examine what is being preached that you take issue with. Hopefully not about offerings being evil.

 

[Frogster]

Of itself, it is not. But without any quotations from concerned parties, you're imposing "truths" about deception working against the body against unverified signs (in a manner that directly implies they are false, and the people who minister where they occur). You can state an opinion about it, but you cannot state categorically that because you don't recognize the sign that it is demonic. If you feel that way it is your opinion (which you can state).

If someone speaks against a family member, you must provide evidence that they are ministering deception, not scripture that says that it does take place in the world.

If you changed your tactic, we cold examine what is being preached that you take issue with. Hopefully not about offerings being evil.

2014 thread review time, just to make things clear.


(red above)see what this post does? it implies I think offerings are evil, when you know I don't, but I say the extraction of money, from the poor is wrong, especially from teachers that carry the title "doctor" of the Bible, who should know better, as they twist text, as you also said they do too, to extract from the poor, often living higher, cars houses, lifestyle, than those, of whom they extract from, big difference from what you said I do, to what I do say about offerings.

Then we have protectionism, for the "doctors", all while there is seemingly no care/protections for those getting abused, showing partiality, a double standard, all while God shows no partiality.

So we have "guidelines" to protect pastor, but not the poor, all while I countered your guidelines, with 2 clear texts along with others, in my other posts, outward confrontation of both wolves in the text, and yes, even Peter, the non wolf, and judging hearts, all of which you seem to think is not scriptural, as your posts rarely have text to rebutt anyway.

Then we still do not have a head on confrontation, to the ACTUAL texts I posted about confrontation, all showing that i used the text correctly, by the absence of rebuttal, because no one can't rebutt, the simple truth I have shown.

Then we see that though david did not killl saul, he did indeed come at him.

Thanks very much, frog.

 

[Alive_Again]

...it implies I think offerings are evil, when you know I don't,

No I don't know that. I asked you that and you didn't reply.

...but I say the extraction of money, from the poor is wrong, especially from teachers that carry the title "doctor" of the Bible, who should know better,

You give the impression of someone who takes up offerings from the poor as having it "extracted". The poor are always with us, so you can't avoid offering the plate to them when it goes around. They pass the bucket, and it is up to each person to settle within himself what God would have him give. It's done freely. Of course some people do manipulate a bit, but it's up to God to correct them. Don't give to them if they do. Don't vilify them in the process.

Just because the bucket gets passed to the poor, or just because the poor give, does not make it wrong.

..as they twist text, as you also said they do too, to extract from the poor, often living higher, cars houses, lifestyle, than those, of whom they extract from, big difference from what you said I do, to what I do say about offerings.

I'm glad you cleared things up. You don't apply this to everyone. But who is to say that just because they receive money from the poor, and they have a nicer house or car than you, does not mean their heart is wrong.

ALSO, you cannot assume that people have a covetous heart. ALL of us are offended by the prospect of people doing (what you say they sometimes do). No one likes that. The Lord didn't like that. But you can't assume people are doing this; not because they have a Dr. title, and not because they receive money (given freely) from the poor.

As I said, YES some people misunderstand the passages in 2 Cor and Malachi, but you CANNOT assume their heart is wrong just because they're wrong in the head.

Then we have protectionism, for the "doctors", all while there is seemingly no care/protections for those getting abused, showing partiality, a double standard, all while God shows no partiality.

How do you know this? You assume this is the case. It would be ugly, but you have a tendency to impose this ugliness into the situations you identify.

On recent threads, generalizations have been made about Jews being "Zionists" (means different things to different people), but "Jews" are tagged with whatever offending behavior you identify. Guests on Sid are taking advantage of listeners by selling books and CDs (with a supposedly covetous heart), and now a generalization is made about Dr.'s, people who "extract" money from the poor, preachers with (presumably) better houses are cars than you have.

You generalized how apostles are wrong for taking up offerings (to cover his expenses) because Paul didn't do it. It's these 'across the board' judgments that we want to stop when searching about whether or not "It's ok to question some things I hear in the Charismatic Movement"? We want to say yes, but to do it scripturally in Christian love, and not with fingers pointed (and firing) everywhere.

It's making your family members look badly and it's a bad witness to people who might read this stuff. Some of them have SERIOUS questions about the "Charismatic move" in general because they don't understand. We have things like "Strange Fire Conferences" going on that is trying to provide a scriptural basis to DISPROVE what is going on.

We should be reasonable people who WILL look at these things openly and actually have answers (not generalizations that condemn). We want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

Quoting "text" scripture verses that say it goes on and then pointing fingers that say "here!" do nothing at all to establish the righteousness of that accusation. You don't "refute" the Word, but if you misapply it, by imposing it on someone or groups, then you become guilty of the same twisting you accuse others of.

I say this "matter of factly" because we want to be good examples that are easy to be entreated, not those who will answer a matter before he hears it.

...even Peter, the non wolf, and judging hearts, all of which you seem to think is not scriptural

This is the part you seem to gloss over. They "receive" their judgment. Peter did not just lash out.

...by the absence of rebuttal, because no one can't rebutt, the simple truth I have shown.

Right here is the sound rebuttal. We don't do it ourselves. It's simple because we should not do it. It doesn't matter that certain people were called upon to do it to people Paul identified.

Then we see that though david did not killl saul, he did indeed come at him.

I keep wondering why you say this. David did not hunt Saul, he hid from him. He left it up to God to judge Saul. He said this to his face.

David was temporarily put into a position where he would have had to move against the armies of Israel. God relieved him of that through the objections of the Phillistines. From that, God judged Saul and established David's kingdom. David was blameless throughout the process.

 

[Frogster]

No I don't know that. I asked you that and you didn't reply.

You give the impression of someone who takes up offerings from the poor as having it "extracted". The poor are always with us, so you can't avoid offering the plate to them when it goes around. They pass the bucket, and it is up to each person to settle within himself what God would have him give. It's done freely. Of course some people do manipulate a bit, but it's up to God to correct them. Don't give to them if they do. Don't vilify them in the process.

Just because the bucket gets passed to the poor, or just because the poor give, does not make it wrong.

I'm glad you cleared things up. You don't apply this to everyone. But who is to say that just because they receive money from the poor, and they have a nicer house or car than you, does not mean their heart is wrong.

ALSO, you cannot assume that people have a covetous heart. ALL of us are offended by the prospect of people doing (what you say they sometimes do). No one likes that. The Lord didn't like that. But you can't assume people are doing this; not because they have a Dr. title, and not because they receive money (given freely) from the poor.

As I said, YES some people misunderstand the passages in 2 Cor and Malachi, but you CANNOT assume their heart is wrong just because they're wrong in the head.

How do you know this? You assume this is the case. It would be ugly, but you have a tendency to impose this ugliness into the situations you identify.

On recent threads, generalizations have been made about Jews being "Zionists" (means different things to different people), but "Jews" are tagged with whatever offending behavior you identify. Guests on Sid are taking advantage of listeners by selling books and CDs (with a supposedly covetous heart), and now a generalization is made about Dr.'s, people who "extract" money from the poor, preachers with (presumably) better houses are cars than you have.

You generalized how apostles are wrong for taking up offerings (to cover his expenses) because Paul didn't do it. It's these 'across the board' judgments that we want to stop when searching about whether or not "It's ok to question some things I hear in the Charismatic Movement"? We want to say yes, but to do it scripturally in Christian love, and not with fingers pointed (and firing) everywhere.

It's making your family members look badly and it's a bad witness to people who might read this stuff. Some of them have SERIOUS questions about the "Charismatic move" in general because they don't understand. We have things like "Strange Fire Conferences" going on that is trying to provide a scriptural basis to DISPROVE what is going on.

We should be reasonable people who WILL look at these things openly and actually have answers (not generalizations that condemn). We want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

Quoting "text" scripture verses that say it goes on and then pointing fingers that say "here!" do nothing at all to establish the righteousness of that accusation. You don't "refute" the Word, but if you misapply it, by imposing it on someone or groups, then you become guilty of the same twisting you accuse others of.

I say this "matter of factly" because we want to be good examples that are easy to be entreated, not those who will answer a matter before he hears it.

This is the part you seem to gloss over. They "receive" their judgment. Peter did not just lash out.
Right here is the sound rebuttal. We don't do it ourselves. It's simple because we should not do it. It doesn't matter that certain people were called upon to do it to people Paul identified.

I keep wondering why you say this. David did not hunt Saul, he hid from him. He left it up to God to judge Saul. He said this to his face.

David was temporarily put into a position where he would have had to move against the armies of Israel. God relieved him of that through the objections of the Phillistines. From that, God judged Saul and established David's kingdom. David was blameless throughout the process.

you implied it, that I think offerings are evil, read the post.

the point about DOCTOR was that they act like bible scholars, as they act ignorant of mal 3, and the story of 2 cor 8-9!

but often the cd sellers, act like they have some secret revelation, of some hidden secret, but to get it, you gotta by the cd..lol...paul gave is revelation, for free. it is all in the delivery...

You also did not refute Paul's confrontation with peter, to his face in front of the whole church, or rebuking elders in public, 1 tim 5..

of course he did not lash out, Peter knew he was wrong, unlikle some arrogant ones today!

did david take soldiers, and help fight against saul? yes or no please?


thanks, frog.

 

[Frogster]

No I don't know that. I asked you that and you didn't reply.

You give the impression of someone who takes up offerings from the poor as having it "extracted". The poor are always with us, so you can't avoid offering the plate to them when it goes around. They pass the bucket, and it is up to each person to settle within himself what God would have him give. It's done freely. Of course some people do manipulate a bit, but it's up to God to correct them. Don't give to them if they do. Don't vilify them in the process.

Just because the bucket gets passed to the poor, or just because the poor give, does not make it wrong.

I'm glad you cleared things up. You don't apply this to everyone. But who is to say that just because they receive money from the poor, and they have a nicer house or car than you, does not mean their heart is wrong.

ALSO, you cannot assume that people have a covetous heart. ALL of us are offended by the prospect of people doing (what you say they sometimes do). No one likes that. The Lord didn't like that. But you can't assume people are doing this; not because they have a Dr. title, and not because they receive money (given freely) from the poor.

As I said, YES some people misunderstand the passages in 2 Cor and Malachi, but you CANNOT assume their heart is wrong just because they're wrong in the head.

How do you know this? You assume this is the case. It would be ugly, but you have a tendency to impose this ugliness into the situations you identify.

On recent threads, generalizations have been made about Jews being "Zionists" (means different things to different people), but "Jews" are tagged with whatever offending behavior you identify. Guests on Sid are taking advantage of listeners by selling books and CDs (with a supposedly covetous heart), and now a generalization is made about Dr.'s, people who "extract" money from the poor, preachers with (presumably) better houses are cars than you have.

You generalized how apostles are wrong for taking up offerings (to cover his expenses) because Paul didn't do it. It's these 'across the board' judgments that we want to stop when searching about whether or not "It's ok to question some things I hear in the Charismatic Movement"? We want to say yes, but to do it scripturally in Christian love, and not with fingers pointed (and firing) everywhere.

It's making your family members look badly and it's a bad witness to people who might read this stuff. Some of them have SERIOUS questions about the "Charismatic move" in general because they don't understand. We have things like "Strange Fire Conferences" going on that is trying to provide a scriptural basis to DISPROVE what is going on.

We should be reasonable people who WILL look at these things openly and actually have answers (not generalizations that condemn). We want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

Quoting "text" scripture verses that say it goes on and then pointing fingers that say "here!" do nothing at all to establish the righteousness of that accusation. You don't "refute" the Word, but if you misapply it, by imposing it on someone or groups, then you become guilty of the same twisting you accuse others of.

I say this "matter of factly" because we want to be good examples that are easy to be entreated, not those who will answer a matter before he hears it.

This is the part you seem to gloss over. They "receive" their judgment. Peter did not just lash out.
Right here is the sound rebuttal. We don't do it ourselves. It's simple because we should not do it. It doesn't matter that certain people were called upon to do it to people Paul identified.

I keep wondering why you say this. David did not hunt Saul, he hid from him. He left it up to God to judge Saul. He said this to his face.

David was temporarily put into a position where he would have had to move against the armies of Israel. God relieved him of that through the objections of the Phillistines. From that, God judged Saul and established David's kingdom. David was blameless throughout the process.

ps, just so i know, are you ever going to rebutt the actual texts I use? thanks.

So far, in all fairness, with all due respect, theses posts really are not exactly text filled.

And why no defense of the poor, those of whom you said, are hearing wrong teachings, as they give money that they don't have, and i add often to those who have more in life, cars, houses etc? why is the touch not verse so quickly wielded to protect teachers, but not the church folk?

why the double standard?

I am confused here...protect the leaders, but not the sheep? all while Paul was for the sheep, acts 20, see that please, those purchased by blood, those who elders are supposed to guard, not steal from, thanks!

 

[Alive_Again]

ps, just so i know, are you ever going to rebutt the actual texts I use? thanks.

You apply your texts generally to people (apparently only you seem to know). You mention no names (no doubt a good thing). The Bible is not a document to be "refuted". But as previously stated, you cannot just impose verses on individuals as you see fit. It doesn't matter if Peter, Paul, and anybody else ever rebuked anyone. There is no "license" to condemn others.

So far, in all fairness, with all due respect, theses posts really are not exactly text filled.

That's because the ones I gave you about judging with fairness, not answering a matter before you hear it didn't seem to count.

I'm not going to just get into a "back and forth" argument with you. You're obviously of the opinion that you need to be able to point the finger at somebody.

For the sake of the original question (for anyone else who has read this thread and actually want to do this fairly), let's include quotes and context, etc., and be able to stand upright without getting into strife. It all depends on whose tool you want to be when searching (and it needs to be a search) for the truth.

If you want to be a judge, do so by reviewing the facts, not receiving hearsay evidence. Do it like you'd want to be judged. And make no mistake, we'll reap what we sow and you WILL be judged like you judge. Let's do it fairly.

Let's not assume anyone is stealing from the flock (give your evidence if you think otherwise). If you don't have any, you're just a finger pointer in the seat of the scornful, full of suspicion. If they have "titles", don't hold that against them.

Assume you'll be fair and not entertain rogue accusations.