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

[Yitzchak]

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.

First of all , are you actually attempting to defend this ??? Wow.....


Is your position that you think that the verses that you posted mean that we are always to think the worst of people and attack them based on our assumptions and judgments ? Wow....


Anyway , Hmmm. Benefit of the doubt. Let me think for a minute. Is it biblical ?

First , let's begin by defining the phrase , benefit of the doubt...

From the free online dictionary.....

to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either

here are some definitions I found on a google search of the phrase.

It means that you shouldn't judge someone without all of the facts first.

Proverbs 18:13

If one rejects a matter before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.

It is kind of like saying, don't judge a book by it's cover.

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

I guess you are saying that the United States justice system got is wrong when they said " innocent until proven guilty " and when they said that the burden of proof should be " beyond any shadow of a doubt ".
Here is what wikipedia says about the phrase beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt is a standard of proof, and as such, falls along a continuum of certainty. An example of such a continuum might advance as follows:

1. air of reality - only having the traces of truth
2. preponderance of the evidence - it is more likely than not
3. clear and convincing evidence - it is substantially more likely than not
4. beyond a reasonable doubt - no reasonable doubt could be raised
5. beyond the shadow of a doubt - no doubt whatsoever could be raised

So on the spectrum of evidence , you are suggesting that we should go with air of reality as the necessary evidence to condemn Joyner as guilty ?


Anyway , what exactly is your point in this post ? Am I supposed to be convinced that we are to always doubt everything that everyone says and then say a bunch of harsh and judgmental things based upon our assumptions and judgments of them? Do you really think that I will accept that that is what those passages are teaching us ?

Once again.....True discernment admits when it does not know. True discernment finds some cases where it is wrong and some where it is right.
Of course I don't accept a flawed exegesis which teaches that the apostles were going around randomly attacking people. They did what they had to do in their position of authority to protect the church. It was always a last resort and based upon solid evidence when they choose to confront and correct people.


By the way , just to clarify , what specific charges are you bringing against Joyner and based upon what witnesses and what evidence ? Because Paul and Peter are not saying anything one way or the other about Joyner.


1 Timothy 5:19

(ESV) Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

 

[everready]

I don't thnk Frogster is trying to defend this ??? Yitzchak.. I'm thinking he's using this text as the refference point..

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.


19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Says here Mr. Joyner doesn't know Jesus, oh he knows of him most people do, just not personally is all

 

[Yitzchak]

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?

As far as a check in my spirit , I don't get a check in my spirit about Hertzog and I don't get a check in my spirit about you either. The Holy Spirit is silent on both.

I have reasons for concerns about both of you. Obviously for different reasons.

My concerns about you are based upon your posting record on these issues. You and I frequently and strongly disagree on several things.

My concerns about him are second hand. Your description of him makes him sound like a wing nut. If I were to take your portrayal of him at face value , then I would lean towards saying that he sounds like a wing nut. But I like to exercise more discernment than that. I don't believe everything I hear , particularly when I only have partial information to go on.


What is the source for this information ? We already have one poster disputing your version of of what David Hertzog is teaching and doing. Do you have a link for Hertzog ? I for one have never heard of Hertzog except on this forum. I don't have any idea about him one way or the other.

The issue is a lack of evidence with which to make an educated decision. A few sound bites taken out of context is not enough for me.

As I already posted in another thread, it is recognized by academics that one does not get the most accurate picture of someone by listening to only their critics. Or by listening to only their supporters. Academics recommend reading all sides of an issue. And most of all , they recommend reading or listening to the person first hand. To my knowledge , I have never listened to Hertzog. If I have , I did not know it was him.


Anyway , I'm not saying that wing nuts do not exist. I think I've posted that about twelve times now. But why would I allow myself to be pressured into saying I know something which I do not know ?

I posted an entire thread about The heretic Rick Warren. We can discuss that if you like.

 

[Yitzchak]

I don't thnk Frogster is trying to defend this ??? Yitzchak.. I'm thinking he's using this text as the refference point..

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.


19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Says here Mr. Joyner doesn't know Jesus, oh he knows of him most people do, just not personally is all

I understand the logic and the scripture. I just don't see the connection with Joyner specifically.

The fact that the scripture mentions the existence of false prophets and also mentions people who do not have a saving knowledge of Jesus is a scriptural truth.

A list of specific names to which this applies is a step or two beyond scripture.

This is what I meant when I said a more balanced approach sees that there are people who we know are false , there are people who we know are true and there is the third category of those we are not sure about yet. God will reveal it all in the end and some of it he will reveal now.

I have not seen any specifics posted about Joyner that convince me that he is a false prophet.

 

[Frogster]

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.

do you remenber how you started a thread, about how your posts are too long? i did not read this, you want to convey a thought, and have a cohesive chat fine, but i did not read this..

 

[Frogster]

As far as a check in my spirit , I don't get a check in my spirit about Hertzog and I don't get a check in my spirit about you either. The Holy Spirit is silent on both.

I have reasons for concerns about both of you. Obviously for different reasons.

My concerns about you are based upon your posting record on these issues. You and I frequently and strongly disagree on several things.

My concerns about him are second hand. Your description of him makes him sound like a wing nut. If I were to take your portrayal of him at face value , then I would lean towards saying that he sounds like a wing nut. But I like to exercise more discernment than that. I don't believe everything I hear , particularly when I only have partial information to go on.


What is the source for this information ? We already have one poster disputing your version of of what David Hertzog is teaching and doing. Do you have a link for Hertzog ? I for one have never heard of Hertzog except on this forum. I don't have any idea about him one way or the other.

The issue is a lack of evidence with which to make an educated decision. A few sound bites taken out of context is not enough for me.

As I already posted in another thread, it is recognized by academics that one does not get the most accurate picture of someone by listening to only their critics. Or by listening to only their supporters. Academics recommend reading all sides of an issue. And most of all , they recommend reading or listening to the person first hand. To my knowledge , I have never listened to Hertzog. If I have , I did not know it was him.


Anyway , I'm not saying that wing nuts do not exist. I think I've posted that about twelve times now. But why would I allow myself to be pressured into saying I know something which I do not know ?

I posted an entire thread about The heretic Rick Warren. We can discuss that if you like.

dude, a baby born with glitter dust on him, and the wife floats over her bed, while angels clean her house, does not give you a check, as he uses tithe to sell portal access?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wow!

great, i wil let this post stand on it's own merits!

 

[Frogster]

I don't thnk Frogster is trying to defend this ??? Yitzchak.. I'm thinking he's using this text as the refference point..

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.


19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Says here Mr. Joyner doesn't know Jesus, oh he knows of him most people do, just not personally is all

thanks bro, and as the thread goes along, we see that they can't refute 2 perter 2, john 7:18, and col 2;18....
so we get emotional posts instead of text rebuttals....same ole, same ole..redundant, to say the least...

 

[Frogster]

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?



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.

tee hee, you just don't like how there are alot of scriptures that talk about false bros, teachers, prophets, and apostles, so you try to compensate with posts like this..


26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers;

post text.. i posted plenty over the months, but you don't refute with text, like on the benny hinn thread , why?

give me clear posts, give me clear text, line by line, toe to toe, thought for thought, if you do, lunch on me!

there is alot about wolves etc, prove me wrong...

is that too much to ask?

 

[Frogster]

2 Peter 2;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.

refute this, in their greed, they will exploit....these mighty NAR apostles!

they make stuff up, puffed up, refute col 2:18, and their vision angel talk,,..go for it!

then we can go to the false apostles of corinth, my second favorite book after galatians!

 

[Frogster]

ok friends, time to debate the bible, not emotions...have at it, luv ya, frog!

 

[Frogster]

if people don't like what i say, then do not like what yitz says, because he says i am a cessationist, anti-semite, all while i told him i am not so, press him ,then come to me, start with those on your own side of the isle...tee hee..

 

[Alive_Again]

tee hee, you just don't like how there are alot of scriptures that talk about false bros, teachers, prophets, and apostles, so you try to compensate with posts like this..

You can't just give scriptures and indescriminately apply them to whoever you don't approve of. We all know those scriptures, but I dare say they do not apply to Rick Joyner.

post text.. i posted plenty over the months, but you don't refute with text, like on the benny hinn thread , why?

The "challenge" is for you to provide quotations from the program you pointed out and demonstrate how they are 'false" "deceptions". You don't just make accusations without some kind of basis to back them up.

If you choose to open your eyes and look, you'll find that he points people to God and repentance (something the enemy never does). If he makes a prophetic claim, that does not make him a false prophet.

If you were to be honest about this and not just dismiss this as needing scripture, you'll see that he's preaches well.

The enemy runs a smear campaign and cheap shots are his stock in trade. It's time to stop throwing out there what he gives you. It's time to take a good look at these kinds of things and realize that they sow discord and deception.

give me clear posts, give me clear text, line by line, toe to toe, thought for thought, if you do, lunch on me!

You made the accusation (which is very serious). The burden of proof is in your court.

It's time for these things to be seen for what they really are.

(This is not about being an "-ism" or an "ite" of some kind. It's about not dissing our family publicly (or in private).

 

[everready]

You could do as the Jews did when there was a commotion..

Acts 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Compare what the man says and does against scripture..

 

[Yitzchak]

You could do as the Jews did when there was a commotion..


11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Compare what the man says and does against scripture..

This is sound advice.

Joyner preaches to follow the scriptures , he teaches to be born again. He is sound on all the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

Where I find issues of concern and disagreement are on some of his distinctive beliefs where he goes beyond just the basics of the faith.

I have mixed feelings about the restoration of the fivefold ministry which includes the office of Apostle. This is a complicated issue and can mean a lot of things.

In short , Joyner is a button pusher and a risk taker. He is not a stick with the status quo type of guy. He takes a lot of controversial stands.

That does not mean that he is a false prophet. It means that he has some areas where he gets it wrong , as we all do. It also could mean there are some areas where he gets it right and I am the one who does not understand correctly.

I like the saying ,

In non essentials , liberty , in essentials , unity and in all things charity.

What I am saying is that I disagree with Joyner on some non essentials. But I am convinced that he is a christian brother.

 

[everready]

Easy enough, there are ways to find out if a prophet speaks the truth or no just look to the Old Testament, i believe the prophecies had to be 100% i may be wrong its been a while..

 

[Yitzchak]

Easy enough, there are ways to find out if a prophet speaks the truth or no just look to the Old Testament, i believe the prophecies had to be 100% i may be wrong its been a while..

There have been threads on this forum on that topic. Ultimately the scripture itself is prophecy. The scripture is 100% perfect and never wrong.

But we do carry that expectation over into a sermon which a pastor preaches. Although he endeavors to preach the word to the best of his ability , some imperfection in the human vessel gets in. We understand that and make allowances. We don't kill people for not being perfect in their delivery of God's word.

I think where it crosses the line is when people present a word or prophecy as being on the same level as scripture. As long as they are up front that it is to be tested by scripture and their own personal revelation , then it is not required to be perfect , but must be tested.

I don't agree with a black and white way of looking at it where someone is always right about everything versus being from the devil. I think godly people can be wrong on some things and still hear from God and be used by God. I don't think that very many people judge ministers by that harsh " death penalty if you're wrong standard. " and in Charismatic circles , there are a lot of preachers and laity that have prophetic words. But the understanding is that those personal revelations are subject to the higher authority of scripture which is perfect prophecy and perfect revelation. That is the traditional orthodox approach. As far as I know , Joyner agrees with that.


Anyway , I believe the Old Testament passage which you referred to is speaking of operating in the role of a prophet who writes scripture such as Isaiah and Jeremiah.

If Joyner starts making claims to be writing new scripture or that his words are on the same level as scripture , then it will be a different matter., which is why I have serious concerns about the implications of the restoration of the fivefold ministry amd what role that has an Apostle filling. But to this point , Joyner has not gone beyond the traditional Charismatic understanding of personal prophecy being fallible and subject to the higher authority of scripture.

 

[everready]

I'll leave this thread with a scripture that has always meant a lot to me its something we all to often forget..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[Frogster]

You can't just give scriptures and indescriminately apply them to whoever you don't approve of. We all know those scriptures, but I dare say they do not apply to Rick Joyner.

The "challenge" is for you to provide quotations from the program you pointed out and demonstrate how they are 'false" "deceptions". You don't just make accusations without some kind of basis to back them up.

If you choose to open your eyes and look, you'll find that he points people to God and repentance (something the enemy never does). If he makes a prophetic claim, that does not make him a false prophet.

If you were to be honest about this and not just dismiss this as needing scripture, you'll see that he's preaches well.

The enemy runs a smear campaign and cheap shots are his stock in trade. It's time to stop throwing out there what he gives you. It's time to take a good look at these kinds of things and realize that they sow discord and deception.
You made the accusation (which is very serious). The burden of proof is in your court.

It's time for these things to be seen for what they really are.

(This is not about being an "-ism" or an "ite" of some kind. It's about not dissing our family publicly (or in private).

I will apply them to where they fit, you are the one who thinks it fine to hear there are spare body parts in heaven, don't seem to have a problem with glory dust babies, hovering wives over beds, while angels clean the house, not me bro!

The warnings given in the text t the church then, stand now, unless you can tell me why they don't?


do 2 peter 2, and col 2, and false apostles, and bewitched people, and wolves, and false gospels still apply today?

dude.....

 

[Frogster]

I'll leave this thread with a scripture that has always meant a lot to me its something we all to often forget..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

good verse, paul wondered why they put up with the false apostles, who took their money, brought a different spirit, and dominated them, put them under judaism, nothing new under the sun, same junk as today, thanks for your posts.

 

[Frogster]

This is sound advice.

Joyner preaches to follow the scriptures , he teaches to be born again. He is sound on all the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

Where I find issues of concern and disagreement are on some of his distinctive beliefs where he goes beyond just the basics of the faith.

I have mixed feelings about the restoration of the fivefold ministry which includes the office of Apostle. This is a complicated issue and can mean a lot of things.

In short , Joyner is a button pusher and a risk taker. He is not a stick with the status quo type of guy. He takes a lot of controversial stands.

That does not mean that he is a false prophet. It means that he has some areas where he gets it wrong , as we all do. It also could mean there are some areas where he gets it right and I am the one who does not understand correctly.

I like the saying ,



What I am saying is that I disagree with Joyner on some non essentials. But I am convinced that he is a christian brother.

so he is a risk taker, button pusher, words that almost sound complimentary, or light and soft, like he may be cutting edgebut you say I am anti semite, and a cessationist...wow...seems like biased reporting on the nightly news, no offense, just an observation.