Caution! Rick Joyner is coming with more "revelations"!

[Frogster]

Whatever Yitzach's tone, he does have a good question. I'm curious too. I remember when a friend of mine had a powerful end-time vision - she spoke at church with many tears - it was difficult to talk about but impossible NOT to talk about. I think that's how I would feel too. Do you think people still have visions like Isaiah, Paul, and John did? If so, to what point is it okay to talk about them, and to hope that others will have them too? *curious*

Hello, but Joyner was not having a hard time, he was not choked up, he tells this stuff everywhere, and has another book to sell on it, almost seems like a professional visionary, or something like that...

He was going on and on, about this 3 way conversation with himself, Enoch, and Elijah, sorry, I am not buying it. Thanks for your post, frog.

PS, do you ever doubt or question things you hear, about visions, or angel encounters, etc?

 

[Frogster]

I have witnessed only healing miracles in my 40 years as a Christian and they took place during two Kathryn Kuhlman meetings. All that followed afterwards, all the showmen and wannabe miracle workers that came either out of the local body or from out of town, were deceptive and manipulative toward those folks who attended in agony and last resort thinking. These past few decades have been dry as dead bones as I see it, like a never ending wilderness. Perhaps, after the next ten years passes, bringing the total to 40 years, God may bring deliverance. That would be nice.

Hi, It seems like everyone has to just believe everything, a "just shut up, and don't say anything!" kind of mindset out there, sad, silly, and unscriptural.

 

[Yitzchak]

Hi, It seems like everyone has to just believe everything, a "just shut up, and don't say anything!" kind of mindset out there, sad, silly, and unscriptural.

This statement would be more relevant if it actually applied to anyone. Who specifically believes everything ?

The reality is that some people object because things are being presented as if everything (100%) is to be disbelieved without any evidence to support that disbelief.

The starting premise for myself is that it is possible for someone to have these types of experiences since the Bible supports that view. The second premise is that a Charismatic Christian minister reporting these types of experiences gets the benefits of the doubt unless there is good reason to think otherwise. I don't know what the percentage is of truth versus fiction versus a mix of some truth and some fiction. Only God knows that. But having spent 30 years in church now , certain behaviors like exaggeration seem fairly stereotypical , thus believable.

I object to the starting point being that every Christian who reports a supernatural experience is lying.

A more balanced and sensible position is to be aware that sometimes people exaggerate their experiences and once in a while someone makes it up. Sometimes they are real experiences. It requires discernment to know the difference. In many situations , we do not have enough information to know one way or the other. Pretending to know what we cannot possibly know is nonsensical.

Treating every testimony of every Christian who testifies to angel visitations and other supernatural experiences as a fake is not exercising discernment . It is the opposite of discernment.

Since I can only comment on what you actually post , I have responded to what you have actually posted. I would welcome some specific information concerning why we should distrust Joyner. But you have not provided any. I'm not buying it.

 

[talitha]

do you ever doubt or question things you hear, about visions, or angel encounters, etc?

What I do is I take the Berean approach - not the way some people misuse the term, which is to say that they approach everything with cynicism and refuse to accept anything outside of their box, but the way it is in scripture: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Sooo..... I am eager to accept revelation of any kind - and I know that God can do anything and has done some crazy stuff in the past - and I stay grounded in Scripture.... I do not see anything that contradicts what Rick Joyner, for instance, is doing in his sharing of his visions. He is a pastor and an author - of course he is using the stuff of his relationship with God to pastor and to write. Would that all pastors and authors did that.

just my two lempiras

 

[Yitzchak]

What I do is I take the Berean approach - not the way some people misuse the term, which is to say that they approach everything with cynicism and refuse to accept anything outside of their box, but the way it is in scripture: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Sooo..... I am eager to accept revelation of any kind - and I know that God can do anything and has done some crazy stuff in the past - and I stay grounded in Scripture.... I do not see anything that contradicts what Rick Joyner, for instance, is doing in his sharing of his visions. He is a pastor and an author - of course he is using the stuff of his relationship with God to pastor and to write. Would that all pastors and authors did that.

just my two lempiras

Thank you. This is a balanced and healthy approach , in my opinion.

 

[Tobias]

Hi, It seems like everyone has to just believe everything, a "just shut up, and don't say anything!" kind of mindset out there, sad, silly, and unscriptural.

Actually, that is the same attitude that people who have visions run into as well. "Just shut up, and say noting. Paul didn't tell his vision, so if you do then you are being unscriptural!" Or they take this attitude, and apply it to their sense of judgement towards anybody's testimony. "That's not of God, because I can find fault with it. You mentioned gold streets in heaven, but the bible only talks about one street!" Or something else similarly ridiculous.


Caution is good, but predetermined opinions are not.

 

[Yitzchak]

Actually, that is the same attitude that people who have visions run into as well. "Just shut up, and say noting. Paul didn't tell his vision, so if you do then you are being unscriptural!" Or they take this attitude, and apply it to their sense of judgement towards anybody's testimony. "That's not of God, because I can find fault with it. You mentioned gold streets in heaven, but the bible only talks about one street!" Or something else similarly ridiculous.


Caution is good, but predetermined opinions are not.

You make a good point. There are times when you take it a little bit more liberal than I prefer on the issues , but you are very consistent and I like your honest approach to things.

It may turn out in the end that Joyner is a wing nut or he may turn out to be a hero of the faith. I honestly cannot say one way or the other about Joyner's visions , but I find it much more reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should not find fault over silly details or our personal preferences.

This is a really good post.

 

[Frogster]

What I do is I take the Berean approach - not the way some people misuse the term, which is to say that they approach everything with cynicism and refuse to accept anything outside of their box, but the way it is in scripture: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Sooo..... I am eager to accept revelation of any kind - and I know that God can do anything and has done some crazy stuff in the past - and I stay grounded in Scripture.... I do not see anything that contradicts what Rick Joyner, for instance, is doing in his sharing of his visions. He is a pastor and an author - of course he is using the stuff of his relationship with God to pastor and to write. Would that all pastors and authors did that.

just my two lempiras

hello, in other words, there is an old expression I remember hearing loved ones say...

"I had a check in my spirit".

Do you ever hear some stuff that gives you a check?

 

[Frogster]

Actually, that is the same attitude that people who have visions run into as well. "Just shut up, and say noting. Paul didn't tell his vision, so if you do then you are being unscriptural!" Or they take this attitude, and apply it to their sense of judgement towards anybody's testimony. "That's not of God, because I can find fault with it. You mentioned gold streets in heaven, but the bible only talks about one street!" Or something else similarly ridiculous.


Caution is good, but predetermined opinions are not.

do you ever get a check in your spirit?

 

[Frogster]

You make a good point. There are times when you take it a little bit more liberal than I prefer on the issues , but you are very consistent and I like your honest approach to things.

It may turn out in the end that Joyner is a wing nut or he may turn out to be a hero of the faith. I honestly cannot say one way or the other about Joyner's visions , but I find it much more reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should not find fault over silly details or our personal preferences.

This is a really good post.

do you ever get a check in your spirit when you hear stuff?

in other words, you have been setting me up as a cessationist, quick to do that, and even call me an anti-semite, or at least strongly allude to it, on law threads, but are you ever quick to ever get a check in your spirit?

heck, i talked of sid roth having a guest who talked of body parts in heaven, and a guest who sang a praise song, practically worshipping michael the angel, and you said nothing that indicates that you did not agree with the guests, but look how fast you label me, who brings out the strange and bazzar!

you may want to have some balance bro, luv ya! frog.

 

[Godisgood12]

He as on Bakers sellathon show this morning, with a bit of self abasement, to hide the bragging.

He was telling about all of these encounters with Elijah, and even talking with Enoch, sounded like lengthy chats with them too.

He says people beg him, to learn about supernatural stuff, as he said few know this insight/path, of course, he does though. Jim Baker sat there like a young boy, just drinking this in. Sorry, with all due respect to Jim, that is what I saw, perceptions come at us, and we can't help but to notice..


Rick, as most know is one of those NAR super apostles running around out there. They make no apology for their self proclaimed status.


He says, that they said, that we will all look so happy, that the world will think we are, ummmm...retar--ded. Sorry for the word, but just quoting him. I might be wrong, but I don't think Baker liked that particular comment though, because he is always using fear, to sell his products to survive the end times tribulation, so we have a conflict there, be happy all the time, or scared enough to buy Baker's survival solar generator and canned foods!

As usual, for the most part, it was all about his revelations and visions...he says he used to have to go to his mountain retreat, to get his revelations, but wow...now they are almost always being downloaded, he said he ascended, with more insights into the supernatural, and is eager to share them with us!

Sounds like the frogsters got some competition.

 

[Frogster]

You make a good point. There are times when you take it a little bit more liberal than I prefer on the issues , but you are very consistent and I like your honest approach to things.

It may turn out in the end that Joyner is a wing nut or he may turn out to be a hero of the faith. I honestly cannot say one way or the other about Joyner's visions , but I find it much more reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should not find fault over silly details or our personal preferences.

This is a really good post.

alot of ground is gained by wing nuts, as you phrased it, under the umbrella that protects them, called "the benefit of the doubt".

show me where Paul, Peter, John, Jude, gave the benefit...

tee hee..

you want text to see doubt? No benefit, they were false apostles, twice dead, wolves, etc.


2 Peter 2:2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

3 John9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.


I could go on and on, about those who did not get the benefit, but hey, i am not as harsh as the writers of the Bible.

 

[Frogster]

This statement would be more relevant if it actually applied to anyone. Who specifically believes everything ?

The reality is that some people object because things are being presented as if everything (100%) is to be disbelieved without any evidence to support that disbelief.

The starting premise for myself is that it is possible for someone to have these types of experiences since the Bible supports that view. The second premise is that a Charismatic Christian minister reporting these types of experiences gets the benefits of the doubt unless there is good reason to think otherwise. I don't know what the percentage is of truth versus fiction versus a mix of some truth and some fiction. Only God knows that. But having spent 30 years in church now , certain behaviors like exaggeration seem fairly stereotypical , thus believable.

I object to the starting point being that every Christian who reports a supernatural experience is lying.

A more balanced and sensible position is to be aware that sometimes people exaggerate their experiences and once in a while someone makes it up. Sometimes they are real experiences. It requires discernment to know the difference. In many situations , we do not have enough information to know one way or the other. Pretending to know what we cannot possibly know is nonsensical.

Treating every testimony of every Christian who testifies to angel visitations and other supernatural experiences as a fake is not exercising discernment . It is the opposite of discernment.

Since I can only comment on what you actually post , I have responded to what you have actually posted. I would welcome some specific information concerning why we should distrust Joyner. But you have not provided any. I'm not buying it.

when david hertzog, if i spelled it correctly, connects tithing, with being able to go into his secret dimensional portals, says his baby was born with 'glory dust" on his skin, and has a wife who says she floated over her bed, while angles cleaned her house, do you call him a wing nut, getting a check in your spirit, or do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

you sure extemed me real quick but tales like that exteme from david, do not get a check in your spirit?

see?

 

[Alive_Again]

It's sad to see such flippant commentary on a very anointed servant of God. I have benefited from his revelations. You might not like the NAR (I think it was), but that doesn't change anything.

It's not boasting to speak of your visions. It is highly presumptuous and it is to misunderstand the scripture to think that speaking of these things means that you're puffed up! You can magnify your ministry as well, as you magnify Jesus.

If you listened to what he is saying instead of the idea of what he is supposedly saying, you'd find him leading people to repentance and faith. It's usually a wake-up call type of scenario where God is going to move and if we're going to have it reach the potential God wants it to have, it is going to take rising up in a spirit of prayer as a church.

When people hear and take up the fire this type of message imparts, you take it to your own fellowship and spread it. You're a runner and let me tell you, you might be the only one around doing it. We need these types of messages. Anything that might impart some life in the sleeping giant of the church is worth its salt.

How we handle these messages really locates us and our state of hearing. If we readily scoff at the messenger, aren't we locating ourselves as a brute with no understanding at all?

If you don't get it, is it not better to leave it alone, instead of inciting others to rise up and bear unrighteous judgment? Is it not far better to present something edifying instead of finding some fault in a brother or a sister? (Of course, I hear it for pointing these things out -- as though doing so takes up the sword of judgment of the flesh.)

Isn't it just wise to lay down the "religious politics" (read Roberts Liardon's book on Religious Politics" and stick to edification?

Read Rick's book on how the body is used by the enemy (actually joining ranks) and slinging the enemy's filth (and thinking they are doing it for the Lord!).

 

[everready]

Frogster has the perfect scripture for Rick Joyner and those like him.. he's another wolf in the wolf pack...

2 Peter 2:2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

3 John9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.

 

[Frogster]

Frogster has the perfect scripture for Rick Joyner and those like him.. he's another wolf in the wolf pack...

2 Peter 2:2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

3 John9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.

yeah, and sadly it was plural on the wolves in acts 20, there are a bunch of em!

I like how peter sais they will make stuff up, to get money, as the false apostles were taking thier money, as the naive corinthians got all caught up with their showmanship, just like today.

thanks for your post.

 

[Frogster]

It's sad to see such flippant commentary on a very anointed servant of God. I have benefited from his revelations. You might not like the NAR (I think it was), but that doesn't change anything.

It's not boasting to speak of your visions. It is highly presumptuous and it is to misunderstand the scripture to think that speaking of these things means that you're puffed up! You can magnify your ministry as well, as you magnify Jesus.

If you listened to what he is saying instead of the idea of what he is supposedly saying, you'd find him leading people to repentance and faith. It's usually a wake-up call type of scenario where God is going to move and if we're going to have it reach the potential God wants it to have, it is going to take rising up in a spirit of prayer as a church.

When people hear and take up the fire this type of message imparts, you take it to your own fellowship and spread it. You're a runner and let me tell you, you might be the only one around doing it. We need these types of messages. Anything that might impart some life in the sleeping giant of the church is worth its salt.

How we handle these messages really locates us and our state of hearing. If we readily scoff at the messenger, aren't we locating ourselves as a brute with no understanding at all?

If you don't get it, is it not better to leave it alone, instead of inciting others to rise up and bear unrighteous judgment? Is it not far better to present something edifying instead of finding some fault in a brother or a sister? (Of course, I hear it for pointing these things out -- as though doing so takes up the sword of judgment of the flesh.)

Isn't it just wise to lay down the "religious politics" (read Roberts Liardon's book on Religious Politics" and stick to edification?

Read Rick's book on how the body is used by the enemy (actually joining ranks) and slinging the enemy's filth (and thinking they are doing it for the Lord!).

paul talked about visions, and being puffed up, read col 2:18, Peter said they will make stuff up, other than that, i know how you feel emotionally, we have chatted before, and you seem to think preachers get a free ride, i don't, so i really i will only respond to scripture, not emotions, you're welcome to make emotional appeals, but they are not my thing. have a great day, frog.

 

[Alive_Again]

other than that, i know how you feel emotionally, we have chatted before, and you seem to think preachers get a free ride, i don't,

I don't have any emotions regarding Rick's ministry (so to speak). I do take issue with those who take potshots at anointed ministers o the gospel. It's a cancer that leads to more ungodliness. You have yet to provide anything to base your accusations on.

so i really i will only respond to scripture, not emotions, you're welcome to make emotional appeals, but they are not my thing.

Let's see how you respond.

"And I John saw these things, and heard them..."
Rev 22:8

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple...for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts..."
Isaiah 6:1,8

(The Lord of Hosts is the Father. Jesus said no one has seen the Father, so our translation must be a little lacking. It does not provide the full scope of what He says there, because others have seen God.)

"Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces..."
Ezek 1:15

"...and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it....This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.".
Ezek 1:26,28

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool:"
Dan 7:9

Who is the Ancient of Days? Why was he allowed to see Him? Why is he allowed to tell us (isn't he puffed up for doing so?) Obviously not.

"...And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"
Rev 1:10, 11-19

We clearly see that they saw God upon His throne. These revelations were given for all of the people of God. John was told to "write" what he saw and heard. Daniel was told to seal up the vision. Isn't it awesome that we have this?

paul talked about visions, and being puffed up, read col 2:18, Peter said they will make stuff up,

I realize that the version of the Bible you use says that he "has seen" and the KJV says that "he hasn't seen". This isn't the only time a Wescott and Hort version of the Bible said the complete opposite of what the KJV has said.

In other words, the people they speak of are making things up, or using their imagination (being led astray by false signs and visions).

There are many instances in the Bible where people saw the supernatural, God, angels, Heaven, etc. They were not puffed up to tell us what they saw. In Paul's instance, he apparently heard something he was not supposed to speak of.

You know if you look at the warnings to the church from Paul, it was obvious that he "saw" the future in the church. He spoke of it as well. He wasn't warning people against those who had revelations from God to build up the body, he was warning people about those who listen to seducing and antichrist spirits who were overthrowing the faith of some and preaching another Christ and another gospel. That's not what Rick does, and it's not what others do as they are obedient and pass on to the church what they have seen and heard.

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth, such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth, How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."
2 Cor 12:1-4

Ok, so we have already established precedents where someone heard something in Heaven and it was lawful to utter what they heard. By holding fast to your understanding of this scripture, you make liars out of everyone not listed in scripture who have seen and heard and wrote or told us about it.

"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,"
Acts 16:6

At that time Paul was "forbidden" to go into Asia.

"Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Acts 19:26"

By Acts 19, Paul had thoroughly worked Asia.

We cannot take one verse and apply it across the Bible and try to make it fit. We already have Biblical precedents that contradict that stance.

Not for the sake of just arguing, but this boils down to not wanting to see the truth, because it is right there in front of you. Also, you paint the people who bear witness as false brethren and this will not go well for you if you persist.

 

[Alive_Again]

Ask yourself honestly, if you were wrong, wouldn't you want to know? If you were in the first century listening to John preach, and you called him a false apostle because Jesus said no one had seen God? If you thought he was exploiting the body to put himself into a false position of authority, wouldn't you want to be corrected?

Can you imagine how bad it would look upon you to persist in this type of belief?

yeah, and sadly it was plural on the wolves in acts 20, there are a bunch of em!

I like how peter sais they will make stuff up, to get money, as the false apostles were taking thier money, as the naive corinthians got all caught up with their showmanship, just like today.

Frogster has the perfect scripture for Rick Joyner and those like him.. he's another wolf in the wolf pack...

2 Peter 2:2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

3 John9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.

Why don't you examine the episode we're discussing here of Rick and actually listen to it. Do a "report card". Do it on the show we're talking about and let's see how you judge. Every time Rick encourages or exhorts someone to repent, make Jesus their Lord, believe, bring forth the unity of the Body, etc., put one "mark" on his behalf. Every time he says something "occultic" or puts himself in the pre-emince, or preaches a destructive heresy. We'll throw in there "denying the Master" as well.

We'll give you 10 points for each bad mark and 1 point for each good mark. Let's see who wins! Public repentance and a reversal of these kinds of judgments to the loser.

*Just because you don't believe in someone bearing witness to a vision doesn't mean it isn't true. Points are awarded for the above criteria. Who does it draw people to.

 

[Yitzchak]

do you ever get a check in your spirit when you hear stuff?

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.

in other words, you have been setting me up as a cessationist, quick to do that, and even call me an anti-semite, or at least strongly allude to it, on law threads, but are you ever quick to ever get a check in your spirit?

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.

heck, i talked of sid roth having a guest who talked of body parts in heaven, and a guest who sang a praise song, practically worshipping michael the angel, and you said nothing that indicates that you did not agree with the guests, but look how fast you label me, who brings out the strange and bazzar!

you may want to have some balance bro, luv ya! frog.

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.