Messianic Judaism

[yedida]

Are they G~d called or self called? We are called to test the spirits. We will know them by their fruit. Let the buyer beware.

What fruit? The number of followers? The amount of $ they bring in? The type of lifestyles they can now afford to live? The number of charities they give to? The number of cars and airplanes they give away? What fruit exactly? Most of those on the TV circuit by outward appearances would then seem to be "called." The majority of them are still married to their first spouse, their kids have gone into the ministry, their grandkids don't seem to be in the public eye in a negative way - but even though most mainstream ministers preach pretty much the same thing, they call them false teachers.
So what is the measuring rod that makes them false?
I'm really asking this. I sat under the ministry of one for an extremely long time. I cringe now when I hear him, but there really isn't anything in particular that can be pointed to that is absolutely unscriptural (except that he's a pre-tribber and that's not really cause to call him a false teacher).

 

[Lulav]

What? Would you shake, rattle and roll?

I knew what you would answer, but I wanted to see what the others had to say on the subject. From what they're saying, all these teachers who say they are called, are indeed called. There has to be some criteria for discerning if they are not called.
Someone said we could tell by the teacher's lifestyle, but is that enough? Is that a true or the only measuring rod?

I was referring to what you said about "you're our Lulav", which since tomorrow is the first day of Sukkot, that's when you shake the Lulav, or start to.

Now, me, I would probably rattle quite a bit, old bones, a screw loose here and there............................................

 

[yedida]

I was referring to what you said about "you're our Lulav", which since tomorrow is the first day of Sukkot, that's when you shake the Lulav, or start to.

Now, me, I would probably rattle quite a bit, old bones, a screw loose here and there............................................

I guess we know each other pretty well, girl, cos that's what I had in mind too when I asked if you'd shake, rattle and roll?

 

[anisavta]

What fruit? The number of followers? The amount of $ they bring in? The type of lifestyles they can now afford to live? The number of charities they give to? The number of cars and airplanes they give away? What fruit exactly? Most of those on the TV circuit by outward appearances would then seem to be "called." The majority of them are still married to their first spouse, their kids have gone into the ministry, their grandkids don't seem to be in the public eye in a negative way - but even though most mainstream ministers preach pretty much the same thing, they call them false teachers.
So what is the measuring rod that makes them false?
I'm really asking this. I sat under the ministry of one for an extremely long time. I cringe now when I hear him, but there really isn't anything in particular that can be pointed to that is absolutely unscriptural (except that he's a pre-tribber and that's not really cause to call him a false teacher).

That's my point. Sometimes the fruit looks good on the outside but is rotten on the inside. It's when they stand before G~d and remind Him of all the things they did in His Name and He tells them He doesn't know them.
Anyone can say they're called. But the test is who really gets the glory - HaShem or them.

 

[yedida]

That's my point. Sometimes the fruit looks good on the outside but is rotten on the inside. It's when they stand before G~d and remind Him of all the things they did in His Name and He tells them He doesn't know them.
Anyone can say they're called. But the test is who really gets the glory - HaShem or them.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you (and I usually don't!). Maybe I was so preoccupied with the "all" God's appointed.....
That's what I've been trying to point out. Just because someone has the degrees and credentials of a minister of the gospel doesn't mean that God has put his seal of approval on them or that He called them to preach or lead.
And many who preach and are called by the majority consensus of "professional preachers/leaders" false teachers are not teaching outright falsehoods. They are, in fact, teaching the scriptures, but in a way they were not meant to be interpreted. They are not adding or taking away (by mainstream standards anyway) they are just twisting and scrunching what is there to mean something other than what was intended. And tens of thousands are being duped. (I was one of them for a minute.)
Admittedly, some of the names I called out are downright false teachers and it's so obvious, but many fall in the group just above and can take someone years to unscramble their theology. (Hopefully, most people will be brighter than I was and figure it out sooner rather than later.)
Anyway, sorry I misunderstood you my dear friend.

 

[anisavta]

No worries.
It's so easy to get caught up in someone's ministry. Christians are taught not to judge. But that's why so many are sinking into the mire of false doctrines - they don't stand back away from the personality long enough to judge the words spoken. We've all done it. I cringe when I think about all the junk I believed because it sounded so good and felt so good. It's like a spiritual fix. As long as we can "shoot up" we're oblivious to the harm it's doing.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you believe that Binny Hinn is God-called? He appears to be living what mainstream teaches. Kenneth Copeland? Kenneth Hagen? Pat Robertson? Joel Osteen? Myers? Prince? According to what information is available, these all appear to live as mainstream teaches. Are these God-appointed? Was Oral Roberts? In the beginning Joseph Smith appeared to be living what mainstream teaches. Are these all God-called, appointed, anointed? What are your views?

I could have made a similar list, but I thought we weren't supposed to denigrate anyone personally here. When my mother was still in the pentecostal churches, she watched several of them. I told her the first time I saw Benny Hinn that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about the mainstream. I said scripture. Most of those on your list were more concerned with money than souls, as that was the focus of most of their teachings. And very few if any lived anywhere near scriptural lives; embezzling, stealing, commiting adultery, etc.

 

[Heber]

No worries.
It's so easy to get caught up in someone's ministry. Christians are taught not to judge. But that's why so many are sinking into the mire of false doctrines - they don't stand back away from the personality long enough to judge the words spoken. We've all done it. I cringe when I think about all the junk I believed because it sounded so good and felt so good. It's like a spiritual fix. As long as we can "shoot up" we're oblivious to the harm it's doing.

That is not a universal truth. I actively encourage the congregation to ask questions about what I preach. We have a special public meeting for that specific purpose. It's known as accountability.

 

[Heber]

I could have made a similar list, but I thought we weren't supposed to denigrate anyone personally here. When my mother was still in the pentecostal churches, she watched several of them. I told her the first time I saw Benny Hinn that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about the mainstream. I said scripture. Most of those on your list were more concerned with money than souls, as that was the focus of most of their teachings. And very few if any lived anywhere near scriptural lives; embezzling, stealing, commiting adultery, etc.

That went out the window hours ago, if it was ever there to start with! It was obvious from the poll that people wanted to reserve the right to insult and humiliate leaders. Only 3 voted in favour of no personal attacks.

 

[yedida]

I could have made a similar list, but I thought we weren't supposed to denigrate anyone personally here. When my mother was still in the pentecostal churches, she watched several of them. I told her the first time I saw Benny Hinn that I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Anyway, I didn't say anything about the mainstream. I said scripture. Most of those on your list were more concerned with money than souls, as that was the focus of most of their teachings. And very few if any lived anywhere near scriptural lives; embezzling, stealing, commiting adultery, etc.

I was mainly speaking in terms of what they teach, not on the person themselves except to say that most of them actually do live "good" lives. They are not embezzling, stealing, committing adultery. I'm speaking specifically of those I mentioned (with the exception of Hinn - I don't know anything about his personal life so he may fall into that "bad" category, I'm only aware of his teachings). I only mentioned their lifestyles because, as far as I've heard, they live exemplary lives, according to mainstream teachings as I recounted in another post.
You're right, we're not supposed to denigrate them personally, and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm questioning their teachings and asking are they God-called? If they are not, by what standard do we test them?
I'm trying to figure out how we discern whether someone who says they are God-called, God-appointed, God-anointed really is? It appears some would just have us believe anyone who makes that claim because they haven't told us what the measuring rod is. But then the Bible tells us to test the teachers.
I'm trying to figure out which it is, accept or test. And if to test, by what measure?

 

[ContraMundum]

Nor mine specifically toward you and Contra. Even though we buck horns often, I do learn from both of you.
But the question stands. Anyone can go out and start preaching the scriptures and claim they have been called of God to do this - does the fact that they say they were called make them called? How does one know which are God-appointed over those who just want to do it?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I feel it's a valid question.

I believe that there is a doctrine outlined in scripture that helps you find a valid pastor. Firstly there is his own personal inward conviction, secondly, there is an acceptance of this conviction from the congregation, and thirdly there is the seal of that call by congregation and other pastors by way of ordination. This is, I believe, the minimal standard for a call to the public ministry.

Of course, the processes that occur during that call are varied, but usually quite rigorous. For example, the candidate's character and learning are scrutinized, his (or her) ability to work with others is tested (usually during an assessment period) and of course one's personal and academic history is reviewed and checked to see if there is a progress in holiness. This usually takes a few yeas.

What I am saying is that one's call to preach, teach and/or minister is not from oneself, but from God, and recognized and ratified and affirmed by the people of God. They are the witnesses. While one will always find ministers one doesn't agree with or hit it off with, one should respect that person's call even if they belong to another Christian community.

However, too many people fly under the radar so to speak these days. Very little scrutiny has come on them, and that shows in their learning and their character. Usually, people like this have to build up their own authority, whereas those in a church can always point to authority outside of themselves.

 

[ContraMundum]

None of Christ disciples had any credentials.

You don't need credentials to be a minister- but they are useful and some learning is required- hence credentials are the easiest way to ascertain that.

 

[yedida]

I believe that there is a doctrine outlined in scripture that helps you find a valid pastor. Firstly there is his own personal inward conviction, secondly, there is an acceptance of this conviction from the congregation, and thirdly there is the seal of that call by congregation and other pastors by way of ordination. This is, I believe, the minimal standard for a call to the public ministry.

Of course, the processes that occur during that call are varied, but usually quite rigorous. For example, the candidate's character and learning are scrutinized, his (or her) ability to work with others is tested (usually during an assessment period) and of course one's personal and academic history is reviewed and checked to see if there is a progress in holiness. This usually takes a few yeas.

What I am saying is that one's call to preach, teach and/or minister is not from oneself, but from God, and recognized and ratified and affirmed by the people of God. They are the witnesses. While one will always find ministers one doesn't agree with or hit it off with, one should respect that person's call even if they belong to another Christian community.

However, too many people fly under the radar so to speak these days. Very little scrutiny has come on them, and that shows in their learning and their character. Usually, people like this have to build up their own authority, whereas those in a church can always point to authority outside of themselves.

Okay, thank you for the explanation.

 

[Heber]

I was mainly speaking in terms of what they teach, not on the person themselves except to say that most of them actually do live "good" lives. They are not embezzling, stealing, committing adultery. I'm speaking specifically of those I mentioned (with the exception of Hinn - I don't know anything about his personal life so he may fall into that "bad" category, I'm only aware of his teachings). I only mentioned their lifestyles because, as far as I've heard, they live exemplary lives, according to mainstream teachings as I recounted in another post.
You're right, we're not supposed to denigrate them personally, and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm questioning their teachings and asking are they God-called? If they are not, by what standard do we test them?
I'm trying to figure out how we discern whether someone who says they are God-called, God-appointed, God-anointed really is? It appears some would just have us believe anyone who makes that claim because they haven't told us what the measuring rod is. But then the Bible tells us to test the teachers.
I'm trying to figure out which it is, accept or test. And if to test, by what measure?

You can't get much more personal than questioning a person's call to ministry and requiring them to somehow prove their call. Can you prove that G_d has spoken to you about anything? If you can, please tell me how. This why candidates for ordination are rigorously tested in a variety of ways before they ever get anywhere near a congregation. In our debates on leadership, and the infamous poll, it was made clear by Mark and Tishri that leaders in a CF context were those who were leaders in a congregational context - not people who set themselves up outside of that framework, so some big names on your tv would not have been classed as leaders. It is not our fault that the majority of people here on CF rejected that. The paranoia on who is a leader continues, inspite of categorical statements, setting out just what was meant. As I recall these red herring cases of non-congregational leaders were thrown up as a defense against using G_d's law, time and time again. It gets tiring to have to continue to explain what was said.

 

[pat34lee]

I'm trying to figure out which it is, accept or test. And if to test, by what measure?

You test all things by scripture. Not just the words, but the emphasis, the spirit of what they say. The prophets in the bible had one main message, just different details. "Repent, return to YHWH".

This may just be my opinion, but when any well-known pastor is loved by everyone (meaning non-christians), be wary. If they speak all the truth, they are going to offend people, likely even some of the congregation.

 

[Heber]

You test all things by scripture. Not just the words, but the emphasis, the spirit of what they say. The prophets in the bible had one main message, just different details. "Repent, return to YHWH".

This may just be my opinion, but when any well-known pastor is loved by everyone (meaning non-christians), be wary. If they speak all the truth, they are going to offend people, likely even some of the congregation.

It happens which is why they are encouraged to ask about what I preach and I will show them G_d's word as it is - Yeshua spoke many hard words. In fact so many that at least one book has been written about them (by F F Bruce).

 

[Heber]

You have to admit that many so-called Christians (whether they are true Christians obviously is up for discussion but they call themselves by that name & that in itself means a lot to lookers-on) do have affairs, many more than just one "accident." They believe that they are in the "age of grace" and only have to keep asking for forgiveness. You argue that this is not true?
And how many of these Christians are guilty of calling out "Oh Jesus!" or "Oh My God!" "Jesus Christ!" and they are not crying out in a heart-felt prayer. And then there are the expletives that I cannot type in here. Am I wrong?
And many of these same Christians will lie wherever they can on their income tax forms. You know that they do.
So there I've covered sexual immorality, profaning God's name, and theft, #s 5, 3 and 4 (I think that's the order I listed them). I didn't say that to be insulting, it's just simply true.

And those in the Messianic movement do not? They are perfect? One of the biggest rogues I have known was a messianic rabbi! If we are honest, we might want to look at people like Rahab - used by G_d, Zac who stole money from the people. The Bible is littered with people of doubtful character that G_d called into his service, so let's not pretend that he only chooses the spotless - there aren't any, as the Bible testifies! In fact if I had the choice of leader between someone who was squeaky clean over against someone who had a broken life and had had to lean on Yeshua to get back out of the mire and show themselves as called of G_d, I would go for the latter, every time. Their witness is the terrible state they were in and how G_d pulled them out of that into his service. They know what life is like for us all and can relate far more convincingly.

 

[yedida]

You can't get much more personal than questioning a person's call to ministry and requiring them to somehow prove their call. Can you prove that G_d has spoken to you about anything? If you can, please tell me how. This why candidates for ordination are rigorously tested in a variety of ways before they ever get anywhere near a congregation. In our debates on leadership, and the infamous poll, it was made clear by Mark and Tishri that leaders in a CF context were those who were leaders in a congregational context - not people who set themselves up outside of that framework, so some big names on your tv would not have been classed as leaders. It is not our fault that the majority of people here on CF rejected that. The paranoia on who is a leader continues, inspite of categorical statements, setting out just what was meant. As I recall these red herring cases of non-congregational leaders were thrown up as a defense against using G_d's law, time and time again. It gets tiring to have to continue to explain what was said.

Not every misnister that claims a calling is from a seminary, yet they have congregations. I only pulled the big name TVanelists out because most everyone is familiar with them to one degree or another. But many of the church pastors preach the same things.
For the life of me I can't think of his name right now, but what about the pastor of the Crystal Chapel? As far as I know, he has the right credentials, is he God called? Also, I think Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts went the seminary route, and had their own congregations at one time or another, what about them? I ask because I've heard them called false teachers too. Was that not true, and these were God-appoiinted?
And what of those who fit the criteria sans the credentials?
I know I sound like I'm arguing, but I'm not (I don't like arguments), I'm really trying to figure it out.

 

[yedida]

You've missed the whole point of sin. You bucketed all mainstream Christians as deliberate deniers of certain moral commandments of God. I say the exact opposite. They DO in fact teach against sin, and admonish their people to walk in holiness.

The fact that people sin against God does not make their churches ignorant against the Law or deniers of it. They teach the law. People sin against it. That's sin. That's why we have Jesus. So that they can be made whole again through repentance and faith.

Secondly, three words. Log and plank.

You got lost in the thread. That response was to a post about people who claim that they follow the Noahide laws. Nothing whatsoever to do with teachers/leaders of any sort. And I stated that "some" do those things, big difference from "all".

 

[ContraMundum]

Not every misnister that claims a calling is from a seminary, yet they have congregations. I only pulled the big name TVanelists out because most everyone is familiar with them to one degree or another. But many of the church pastors preach the same things.
For the life of me I can't think of his name right now, but what about the pastor of the Crystal Chapel? As far as I know, he has the right credentials, is he God called? Also, I think Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts went the seminary route, and had their own congregations at one time or another, what about them? I ask because I've heard them called false teachers too. Was that not true, and these were God-appoiinted?
And what of those who fit the criteria sans the credentials?
I know I sound like I'm arguing, but I'm not (I don't like arguments), I'm really trying to figure it out.

Credentials are not the be-all-and-end-all of the ministry. Secondly, let's not forget that the Bible describes men called to the ministry who fall away or teach poorly- no one is perfect.