Yes. Getting a check in your spirit is a legitimate and biblical factor in discerning things. It is not the only factor , but definitely can be a strong factor.
But since we often have conflicting reports of people's checks in their spirits , a second hand ' check in the spirit ' is less reliable. Sometimes one person gets a check in their spirit and another person does not. It is more meaningful to me when I have a check in my spirit than it is to trust other people's "gut" feelings.
But , the answer is yes and I do accept a check in my spirit as a valid means of discernment.
I am not sure what you are asking here. I don't think that the Holy Spirit is leading me to call you names , if that is what you are asking.
If you want to apply a label to my posts , then that is your choice , but that is you making things personal , not me. I am asking you about your position on the issue. I may ask pointed question as do you. But I have not resorted to name calling. I have responded to the positions you take and the posts that you make.
If you take an aggressive beat down your opponents style such as the one which you sometimes employ complete with rapid question after question combined with the strong opinions.Then that does not warrant you a gentle response. You complained about my tone , but I have responded in like manner to your tone.
One of your good qualities has been that you dish it out , but don't complain when the in your face style comes back to debate you. I would say that you give it out as good as you get it back. You have managed to employ this style and stick for the most part to the issue and not get bogged down in personal stuff.
But we are all human and I would ask that is you have doubts in this area concerning my motives , then pm me and we will discuss it. Calling me out in the thread with personal concerns is a distraction from the topic and in bad taste.
With regards to a check in my spirit , I would not classify myself as quick to get a check in my spirit. I tend to think that God is a lot more accepting and less harsh than the Christian community is about a lot of things. When I do get a check in my spirit , I take it seriously and act upon it.
As far as setting you up to be a cessationist , that is your label and your conclusion , not mine. I am not " setting you up " for anything. I am simply responding to what you post.
Cessationist is a label which is usually considered to be anti Charismatic and I don't find it appropriate for you to throw that term around as though it is somehow connected to something which I said.
You have to choose for yourself what your Theology and beliefs are. But there obviously are Charismatics who debate and dispute claims of being slain in the spirit , holy laughter , visions , trances , gold dust , dying and going to Heaven , etc. I don't always understand how it makes sense to everyone to take the positions that they do.
But we can't have it both ways. If I cannot assume that a Charismatic necessarily supports 100% of common Charismatic practices , then you or someone else cannot rightly accuse me of calling someone a cessationist when I ask them to clarify what they believe about these practices.
As I recall , your posting history indicates that you are in the opposed category 100% of the time to any supernatural experience that sounds bizarre or strange in any way.
You mentioned Sid Roth's guests. Well , the name of the show is " it's supernatural " and it seems obvious that Sid invites guests on the show who claim unusual supernatural experiences. That is his shtick and the style of the show. So it is to be expected that he is going to try and have guests who will give fantastic reports that will make people say wow.
Just in the past several days , you have disputed Joyner and the guests on Sid Roth's program as wing nuts , for lack of a better term. Not that I am hung up on the term. I use it myself and some people are wing nuts. But it is not the fact that you opposed certain ministries that I objected to , it was your basis for doing so. You have shown no evidence , biblical or otherwise , other than the fact that these people reported strange visions or experiences. A gut feeling counts , but becomes suspect when it is used as the only evidence in 100% of the cases. Particularly in cases where my gut does not agree.
What I asked is if you ever support any reports of angel visitations or other strange experiences which would fall into that category such as visions or other unusual personal supernatural experiences. I have yet to receive an answer to that question. That is a simple question and should be a simple answer. What angel visitations do you support ? What strange supernatural experiences do you support ?
You mentioned a healing thread which you started as proof that you are not a Cessationist. But I cannot think of a more classic example of a straw man argument. You won the argument. Too bad it was with yourself. That was never my question.
My question is a logical and reasonable question. Can you name one incident where a modern day Christian minister claimed a vision or an angel encounter that you approve of ? You have not shown any compelling reason to be so critical of Joyner. If you choose to be critical of him based upon your gut , then so be it. But expect me to be skeptical when you have shown nothing which compels me to see this "hidden evil " that you speak of. I think it is at least possible that your gut is influenced by your "pet" issue in this area. Either way , I am not willing to accept you as the objective voice of reason and balance when giving a critical report on these ministries.
You are willing to say that you are 100% sure. To use one of our favorite expressions , you are over pressing the issue. That suggests to me a larger issue than just an appraisal of Joyner. You seem to have a few pet issues which you push in thread after thread. Which is fine , except that you can hardly call "foul " when I confront that pet issue and don't just play along and pretend that this is some unbiased appraisal of Joyner.
If you will provide a link or links with some objective information that we can evaluate ourselves , then good. But if you want us to accept your gut feeling about it , then these type of questions regarding your gut feelings will be asked.
I felt that I was already balanced. I am against some things and in favor of others. I am neutral on many things.
In my mind , if someone's "gut" is an accurate source , then they will be in favor of some and against some and probably admit that they just do not know one way or the other about some.
In the case of specific instances , it would probably be helpful to have some specific source to access. These general second hand reports of Joyner and these other guests are somewhat vague. For example , you say a guest was practically worshiping an angel. Which guest ? Is there a video link that we can watch too ? These are your somewhat general second hand and subjective conclusions , not objective facts.
I am truly sorry if you have gotten your feelings hurt because I don't take your word for it. But as I said , you seem to over press the issue with a few pet issues on thread after thread. Don't misunderstand me , go right ahead and do so if that edifies you. But don't get your feelings hurt if I am somewhat skeptical of your conclusions or of your objectivity.
You have indicated that you are sure about Joyner. You might be right , you might be wrong. He is a controversial figure and that is his choice to be controversial and so it is expected that he will have opposition. He is not a quiet , don't rock the boat type of style. I don't have any sympathy for Joyner , in that regard. He wanted to be in the public eye and play this role of pushing people's buttons and constantly pushing the envelope. He does this not just with visions , but also with doctrine and all kinds of things. His style and shtick is to push the envelope and say shocking things in a very calm and sober delivery style. I am not fooled by that persona. He knows full well that he is stirring the pot by what he does and says. They call NAR the new apostolic Reformation for good reason.
If you want to doubt his visions , that is your right. But I am comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't have a gut feeling or check in my spirit one way or the other.
Anyway , If what you are asking is why I am so hard on the people who are critical of Joyner and not on Joyner himself , I consider that to be a valid question. I will be glad to discuss that , but not in the context of implying that I am somehow labeling you and attacking you. I am glad to tone it down a notch , but expect the same in return if that is what you are asking. Let's clear that up first , please. Then I will be glad to more fully answer that question.
Because I feel like I am the one being set up and baited here. I am speaking to the issue and asking about your position on the issue and it feels like you are trying to draw me into something more personal. I would love to be wrong on that point.