Correcting Christian Leaders.

[Yitzchak]

Your playing one side,as far as "intimidating" goes.

Scripture calls them wolves,that would seek to draw disciples unto themselves.So who are the intimidaters? Wolves,or the flock?

Acts 20:29-30I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Also,look at this verse,who are the manipulaters seeking their own appetites,manipulating the new converts? What great "prophecies" do they say to the young converts,to have them follow themselves?

Rom 16:18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Who are the liars,making up things,to gain greed and introduce heresies?

2 Peter 2:1
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.

Did Peter fear being called a "pharisee",or did he speak up? He said they are condemned.

But you didn't answer the question yet. You still sound like you are building the case. So the question remains , what case are you trying to build ?

That these Christian ministers that you don't agree with are wolves and must be stopped? How far does that vendetta go ? Because based upon your ananlogy that labels these Christian leaders as wolves , I would say that is building up to taking it pretty far.

As for Pharisee. I don't think you resemble a Pharisee. I used to live with a Pharisee. He is jewish and a zealot. The Pharisees from the bible were religious leaders. Some got saved (Nicodemus) and some attacked Jesus. It is still the same today in synagoges around the world. Different set of issues there.

You are a Christian , not a Pharisee. I think you do resemble the zealots from the inquisition though. One of the important issues in the Reformation was the freedom for every man to read the bible and interpret it for himself. The Baptists call it Liberty of Conscience.

Baptists . . . have never been a party to oppression of conscience."1 So claimed George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, in his famous address, "Baptists and Religious Liberty," delivered on May 16, 1920, from the east steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington during a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Freedom of Conscience extends to all who name the name of Christ or the Reformation was fought for nothing. Even Catholics have accepted the changes and do not try to attack Protestants for different beliefs.

There is a huge difference between attacking true heresy and attacking denominations you don't approve of. One of the principles that America was founded upon was freedom from religious persecution. I think that was a good idea and a lot of people settled in America to escape persecution . Groups like the Mennonites and Quakers. They stood for adult Baptism agsint those who would accuse them of heresy.

 

[probinson]

So in light of Acts 20,leaders need to be confronted,and when people do,they should not be called pharisses.Yes?

Sometimes. It seems to me like you're looking for a carte blanche answer to justify confronting leaders. That's not the case.

There is no escaping the fact that Jesus said "judge not". There is also no escaping the fact that Jesus publicly confronted the Pharisees (repeatedly).

This should show us something; there are times to "judge not", and there are times to confront.

So in answer to your question, no matter who is exhibiting Pharisaical attitudes, they should be confronted.

Of course, the next logical question is "What are Pharisaical attitudes"? You are obviously free to agree or disagree, but I like this definition, and think it personifies the Pharisees of the NT, which are quite similar to many people's attitudes today as well;

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In an effort to build themselves up
by tearing others down,
and based on a self-styled standard
unsupported by Scripture,
Pharisees seek to bully and intimidate others.
As a result, they openly oppose and reject the things
of the Spirit of God
and the spiritual transformation
that God intends for every believer.
The New Pharisaism - Bill Slabaugh - p.50
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
​

 

[Dash Riprock]

But you didn't answer the question yet. You still sound like you are building the case. So the question remains , what case are you trying to build ?

That these Christian ministers that you don't agree with are wolves and must be stopped? How far does that vendetta go ? Because based upon your ananlogy that labels these Christian leaders as wolves , I would say that is building up to taking it pretty far.

As for Pharisee. I don't think you resemble a Pharisee. I used to live with a Pharisee. He is jewish and a zealot. The Pharisees from the bible were religious leaders. Some got saved (Nicodemus) and some attacked Jesus. It is still the same today in synagoges around the world. Different set of issues there.

You are a Christian , not a Pharisee. I think you do resemble the zealots from the inquisition though. One of the important issues in the Reformation was the freedom for every man to read the bible and interpret it for himself. The Baptists call it Liberty of Conscience.



Freedom of Conscience extends to all who name the name of Christ or the Reformation was fought for nothing. Even Catholics have accepted the changes and do not try to attack Protestants for different beliefs.

There is a huge difference between attacking true heresy and attacking denominations you don't approve of. One of the principles that America was founded upon was freedom from religious persecution. I think that was a good idea and a lot of people settled in America to escape persecution . Groups like the Mennonites and Quakers. They stood for adult Baptism agsint those who would accuse them of heresy.

Sometimes. It seems to me like you're looking for a carte blanche answer to justify confronting leaders. That's not the case.

There is no escaping the fact that Jesus said "judge not". There is also no escaping the fact that Jesus publicly confronted the Pharisees (repeatedly).

This should show us something; there are times to "judge not", and there are times to confront.

So in answer to your question, no matter who is exhibiting Pharisaical attitudes, they should be confronted.

Of course, the next logical question is "What are Pharisaical attitudes"? You are obviously free to agree or disagree, but I like this definition, and think it personifies the Pharisees of the NT, which are quite similar to many people's attitudes today as well;

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In an effort to build themselves up
by tearing others down,
and based on a self-styled standard
unsupported by Scripture,
Pharisees seek to bully and intimidate others.
As a result, they openly oppose and reject the things
of the Spirit of God
and the spiritual transformation
that God intends for every believer.
The New Pharisaism - Bill Slabaugh - p.50
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
​

Will you both admit,I presented a clear case for confrontation with "leaders"?

Paul called the false apostles that were infiltrating the Corinthian church,angels of light,of satan.

Would you gentlemen start saying to Paul,he should not say that?


2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

So carte blanche works both ways doesn't it? Your looking to do the same from the opposite end of the prism.You want cart blanche to just call an opposer,a "pharisee"

 

[probinson]

Paul called the false apostles that were infiltrating the Corinthian church,angels of light,of satan.

Would you gentlemen start saying to Paul,he should not say that?

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Here again, it's important to know what "such men" Paul is talking about. That is made clear in verses 4-5;

2 Corinthians 11:4-5 (NIV)
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."
​

Paul is talking about people, who imagine themselves to be "super-apostles", that preach a "Jesus other than the Jesus we preached" or "a different Gospel".

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is imperative and must be contended for. This is what Paul is talking about. He is not talking about non-essential, trivial differences of opinion, which is what the bulk of today's alleged "discernment" is founded upon.

So carte blanche works both ways doesn't it? Your looking to do the same from the opposite end of the prism.You want cart blanche to just call an opposer,a "pharisee"

No, actually I don't.

Carte blanche does indeed work both ways. There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer for how to respond to a given situation.

You also fail to recognize that Paul knew the Corinthians. He had spent time with them. He was not sitting behind a computer screen, some random guy lambasting anyone he disagreed with.

The "discernment" ministries we see today bear little to no resemblance to Paul.

 

[KingZzub]

You also fail to recognize that Paul knew the Corinthians. He had spent time with them. He was not sitting behind a computer screen, some random guy lambasting anyone he disagreed with.

The "discernment" ministries we see today bear little to no resemblance to Paul.

This is the heart of it all. Paul was the father of the Corinthian church. I can tell my children when it is bed time, but I cannot tell Pete's. I have no relationship with them, I don't know them, I have never shown love to them, so I cannot rule them.

If someone in my church started teaching post-tribulation theology (thought I would stay away from health and wealth but I have a feeling mentioning endtimes might bite me just as bad) to the church in a cell setting or on a Sunday morning, I would sit down with him and explain why I believe pre-trib from the Scriptures.

Three outcomes:

1. He tells me where to stick it. Well, that has ended his ministry at the church until he apologises!
2. He listens and shows me from the Scriptures where he gets his beliefs from. We agree to disagree and I ask him politely not to teach on this area of controversy when he ministers and to just keep stump when I teach on it and to hold on to the good.
3. One of us changes our point of view.

Notice relationship builds all of those options. A relationship that means something means that telling me to stick it costs something real. A relationship that means something means he is willing to listen to what I say. A relationship that means something means I am willing to listen to what he says.

If a complete stranger teaches the opposite from what you believe, let them. Why do you feel the need to reach beyond your authority and attack something that is not in your sphere. Well, Dids has already answered that one, hasn't he.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Here again, it's important to know what "such men" Paul is talking about. That is made clear in verses 4-5;

2 Corinthians 11:4-5 (NIV)
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."
​

Paul is talking about people, who imagine themselves to be "super-apostles", that preach a "Jesus other than the Jesus we preached" or "a different Gospel".

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is imperative and must be contended for. This is what Paul is talking about. He is not talking about non-essential, trivial differences of opinion, which is what the bulk of today's alleged "discernment" is founded upon.



No, actually I don't.

Carte blanche does indeed work both ways. There is no "one-size-fits-all" answer for how to respond to a given situation.

You also fail to recognize that Paul knew the Corinthians. He had spent time with them. He was not sitting behind a computer screen, some random guy lambasting anyone he disagreed with.

The "discernment" ministries we see today bear little to no resemblance to Paul.

This post has zero merit.What leaders don't think they are the "anointed,the apostles,the leaders"?

Who comes along and says,they are fakes?

Did the Colossian hereitcs think they were wrong?

That shows that my citations stand,because they show scripture gives a clear perogative to confront leaders,and sometimes,even to curse them,as paul did in Galatians chapter one.

I await your rebuttal.

 

[probinson]

This post has zero merit.

Ah, well if you say so, then it must be.

Proof by assertion seems to be the fad on CF today.

What leaders don't think they are the "anointed,the apostles,the leaders"?

Who comes along and says,they are fakes?

Did the Colossian hereitcs think they were wrong?

I'm not sure what this even has to do with what I said. It seems totally random and off-the-wall. Could you clarify exactly what it is you're looking for me to "rebut" here?

That shows that my citations stand,because they show scripture gives a clear perogative to confront leaders,and sometimes,even to curse them,as paul did in Galatians chapter one.

Galatians 1:6 (NIV)
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
​

So here's the million dollar question; what is a "different Gospel"? I suppose your answer to that question will determine whether or not you feel justified in any given confrontation situation.

 

[Simon Peter]

This is the heart of it all. Paul was the father of the Corinthian church. I can tell my children when it is bed time, but I cannot tell Pete's. I have no relationship with them, I don't know them, I have never shown love to them, so I cannot rule them.

...
If a complete stranger teaches the opposite from what you believe, let them. Why do you feel the need to reach beyond your authority and attack something that is not in your sphere.

If you believe this, why criticize 'heresy hunters'?

You don't have a relationship with them.

Don't discernment ministries have their own pastors?



peace,
Simon

 

[KingZzub]

Who have I criticized exactly? Please name the person.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Ah, well if you say so, then it must be.

Proof by assertion seems to be the fad on CF today.



I'm not sure what this even has to do with what I said. It seems totally random and off-the-wall. Could you clarify exactly what it is you're looking for me to "rebut" here?

Galatians 1:6 (NIV)
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
​

So here's the million dollar question; what is a "different Gospel"? I suppose your answer to that question will determine whether or not you feel justified in any given confrontation situation.

What I was hoping for was a scriptural rebuttal to the facts.
The false teachers of Galatia,and Corinth,called themselves apostles.

Peter warned of false teachers,which indicates leadership roles.

So,in light of that,where do you stand,in reguard to my clear citations,that leaders,and yes,even pharisees were confronted?

As far as a different gospel,that would change the topic of the thread,and our conversation,Paul describes it in Gal 1 if you wish to see.

Lets keep our conversation to our issue.

 

[Yitzchak]

If you believe this, why criticize 'heresy hunters'?

You don't have a relationship with them.

Don't discernment ministries have their own pastors?



peace,
Simon

I am seeking to establish that hersy hunters have as their major doctrine that they should attack other Christian ministries. On their own websites , they identify this belief. In your posts you seem to confirm these beliefs. So far I don't see the problem there. If I have gotten the beliefs and practices of the heresy hunters wrong somehow, please let us know .
I consider those two things to be two different things. If for example, you posted that you are against what Todd Bentley is doing because he teaches that healing is for today and you disagree. Then that would be honest disagreement. But if you say he is teaching "secret" teachings that no one else knows about , not even him. Apples and oranges , my friend.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I am seeking to establish that hersy hunters have as their major doctrine that they should attack other Christian ministries. On their own websites , they identify this belief. In your posts you seem to confirm these beliefs. So far I don't see the problem there. If I have gotten the beliefs and practices of the heresy hunters wrong somehow, please let us know .
I consider those two things to be two different things. If for example, you posted that you are against what Todd Bentley is doing because he teaches that healing is for today and you disagree. Then that would be honest disagreement. But if you say he is teaching "secret" teachings that no one else knows about , not even him. Apples and oranges , my friend.

I have noticed down through the years that HHs rarely teach or present anything. Most of their presentation is based on what someone else teaches and why it is wrong. So you will never find a statement of faith from these folks.

 

[KingZzub]

I have just realized Dids that when you use the double HH you mean "Heresy Hunters."

For some reason I thought you meant a specific heresy hunter.

 

[WOFFER]

I have just realized Dids that when you use the double HH you mean "Heresy Hunters."

For some reason I thought you meant a specific heresy hunter.

LOL! Hanky!

 

[KingZzub]

I have noticed down through the years that HHs rarely teach or present anything. Most of their presentation is based on what someone else teaches and why it is wrong. So you will never find a statement of faith from these folks.

I have read statements of faith that literally start with:

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT...

 

[Simon Peter]

Who have I criticized exactly? Please name the person.

Where did I say you have criticised a specific person? Please show me the post. I was attempting to ask a question to further understand your logic.

I take it from this reponse, that you feel it's OK to criticise Discernment Ministries generally, but not specifically? Interesting...

I have noticed down through the years that HHs rarely teach or present anything. Most of their presentation is based on what someone else teaches and why it is wrong. So you will never find a statement of faith from these folks.

I don't know what sites you visit, but I just checked Endtimes Prophetic Words (one of the most popular Watchman sites) and here's the link to their Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith « End Times Prophetic, Prophecy, Visions, Dreams, Revelation, Christian Blog


And theres plenty of teaching on this 'Watchman' site:

http://www.birthpangs.org/articles-index.html

I am seeking to establish that hersy hunters have as their major doctrine that they should attack other Christian ministries. On their own websites , they identify this belief. In your posts you seem to confirm these beliefs. So far I don't see the problem there. If I have gotten the beliefs and practices of the heresy hunters wrong somehow, please let us know .
I consider those two things to be two different things. If for example, you posted that you are against what Todd Bentley is doing because he teaches that healing is for today and you disagree. Then that would be honest disagreement. But if you say he is teaching "secret" teachings that no one else knows about , not even him. Apples and oranges , my friend.

I'm not sure I understand your post, particularly the last half.

I can tell you that I believe in open honest respectful criticism. So I do not confirm the belief that Watchman ministries should "attack other Christian ministries".

Why are portions of the church so afraid of Watchman Ministries and criticism?

It's because they want to teach what they want, and fleece the flock all they want, without scrutiny, without exposure. Openess in the church protects the sheep. If their doctrines and practices are 'above board' and defensible, then what are they worried about?

The sheep are protected from wolves when there's freedom of speech. Those who would silence the churches right to speak openly and freely, leave wolves to roam freely and unmolested.

If you disagree, imagine one of your children starts to attend a dangerous church, in your ideal criticism free world. But no one is allowed to warn them because:

• Touch not thou anointed
• Judge not lest you be judged
• You are not their pastor
• You are not allowed to judge anyone specifically
• There's no information available on the internet
• Who are you to claim you have every doctrine correct

peace,
Simon

 

[Seeking Him]

Where did I say you have criticised a specific person? Please show me the post. I was attempting to ask a question to further understand your logic.

I take it from this reponse, that you feel it's OK to criticise Discernment Ministries generally, but not specifically? Interesting...




I don't know what sites you visit, but I just checked Endtimes Prophetic Words (one of the most popular Watchman sites) and here's the link to their Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith « End Times Prophetic, Prophecy, Visions, Dreams, Revelation, Christian Blog


And theres plenty of teaching on this 'Watchman' site:

The Birthpangs of a New Age: Articles






I'm not sure I understand your post, particularly the last half.

I can tell you that I believe in open honest respectful criticism. So I do not confirm the belief that Watchman ministries should "attack other Christian ministries".

Why are portions of the church so afraid of Watchman Ministries and criticism?

It's because they want to teach what they want, and fleece the flock all they want, without scrutiny, without exposure. Openess in the church protects the sheep. If their doctrines and practices are 'above board' and defensible, then what are they worried about?

The sheep are protected from wolves when there's freedom of speech. Those who would silence the churches right to speak openly and freely, leave wolves to roam freely and unmolested.

If you disagree, imagine one of your children starts to attend a dangerous church, in your ideal criticism free world. But no one is allowed to warn them because:

• Touch not thou anointed
• Judge not lest you be judged
• You are not their pastor
• You are not allowed to judge anyone specifically
• There's no information available on the internet
• Who are you to claim you have every doctrine correct

peace,
Simon

There are those as you said who do not want to be scrutinized or exposed.

"A favotite cry of some is "touch not my anointed". This is a refuge for some who fear their teachings and lives will not stand the test of biblical scrutiny. The clergy-laity mentality recoils at the truth that all of God's people are His anointed.

Our first responsibility is to the truth of God's Word. Far better to be found "touching" a religious leader who is teaching error, than to be found "touching" God's Word". - AJ Dager

 

[probinson]

Why are portions of the church so afraid of Watchman Ministries and criticism?

It's because they want to teach what they want, and fleece the flock all they want, without scrutiny, without exposure. Openess in the church protects the sheep. If their doctrines and practices are 'above board' and defensible, then what are they worried about?

Your premise presupposes that the aforementioned "Watchman Ministries" are to be trusted without question. I'm not sure why you just give them the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't seem very "discerning".

The reason I don't particularly like watchman ministries is because I have seen, firsthand, the very real and lasting damage that they cause. These people happily post whatever sells on their website, and then people in local chruches grab it and run with it, destroying countless churches and families along the way. And yet, they could care less.

There is no ministry gift of "criticizing".

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The so called "watchman" ministries have a lot in common with porn sites. They aim at the carnal and dramatic lust of people. They are the "national inquirer" of "ministries." They are designed to titillate and raise eyebrows. The more salacious the slander the more delighted are those who frequent them. They like a good hanging. They love to see dignitaries discredited and defamed. It is a lust thing. The higher and more popular the minister the more gratified are when they bring him down.
Have you ever noticed that these people never mention local ministers? It is always the national and international minsters. The big names with the big followings. That, I think, is very telling. It is all about envy. It is no fun bringing down the pastor of a little flock. But a Hagin or a Hagee? Now that's entertainment! You would really be something if you wrecked a big name minister. Who cares if they are actually guilty of anything.

I do not believe for a second that these people give a rat's behind about truth or the souls of the flock. I have not seen it.
They just seem to be having to much fun.

Your premise presupposes that the aforementioned "Watchman Ministries" are to be trusted without question. I'm not sure why you just give them the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't seem very "discerning".

The reason I don't particularly like watchman ministries is because I have seen, firsthand, the very real and lasting damage that they cause. These people happily post whatever sells on their website, and then people in local chruches grab it and run with it, destroying countless churches and families along the way. And yet, they could care less.

There is no ministry gift of "criticizing".

 

[Simon Peter]

Your premise presupposes that the aforementioned "Watchman Ministries" are to be trusted without question. I'm not sure why you just give them the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't seem very "discerning".

Not at all. I disagree with a lot I've read on 'watchman' ministries. But I still defend their 'right' to free speech, to criticism of the church. Please read my signature. I'll even defend the right of people to criticise me.

The reason I don't particularly like watchman ministries is because I have seen, firsthand, the very real and lasting damage that they cause. These people happily post whatever sells on their website, and then people in local chruches grab it and run with it, destroying countless churches and families along the way. And yet, they could care less.

There is no ministry gift of "criticizing".

I agree, there is no gift or ministry of criticizing. I also agree that some of these ministries have done damage.

I'm not a fan of 'watchman' ministries either. I'm also not a fan of the mainstream media, the media do plenty of damage to individuals and to organizations, but I don't question the media's right to exist.

Free speech always comes at a price. You have to be willing to put up with the ugly, in order to protect the most precious of all 'rights', the right to speak freely, the right to criticise and disagree.


peace,
Simon