False spirits invade the church - KUNDALINI WARNING

[hopeinGod]

Jesus was saying that when people are in prayer asking God for the Holy Spirit, the context of that Scripture, then they can trust and not fear. There are people in the revival movement, some of the leaders too, who are not seeking the Holy Spirit, they are seeking manifestations, signs and wonders. They want shaking, quaking, gold dust, angel feathers, visits to Heaven, gemstones or anything cool and seemingly supernatural none of which are among the gifts or fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes in the course of ministry and the pursuit of our relationship with the Lord, some of these kinds of experiences happen. We don't seek them or try to make them happen - they just do and we count ourselves blessed.

Paul said he could not share what happened when he visited Heaven and he rebuked people going around bragging about their experiences and encounters with angels. Today, the revival movement stopped preaching from the Word and seems only interested in letting people tell stories of their experiences and encounters with angels.

Jesus rebuked the people then as He does now, for seeking after signs instead of the Lord Himself. Some of these revival ministries and groupies have made an idol of revival and the 'anointing'. I believe the Lord has turned these over to their sins. If it's angelic encounters they seek, God is allowing them to use their mind's eye (imagination) to initiate contact with angels who appear as angels of light. Yes, there are a few ministries out there who teach this practice of spiritual experiences and encounters using new age/wiccan techniques - just examine the ministries of Bob Jones and Patricia King for examples.

I think there are now dangers in the charismatic revival movement as more and more ministers adopt these techniques and go to conferences and lay hands on people transferring an anointing acquired not from the Spirit of God, but from the angels of darkness they have been entertaining in recent years.

I used to frequent and even lead revival meetings. I now keep my family and church away from them until the Lord gives me clearance otherwise.

Phenomenally good post! Spot on. And it's not merely because I'm in agreement. I've seen how "revivals" can stir the ambitions of those who lust for truckloads of offerings. A former pastor of mine followed that route and is now living in luxury, while those pastors who remain stedfast in the Lord eek out a living. The tempation to enter Babylon is ever increasing by those who seek to exclude that they might include the immoveable.

 

[GreatistheLord]

the title of the thread is "False" Spirits, aka demons. Lets not get distracted into the
sideshow elements which happen in all denominations, charismatic or not, conservative or not. Just because its dressed in respectibility does not make it any less of the flesh and ungodly. I am not pointing the finger, just addressing that this *claim* of demonic activity is recklessly dangerous. They did say they same of Jesus, and i hope we can learn from past mistakes of calling what is Holy, satanic. Make your own mind on what you personally experience, but to brand a whole movement seems to be a politically motivated, and possibly blasphemous.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the "spirit of kundalini" and the "spirit of chocolate cake"???

 

[MikeBigg]

Hello Mike

Not so, not so.

Some of the mockers said 'they have had too much wine'. That is not the same as looking befuddled by booze. The mockers said Jesus had a demon and it was termed unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The mockers were bad men, their words not to be taken as true.

You have corrected me on this elsewhere, too, but I think you are wrong to make such a definite statement about it. Worth looking at the passage.

Acts 2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”
​

To my reading, some of the people (not some of the mockers), made fun of them. You cannot say from v13 that the affected people were not acting as though they were drunk.

If they were standing in neat lines with tongues of fire on their heads speaking without emotion in a language they did not understand, I doubt that the accusation of drunkenness would have been made.

For the mockers to start mocking about drunkenness, it is my view that some elements of drunken behaviour must have been exhibited.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think your "Not so, not so" should really be an IMV.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[lismore]

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think your "Not so, not so" should really be an IMV.

Kind regards,

Mike

From my experience of an alcoholic grandfather the way the disciples acted at Pentecost is not the way a drunk acts.

Slurred speech and aggression more like.

God Bless

 

[NorrinRadd]

From my experience of an alcoholic grandfather the way the disciples acted at Pentecost is not the way a drunk acts.

Slurred speech and aggression more like.

God Bless

I believe both sides tend to make too much of this.

Advocates of "getting drunk in the Spirit" invoke this passage in support of stumbling, falling, laughing uncontrollably, and generally acting silly -- none of which appears in the text.

Polar opponents of that view point out that all the text mentions is praising (my interpretation of "declaring the mighty deeds of") God in tongues, and so the accusations of intoxicated behavior are malicious fabrications in toto. (In your own case, your experiences lead you to associate intoxication with aggression -- part of your reason for discounting it here.)

Craig Keener, who formerly called himself Charismatic, but eventually rejected that label so as not to be associated with the objectionable excesses, says this (emphasis my own):

"Ancient writers sometimes described inspiration in terms of drunkenness; Greeks believed in frenzied inspiration by the gods, and Philo 1, a Jewish writer thoroughly in touch with Greek ideas, wrote of divine intoxication more than any other extant writer. Thus experiences of the transcendent (whether God-inspired or moved by base spirit possession) sometimes appeared to outsiders as ecstasy similar to drunkenness. (Although drunkenness was common among Greeks, it would have been a grievous accusation in Jewish Palestine, where it was regarded as obnoxious and sinful.)" -- from his NT portion of the IVP Bible Background Commentary, speaking specifically of Acts 2:13


I have never been drunk. It has been decades since I've even been mildly "buzzed." I love the taste and mouth feel of alcohol, but I hate feeling it in my brain. But most of my family has no such qualms. They love their booze, and hold it quite well. (Social drinkers, not habitual.) Not a one of them gets aggressive. They are the stereotypical "happy drunks." They get a bit louder and they laugh more. They don't stagger and fall (well, one does, but she'll grow up eventually). I find it totally feasible that the disciples were praising God unusually loudly and joyfully in tongues, showing signs of being "influenced," and the mockers willingly thought and spoke the worst of them.

 

[GreatistheLord]

I believe both sides tend to make too much of this.

Advocates of "getting drunk in the Spirit" invoke this passage in support of stumbling, falling, laughing uncontrollably, and generally acting silly -- none of which appears in the text.

Polar opponents of that view point out that all the text mentions is praising (my interpretation of "declaring the mighty deeds of") God in tongues, and so the accusations of intoxicated behavior are malicious fabrications in toto. (In your own case, your experiences lead you to associate intoxication with aggression -- part of your reason for discounting it here.)

Craig Keener, who formerly called himself Charismatic, but eventually rejected that label so as not to be associated with the objectionable excesses, says this (emphasis my own):

"Ancient writers sometimes described inspiration in terms of drunkenness; Greeks believed in frenzied inspiration by the gods, and Philo 1, a Jewish writer thoroughly in touch with Greek ideas, wrote of divine intoxication more than any other extant writer. Thus experiences of the transcendent (whether God-inspired or moved by base spirit possession) sometimes appeared to outsiders as ecstasy similar to drunkenness. (Although drunkenness was common among Greeks, it would have been a grievous accusation in Jewish Palestine, where it was regarded as obnoxious and sinful.)" -- from his NT portion of the IVP Bible Background Commentary, speaking specifically of Acts 2:13


I have never been drunk. It has been decades since I've even been mildly "buzzed." I love the taste and mouth feel of alcohol, but I hate feeling it in my brain. But most of my family has no such qualms. They love their booze, and hold it quite well. (Social drinkers, not habitual.) Not a one of them gets aggressive. They are the stereotypical "happy drunks." They get a bit louder and they laugh more. They don't stagger and fall (well, one does, but she'll grow up eventually). I find it totally feasible that the disciples were praising God unusually loudly and joyfully in tongues, showing signs of being "influenced," and the mockers willingly thought and spoke the worst of them.

the text is silent except to say that the gentile heathen people compared it with their *own* experience of drunkenness, not some watered down christian version of being tipsy at a wedding.

 

[NorrinRadd]

the text is silent except to say that the gentile heathen people compared it with their *own* experience of drunkenness, not some watered down christian version of being tipsy at a wedding.

What do you believe "their own experience of drunkenness" entailed?

What do you mean by the expression, "watered down christian (sic) version of being tipsy at a wedding"?

 

[GreatistheLord]

My point is, dont use your own version of being 'christian' drunk to read into what heathens did 2000 years ago. My experience is irrelevant, dont you think?

 

[Biblicist]

Advocates of "getting drunk in the Spirit" invoke this passage in support of stumbling, falling, laughing uncontrollably, and generally acting silly -- none of which appears in the text.

The two differing responses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the Jews who heard what was going on is probably understandable. We often presume that those who laid the charge of drunkenness were the ones who rejected that the Spirit was behind the event whereas the ones who asked the question as to how and why these rustic and uncouth Galileans were speaking in the languages of the visiting Jews were the ones who were more open to any Spiritual activity.

As the 120 were speaking with a heavy Galilean accent which would have allowed the nearby Jews to realise that they were rustics; to hear such a group of people who were not held in high esteem speaking in so many languages would have surprised the more sophisticated Jews. Add to this that the Galileans due to their being unware with what they were saying, they would have shown absolutely no interest in correctly phrasing their sentences or adding in pauses and breaks as anyone would do when they are communicating in their own native tongue. To those nearby, all that they would have heard is that a bunch of unknown and obviously rustic Galileans speaking about the wonders of God in stilted and often uncompleted sentences which would have sounded very strange and to most of us their communication would probably irritated those of us who could fluently speak the language that they were speaking in.

As it would have been unlikely that any of the nearby Jews would have been able to fully hear what any individual was saying from amongst the 120, all they would have heard was a partial message or maybe parts of a message that was being given in a manner that would could have made it somewhat hard to know what was going on around them. So it may be possible that to some of the nearby Jews that they simply thought that these Galileans were trying to speak in words that they had been taught but as their stilted presentation was probably only coming across from within the melee in bits and pieces and add to this the strong and crude Galilean accent then it could have sounded rather strange.

We often presume that those who asked the question about hearing the ‘wonders of God’ were the ones who later repented and that the ones who laid the charge of drunkenness were the hard of heart. Maybe the ones who understood that it would have been impossible for these Galileans to speak in this manner (in spite of their poor diction) that they may have simply been a bit more astute than the others were; but the Scriptures do not tell us how many rejected the Gospel and for all we know many or most of the ones who laid the charge of drunkenness may have also repented after Peter gave his evangelistic message.

 

[NorrinRadd]

My point is, dont use your own version of being 'christian' drunk to read into what heathens did 2000 years ago. My experience is irrelevant, dont you think?

IIRC, I was responding to someone whose view of drunkenness -- based on "experience" -- assumed it always includes aggression. I've never encountered anyone else that believes that. "My experience" is that most people understand "mean drunks" to be somewhat of a minority.

In the absence of any other info, we would have no choice BUT to rely on our own experiences to interpret Scripture; and if we're honest, we have to admit that none of us ever interprets Scripture totally apart from the biases of our own experiences.

In any case, I did not rely solely on my own experiences, but cited the opinion of NT scholar Craig Keener.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

IIRC, I was responding to someone whose view of drunkenness -- based on "experience" -- assumed it always includes aggression. I've never encountered anyone else that believes that. "My experience" is that most people understand "mean drunks" to be somewhat of a minority.

In the absence of any other info, we would have no choice BUT to rely on our own experiences to interpret Scripture; and if we're honest, we have to admit that none of us ever interprets Scripture totally apart from the biases of our own experiences.

In any case, I did not rely solely on my own experiences, but cited the opinion of NT scholar Craig Keener.

we will know one day

 

[lyrafowlpotter]

yet for some reason I get the impression that the spirit of chocolate cake is a joke while the spirit of kundalini is a real danger and present in every move of God (usually though in the ones that take place outside of the speaker's denomination!)

So what's the difference? Are we supposed to take people who believe in these spirits seriously, or laugh at them?

First off, I have no denomination, I have been to many churches of different denominations (open Bible, Assemblies of God, Four Square, Nazarene, Evangelical, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, etc) and as long as they are Biblical and stay away from extra-biblical teachings, that's all I care about. As someone who was previously involved in the occult, and has the gift of discerning spirits... I can attest personally that groups that practice things such as in the videos above, whatever you want to call it, are inspired by the demonic (the similarities between their actions and various occult groups is disturbing to say the least). I found nothing but rotten fruit in groups that practiced these things. Often they led sinful lives, but felt superior to everyone else cause they exhibited these amazing spiritual manifestations.

You can be spiritual and shows these "signs", but it doesn't mean their from God. When I was immersed in a prayer group who exhibited these things, I was often plagued by a distinct lack of self-control (something the Biible calls us to have, self-control) and constant dreams that were demonically influenced, very dark dreams and visions during that time, which I believe showed the true spiritual state of that group. As soon as I stopped going, they ceased.


Many of the people in these movements also say "Do no question what I say or you're going against God." Anytime you hear that you're in danger. The Bible tells us to test all things and have discernment, if we take a mans word as God's word we are making him our god.

This is my own personal experience, and I am not saying all the people involved in these movements are evil or demon inspired, but many of the leaders certainly are (ie. John Crowder and Benjamin Dunn, Todd Bentley, Kathy Walters, Rick Joyner, Peter C. Wagner, etc, etc). I also do believe it is not impossible to get outside of yourself and study the scriptures objectively. To say everyone always only views their scriptures based on their personal experience is silly. People who interpret scriptures wrongly do that. You are supposed to let the scripture define your experiences, not the other way around. If you have an experience that contradicts scripture, ie. displays of blatant lack of self control such as being "drunk" in the spirit, calling it biblical is silly. The disciples always displayed self-control even when inspired by the spirit. Being loud and being called drunk because of it, does not mean you need to try to be drunk in the spirit. Now it doesn't necessarily mean that if you have an experience where you feel a heavy presence of God and start shouting or something, that that is wrong either, but the normal biblical reaction to the presence of God, usually seemed to be bowing down and humility not screaming and and guttural sounds.

But anyway...

God Bless ~Amy

 

[mercyfollowsme]

First off, I have no denomination, I have been to many churches of different denominations (open Bible, Assemblies of God, Four Square, Nazarene, Evangelical, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, etc) and as long as they are Biblical and stay away from extra-biblical teachings, that's all I care about. As someone who was previously involved in the occult, and has the gift of discerning spirits... I can attest personally that groups that practice things such as in the videos above, whatever you want to call it, are inspired by the demonic (the similarities between their actions and various occult groups is disturbing to say the least). I found nothing but rotten fruit in groups that practiced these things. Often they led sinful lives, but felt superior to everyone else cause they exhibited these amazing spiritual manifestations.

You can be spiritual and shows these "signs", but it doesn't mean their from God. When I was immersed in a prayer group who exhibited these things, I was often plagued by a distinct lack of self-control (something the Biible calls us to have, self-control) and constant dreams that were demonically influenced, very dark dreams and visions during that time, which I believe showed the true spiritual state of that group. As soon as I stopped going, they ceased.

Many of the people in these movements also say "Do no question what I say or you're going against God." Anytime you hear that you're in danger. The Bible tells us to test all things and have discernment, if we take a mans word as God's word we are making him our god.

This is my own personal experience, and I am not saying all the people involved in these movements are evil or demon inspired, but many of the leaders certainly are (ie. John Crowder and Benjamin Dunn, Todd Bentley, Kathy Walters, Rick Joyner, Peter C. Wagner, etc, etc). I also do believe it is not impossible to get outside of yourself and study the scriptures objectively. To say everyone always only views their scriptures based on their personal experience is silly. People who interpret scriptures wrongly do that. You are supposed to let the scripture define your experiences, not the other way around. If you have an experience that contradicts scripture, ie. displays of blatant lack of self control such as being "drunk" in the spirit, calling it biblical is silly. The disciples always displayed self-control even when inspired by the spirit. Being loud and being called drunk because of it, does not mean you need to try to be drunk in the spirit. Now it doesn't necessarily mean that if you have an experience where you feel a heavy presence of God and start shouting or something, that that is wrong either, but the normal biblical reaction to the presence of God, usually seemed to be bowing down and humility not screaming and and guttural sounds.

But anyway...

God Bless ~Amy

Amy, do you consider yourself free from the occult, because it sounds like you were being especially targeted by demonic spirits, losing control, having evil visions and dreams, while going to those meetings. If anything, it validates Gods power in those meetings that you would be so affected. Maybe you don't want to consider that, I understand, but you need to appreciate that what you experienced was in no way normal. If it were a common reaction, then you might have a point, but it is not. The opposite is true.

I have personally seen demonic manifestations *only* in charismatic meetings, how else would you explain that?

Please pray about this, the enemy will try and deceive Gods people in any way that he can, I'm praying for you.

 

[jamadan]

Amy, do you consider yourself free from the occult, because it sounds like you were being especially targeted by demonic spirits, losing control, having evil visions and dreams, while going to those meetings. If anything, it validates Gods power in those meetings that you would be so affected. Maybe you don't want to consider that, I understand, but you need to appreciate that what you experienced was in no way normal. If it were a common reaction, then you might have a point, but it is not. The opposite is true.

I have personally seen demonic manifestations *only* in charismatic meetings, how else would you explain that?

Please pray about this, the enemy will try and deceive Gods people in any way that he can, I'm praying for you.

I agree about the enemy's deception, but think Amy is the one who is right in identifying where the deception lies. We've always seen people occasionally get to laughing in response to the Holy Spirit's Presence, and even feel a bit like a buzz when operating in the gifts of the Spirit and praying for people to be filled with the Spirit, but something is seriously wrong (evil) in the manifestations that some in these charismatic revival circles are experiencing due to their pursuit of manifestations which has resulted in deception and encountering demonic spirits masquerading as angels of light. What Amy is providing is a serious warning that needs to be heard and respected. The charismatic movement has, for the most part, been hijacked and derailed by these manifestation-seekers and we need to return to the Lord.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Jesus said, you know a tree by it's fruit. So regarding the Kundalini spirit, if it is spiritual or psychological, we are too test it. And the fruit, we are to test by seeing what happened to practicers ten or more years ago. I don't want to be a guinea pig.

If people say, "I reject Satan, and all his evil followers and all his evil works. I accept Jesus as saviour." And they mean this, then Satan is blocked, also Satan will not praise God. And Satan will not drive out Satan...

The manifestations of Kundalini and the Revival phenomena are quite different, and have appeared before in Wesley's time, so fruits can be discerned now both from centuries ago and a decade or two ago.

Shocking people strikes me as unclean.

Calling the Holy Spirit Satan is blasphemy. Calling an unlean spirit holy is adverse. There is a need to discern accurately before drawing conclusions. God does new things never written about. Genesis onwards, chapter to chapter, when does He do something He did before and how could they tell it was Him? That's how to check.

 

[JavaQueen2]

i agree Golden

 

[jamadan]

If people say, "I reject Satan, and all his evil followers and all his evil works. I accept Jesus as saviour." And they mean this, then Satan is blocked, also Satan will not praise God. And Satan will not drive out Satan...

Your interpretation does not line up with Jesus', who warned . . .

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So plainly we can see that there are many who think they are worshiping God and performing signs and wonders using demonic power and yet they are deceived.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Jesus is God, God is love.

Your interpretation does not line up with Jesus', who warned . . .

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So plainly we can see that there are many who think they are worshiping God and performing signs and wonders using demonic power and yet they are deceived.

Jesus calls them evil doers, we know what evil is, they must do evil, the fruit will be seen in the less guarded ones. Someone will get hurt. Good ministries will work in teams, and some will faulter, but recover while others will faulter and be witch hunted. Looking at Ps 40.

Jamadan not so, Jesus said Satan will not drive out Satan, or his kingdom would collapse. The finger of God drives out Satan, it is useful for becoming holy. I suppose Satan can act, but never really go... Prophecy can be tested by the word and time and obedience. Mat 12:27...

A person can obtain prophecy, authority and other works of the Holy Spirit and not be changed enough in character. Jesus mentions thieves and brigands who do not enter through the gate. Salvation before power, so I worded Jesus is saviour not Jesus is Lord, then Gal 5:22 fruit of the Spirit.

For some they eat the bread of life... and fall away. They once had the real thing! Heb 6:4...

You ask for the Holy Spirit and He comes, but we must not rush to lay on hands, we are warned in Timothy. 1 Tim 5:22

Jesus warns a man to sin no more or "something worse may happen to you." John 5:14

Some who knew powers but not enough love and character change and receiving the Holy Spirit as saviour before trying to call Him Lord and some who do not top up their oil as they wait for the second coming of the Messiah, will miss out. Matt 25, Gal 5:22, Heb 12:14, Mark 12:30-31.

 

[Laoshir]

These events happen in a lot of churches. Unfortunately they are imitators of the so-called Pensecola, Brownsville, Toronto and Lakeside revivals. Its no wonder non-believers run away from Christianity. We as Christians have to practice 1 John 4:1 and "test the spirits" with biblical references.

God help us....