Ravenhill hanging out with "false prophets"?

Hello All, i just wanted to take a wuick opportunity to point out that Brother Ravenhill did speak at a holiness confrence with the so called False Prophets of kansas city. in either 1988 or 1991 Leonard Ravenhill spoke at a holiness confrence put on by the Vineyard church, the people there were, (john paul jackson, paul cain, john wimber, mike bickle, ect) now one thought posed to me was that Leonard Ravenhill was that even jesus did not avoid spending time with the pharisees in their synagogs. My response back was how can we know what Mr Ravenhills relationships with those people were. On the tapes i have from that confrence it would seem that Mr ravenhill has spent time with for sure John Wimber(calls him friend) and speaks also of mike bickle. i thought i would just throw this out there for discussion, since i told someone that i would.

just wanted to take a wuick opportunity to point out that Brother Ravenhill did speak at a holiness confrence with the so called False Prophets of kansas city.If anybody ever asked me to come preach at any of their churches, I would. No matter what denomination. No matter if they were Christians or not. Wherever somebody is asked to proclaim the gospel, I think it is usually wise to do so.My response back was how can we know what Mr Ravenhills relationships with those people were. On the tapes i have from that confrence it would seem that Mr ravenhill has spent time with for sure John Wimber(calls him friend) and speaks also of mike bickle.It'd be interesting to hear the tapes. I wonder though what his personal relationship with these individuals were. It would personally sadden me though if Ravenhill were friends of Wimber or Bickle, as I personally believe these men are false prophets.

Ravenhill did do/say some strange things in his later years, I'd have to know more about the situation to tell if he was rightly or wrongly involving himself with the people in question.As for a point you brought up somewhere else, about the focus of this website being against certain "false prophets" and their ministries; a lot of the teaching is against that, particularly from Art Katz and David Wilkerson. However, much of it is simply on Biblical repentance and revival (listen to some of A.W. Tozer, T. Austin Sparks, Paris Reidhead, etc).Personally I don't pay a lot of attention to the anti-"prosperity gospel" stuff because I've never agreed with it nor understood why anyone would fall for it.However, I believe much of the Pentecostal/Charismatic church has been won over by the world, pursuing worldly goals with worldly methods for worldly reasons. I don't have anything against them specifically (though most of them have fallen from a Holiness stance and thus are in particularly bad shape) since most movements in this country have gone the same way, but we should be aware of the problems at least to not fall into them ourselves.

If anybody ever asked me to come preach at any of their churches, I would. No matter what denomination. No matter if they were Christians or not. Wherever somebody is asked to proclaim the gospel, I think it is usually wise to do so.I am inspired by you saying this, Jimmy. This would be a hard thing for me - but i know it is true and necessary. I have such a hard time with "in name-only christians" and tend to judge and write them off. yet I am very open and accepting to non- believers. Glad you reminded me of this.in Him, chanin

Hello All again, It is important for me to mention that I do not believe it is wrong to speak about such things, as false prophets, or anyone group being off-base. It just seems to me that we can dwell on things for too long a time. An example I will share is from my own life, that i have shared before. In leaving the IC(institutional church) the group I was in tended to focus on the failings of the IC, at first I agree it was important for us to discuss why we were doing this and what we saw that was not God. But i do believe that we stayed there too long and stepped away from life, we finally got to the place where we realized that our focus was not Jesus it was the failings of the IC. There is no life in that we discovered that and it pushed us back to wanting to focus more on Christ than on the crap that comes from humans. Which everymove of God has expierinced. Blessings all hoping that The Holy Spirit reveals more of Christ in you daily:) Andy

I have a book written in part by Paul Cain and have some tapes from him as well and I believe he's a man of God. Although he has certainly has done some foolish things in his life, I believe he is a man of God. I've certainly done some very foolish things myself, much more than he.We certainly need discernment in these days. Much of the "prophetic" ministry is a bit out of control in my view but I'm not acquainted enough with Mike Bickle, John Wimber, and some of the other folks to comment.A true prophetic word always brings glory to God and exalts Christ. A false prophetic word edifies the flesh and exalts self. This is a synposis of how Wigglesworth defined the two. As Paul Cain said in one of the tapes I have, there is no new truth, only fresh revelation of existing truth.Just my two cents worth.

A good article dealing with Paul Cain can be found on this link:http://letusreason.org/Latrain5.htmIn Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I have read much of what was shown on that link and if true, it's sadly off the mark. The book I read was written by R.T. Kendall, former minister of Westminister Church in England and an excellent author. He had many misgivings about Paul Cain as well until they met.If someone articulates something contrary to scripture, it's obviously wrong but don't we all see through the glass darkly? Where does one draw the line between a "false prophet" and a prophet, who was wrong? My grandmother was a very Godly woman, but she was plain wrong on much of their theology. Would that make her a heretic?I don't think so, but I could be mistaken. I hope I haven't veered too far off the topic. When I came back to the Lord, I quickly went through the WOF and prosperity doctrines and then I read some stuff by Jack Deere, Cindy Jacobs, Peter Wagner, & others and quickly moved on from there to those who seek Christ above all else.I certainly need more discernment and Godly wisdom.

Gideons,If someone articulates something contrary to scripture, it's obviously wrong but don't we all see through the glass darkly?You cited 1Cor 13:12 where Paul is in the middle of his treatment of the abuses taking place in the Corinthian Church. Paul is not saying that we will be in error from time to time, but that our understanding, while it may be correct, will grow by bits and pieces until it is complete. This is not to say that we won't make mistakes. Here is how Stanley Horton treats this passage:As a further illustration, Paul compares our present understanding and knowledge to the indirect image in a mirror(mirrors in those days were made of polished bronze). But when Jesus comes, the perfect state will be unveiled: We shall see no longer indirectly, but face to face. Now there are many things that perplex us. We are able to claim ony part of what God has for us. But the day is coming when "we shall see him as he is"(1John 3:2). Then we shall no longer need what is now "in part. We do know God now, but spiritual gifts only reveal bits and pieces.In other words, seeing through a glass darkly, doesn't mean that we will see wrongly, but that we will see only parts of the big picture so to speak. So, what we are given to understand, can be understood rightly, just not comprehensivly.Here are some links to some articles that will help you out:A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy This article does an excellent treatment of this issue and is worth reading all the way through(It's a long one).Paul Cain This article is very concise, but it offers many worthwhile links that provide some very usefull background information on Paul Cain.THE LATTER RAIN REVIVAL What I have read of this so far has been very good. Here is a small quote:Are you having difficulty discerning or receiving this "new revelation"? Then perhaps you have been interpreting your Bible in the "old way" -- comparing Scripture with Scripture, studying diligently to account for every jot and tittle and being careful to rightly divide the Word of truth. If this describes you, then you belong to the "Old Generation" which will not enter in to "possess the land" in the Latter Rain Revival. You may even be a member of a denominational church with its dogmatic confession of faith and statement of doctrine. These legalistic forms will be relics of the past in the up and coming "Postdenominational Church." Paul Cain advises that you "dump all that carnal stuff" (doctrine) and listen to what the "spirit" is saying to the churches through the Latter Rain Prophets and Apostles, who are dispensing many "new, sacred truths." Now, back to your Bible study. In your Bible you will want to change the book of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" to "The Manifestation of the Sons of God." That’s right, we are not to be looking for the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him." Nope. That would be an "escapist mentality" to be repented of at once if we would be Overcomers. Instead, we should be looking forward to the glorification of the Corporate Church, which will become perfect and immortal here on earth before the Second Coming. In fact, as Jesus comes "spiritually and invisibly" to His Church, He will actually "incarnate" the Corporate Body and reveal Himself to the world through miraculous signs and wonders performed by the "Manifest Sons of God." I hope you find these usefull. By-the-way, I used to be caught up in all of the trappins of the WOF, and all it's associations.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Remember the mirror he is talking about is polished brass or copper. It had distortions and was not at all like our mirrors today. We still have to contend with the darkness in our own soul. That is why it is not clear what the God is trying to implement. It goes back to putting ourselves on the alter. Peice by peice God kills the old and births the new soul until we are in His image. Regarding Cain:Worst case he is wanting to control his members in a christian-like cult.Best case he is an apostle or prophet who is errent and impatient for people to renew their minds. Either one is wrong and deadly.smichael

If anybody ever asked me to come preach at any of their churches, I would. No matter what denomination. No matter if they were Christians or not. Wherever somebody is asked to proclaim the gospel, I think it is usually wise to do so.Hi JimmySome years ago I was preaching in India and was invited to the Loreto Convent, a Catholic order of nuns working with the poor. The meeting was about 20 folk, mostly nuns, a few priests and the rest 'lay' people. I was most uncomfortable. I was asking the Lord why I was there.I opened the chorus book and right next to 'all over the world the Spirit is moving' was a chorus which began 'Hail, to the virgin of Lourdes'. By now I was even more uncomfortable.Then there occurred one of those simple little prayer conversations. I said "Lord, what am I doing here?"He said "Can you love these people?"I said "Yes'He said "Do you want to be a blessing to these people"I said "Yes"He said "That's how I feel"It changed by attitude permanently. I cannot endorse some doctrines but if God opens the door I must step through it.

I said "Lord, what am I doing here?"He said "Can you love these people?"I said "Yes'He said "Do you want to be a blessing to these people"I said "Yes"He said "That's how I feel"Thank you for sharing that. I was feeling the same way about us having the concert at this "movie theater" church. I didn't even want to step inside. But the Lord reminded me, even through a friend that light must be brought into the darkness(and not all darkness is what we would call darkness- just where the truth is not shining)Though I don't agree with what they are doing and how they are doing things trying to copy the megachurch ways, etc... I know they still need to see and hear the real love of Jesus and His truth. I would have rather had the concert at a non- christian place than there. The Lord has shown me my error. That church is probably very damaged by this former pastor who had a gay affair (speaking of "false")- and has now left and started another church. They need a healing that only the Lord can bring. :-( Not to go on to much, but this seems to be a new phenomenon lately- this thing about pastors being involved with gay relationships and either quitting or leaving the church. It happened at my in-laws church too. :-o Can you imagine the spiritual damage?! The trust issues? Knowing that you've been led and taught by a liar and an immoral man?so sad.-chanin

Another person, Keith Green, was licensed in the Vinyard movement. I've never seen anything in Keith's short ministry before he died that could be related to the extremes of the Vinyard. His death was almost a decade before the KC prophet debacle. I wonder how he would have reacted to that.

One thing that has always somewhat concerned me with Ravenhill is that he doesn't seem to mind the fact some of his favorite Christian's through the years held some widely differing doctrine. It *seems* that Ravenhill didn't mind if folks doctrines were off, so long as they preached against sin, preached about the holiness of God, preached about the power of God, and prayed a lot, then it seems they were often accepted into his hall-of-fame of post-bible faith heros. So, to say that he might have been friends with folks like Mike Bickle or John Wimber does not totally shock me. After all, Bickle is famous for starting his 24-hour house of prayer in Kansas, and John Wimber is very proactive about "power encounter" style evangelism. I do remember Ravenhill in one sermon fondly mentioning the fact that somebody had started a 24-hour house of prayer in Kansas.

Another person, Keith Green, was licensed in the Vinyard movement.Green was sorta in it's early stages though. From the impression I received in Green's biography, it doesn't seem like it was a very big deal to him to be ordained by them. It almost seems like it was an honorary ordination of sorts.Also, I believe Keith Green was in some mixed company in the closing years of his life. John Dawson was a close friend of Green, and introduced him to the spiritual warfare idea of breaking various territorial spirits that reside over areas. John Dawson would later go and write a book on the subject. It always worried me, because frankly, that stuff has very-little-to-no scriptural basis to it, and is mostly the result of pragmatism... thus the how-to nature of such books.

The words and comments about saints like Mike Bickle and John Wimber both of whom i've met and have seen indisputable fruit from their ministries (in proportions many of us could only dream) prove what the apostle Paul warned Timothy would happen in the last days. "people will be lovers of themselves, boasters, proud, blasphemers, false accusers, having a form of Godliness but denying its power."Though I currently attend a Mennonite bretheren church (Jesus cares way less about denominations than we do--I have no mennonite blood in me!), my years at the Vineyard taught me some amazing things. Firstly, as Acts 10:38 says, "God annointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power." And he "went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the enemy because God was with him"! Note; not because he was God. He had already laid aside his divine attributes. (They taught me "I get to do the stuff!" And am I ever jazzed about it.)I can confirm this in another place. God has never lost the authority of the universe, correct? Jesus says, "all authority has been given unto me." God never lost the authority. He gave it to Jesus. Jesus spoke these words as the son of man. He commissioned us as a brother. Not as God.Maybe the only reason Matthew and Luke neglect the signs and wonders portion in the great commission (that Mark includes) is because Jesus was talking about the gospel. And the gospel of the kingdom is a gospel of power. Signs and wonders were a given. It was almost redundant to mention it.If Jesus only saw what he saw the Father doing, and only spoke what he heard the Father saying, and then if He taught the disciples to do exactly the same things, then why did the Fathers mandate to us change?? I don't believe in the bizzare personality change we have put God through to assume he no longer works in power.Paul told the Roman church that the gospel of Christ was the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. Nowadays we modify our doctrines based on our limited experience and miniscule faith. And while I agree that the biggest miracle of all is the forgiveness of a sinner who repents, I gotta ask, then where are all the little miracles like blind eyes seeing and deaf ears hearing and lame men dancing? I want to see some of the little miracles too! It doesn't really make sense to me that God only performs the the biggest one.We're gonna disagree, people! Big deal. Paul confronted Peter for being two faced. We all fail. William Brahnam went off track and believed some weird things late in life. So we don't discount an entire wave of ministry of the Holy Spirit because a guy goes awol! That doesn't even mean that the signs and wonders he did earlier in his ministry were not under the power of God. Are there counterfeit signs and wonders? Sure. But that means they are counterfeiting OUR REALITY! If there is fake money, it is just trying to get as close as possible to the real thing. Making counterfeit money is useless if the real thing doesn't exist.The following link is a message from Jackie Pullinger who ministers at Saint Stephens in Hong Kong. She is as close to a hero in the faith as I will ever let myself have. I want even to be like her in that she wants to be pretty much "unimpressed with anyone who isn't Jesus" to quote David Ruis about her. She has prayed, and seen rice come from heaven to feed a prostitute on the streets because she had nothing else to give her. I got the link of this very website.Cessationalist, I dare you to listen to the 90 minutes of her testimony. We don't believe in the power of God today because we have never tried giving till we have nothing else to give, such that the only way someone is going to have their needs met is if God intervenes. And I'm preaching to myself here!!!! We need to learn to minister the love of Jesus just as he did. Because he imitated his Father, our Father.https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=726&forum=34#3721Christians.....imitators of Christ, little Christs; Lets get it done! Matt 24:16 "This gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all nations. Then the end will come." The gospel of the kingdom is a gospel of power. It "does not consist in words but in power". How much more biblical confirmation do we need?

The words and comments about saints like Mike Bickle and John Wimber both of whom i've met and have seen indisputable fruit from their ministries (in proportions many of us could only dream) prove what the apostle Paul warned Timothy would happen in the last days. "people will be lovers of themselves, boasters, proud, blasphemers, false accusers, having a form of Godliness but denying its power."Scamper,Friend, you are in error because you do not know the scriptures. This verse you paraphrased about the "power" of God has NOTHING to do with signs or wonders, but about a godly life. I believe you are attacking the wrong people when you try to fasley call us cessationists. I, for one, am a pentecostal and believe in all the workings of God. I also know that it does not pertain at all to the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is a changed life from ungodliness to godliness, NOT working miracles. If that were the case then men like Bickle and Cain would be unable to produce miracles.As far as Branham goes, yeah he believed some weird things later in life, but if you study his life, he believed some weird things at the beginning of it too.You are correct that we need a revival, but it HAS to be loyal to the TRUTH! A revival is not about people roaring like lions and barking like dogs and running around giving personal prophecies all over the place. We don't need people being taught how to "birth" or laying with their pillows up front "soaking", that's not revival, that's foolishness. Revival is a return to the holiness of God in humility and repentance! When people sought "signs and wonders" Jesus called them a wicked and adultress generation. And we haven't changed at all.Perhaps you should listen to a couple of sermons from Carter Conlon:Ministers of LaciviousnessA Warning To An Evil GenerationI pray that you will see that the power of God is not about signs and wonders, but about truth and righteousness.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

well, i am not all all surpised that this controversy has reared its head. you cannot please all of the people all of the time. Having heard the ministry of Ravenhill, Wimber, Bickle and Cain I believe they are all first and foremost lovers of Jesus and pure of heart in that sense. some day we will all know the answers - maybe the critics don't understnad Leonard Ravenhill as they think they do and are attempting to put him in a particular box - i think you 'll find that like his Master it will be very difficult to categorise any of the aforementioned brothers as anything other than sincere but human lovers of God.for my part I am more concerned at the inclusion of a man who is linked to politics which incite people to violence - Ian Paisley. I would welcome the site moderator/administrators comments on this one!

shill,Sincerity and correctness are two very different things. I too believe these men are sincere, but sincerely wrong. Others in the past who have been sincere would include: Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Jim Baker(author of "I Was Wrong"), and a host of others. The test of true discipleship is not sincerity, but the truth in sincerity. As was posted earlier, when Ravenhill began to see the doctrine of these men whom we call false prophets, and rightly so, he distanced himself from them.Sincere men of God will lead people to the Lord, but sincerely deceived men will lead people to another Jesus and a different gospel. In the late eighties these men of whom we have been speaking founded what came to be known as the Kansas City Prophets. Personal prophecy reigned supreme. The fruit of this ministry started what was kown as the "shepherding movement". Instead of leading the people to God, these men became god to their congregations. People couldn't marry, buy a house, or a car, or property, or do much of anything without first having the permission of their pastor. To Mike Bickle's credit he shut down the KC Prophets, but only after Bob Jones was caught in immorality(so much for the fruit of the Spirit). But to this day Bickle is still caught up in much of the "latter rain" heresy.These men have caused the divisions, not us. They have separated themselves from the truth. And we should separate ourselves from them, for their sakes and ours.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Just reading through these posts and as I read, the thought kept popping up of how God is concerned not just with our beginnings, but most importantly, our finishing well.Most would agree that king Saul began well, but his finsh wasn't good.I also thought of Paul's desperate pleading with the church in Galatia, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you...Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

Grace and Peace --I was very, very fortunate to be discipled under the ministry of someone well acquainted with Brother Ravenhill.I have distinct recollections of my friend/mentor recounting for me a conversation he'd carried on with Leonard concerning this very subject.Basically, Leonard was never really in league with these people. Neither was he their enemy. He understood what was going on, he understood the concerns, and he was completely aware of the issues. He felt that God wanted him to spend the time there that he did. It is that simple. He fulfilled his call to be obedient, and that was that.Sometimes, it is appropriate to decline an invitation. Sometimes, God needs a prophet to address a congregation caught in imbalance and error. The fact that Ravenhill simply obeyed a call to speak where God told him to doesn't really entail many of the assumptions I have seen in this thread.He didn't ever endorse the Kansas City Prophets. He wasn't open to the accusation of getting involved in some weird things in his later years, as one person said (well, a 10 hr a day prayer habit might be weird to some). He simply fulfilled his obligation to speak the Word where God called him. Thus, the suspect associations spoken of here were not the result of ignorance on his part, nor were they the result of his agreement with everything that was going on. It was based on what he felt God calling him to do. Remember the Word of the Lord to Jonah -- "Here is a city full of people who don't know their right hand from their left...should I not be concerned about them?" God still loves those caught in the sensational and unscriptural. He still desires that they be brought into all truth. So, why doesn't it make sense that He would finger a faithful man of God -- a prophet -- to spend some time among them?Look at Ravenhill's life and ministry and give the guy a little bit of credit. Just because he chose short-term interaction in a circle that might not make sense to us on the surface does not mean there isn't a deeper explanation. Neither does it indicate a spiritual problem.Blessings!!Jason

He didn't ever endorse the Kansas City Prophets. Personally, one could have fooled me. I heard him greatly praise men such as Paul Cain and John Wimber. He also seemed willing to receive the words spoken by them concerning him. He said in one sermon that the reason the Berlin Wall fell, he believed as learned through the Spirit, was so that John Wimber could hold a conference in Europe, and people from all over Europe could attend. He said something along the lines of Paul Cain being one of the greatest men of this generation. As much as I'd like to believe Ravenhill was just preaching to them because they needed to hear that message, I can't help but believe that he really thought very well of these "prophets" and seemed to truly fellowship with them.

Personally, one could have fooled me. I heard him greatly praise men such as Paul Cain and John Wimber. I meant that he never went around endorsing them as a group, per se.I had also written that Ravenhill was not their enemy, so he probably did have had occasion to praise certain people at various times. After all, Ravenhill was a Pentecostal.I think this idea that we can't learn something from a teacher unless they fit our assumption of theological precision is just as much an imbalance and error as anything that comes out of movements like the Vineyard. Who among us is going to be so arrogant as to say they have it "all figured out."I don't receive most of what comes out of the Vineyard these days. That doesn't mean I can't find something there to appreciate, and I think that was Ravenhill's view. I don't endorse Mike Bickle wholesale, but I can find something redemptive in his teaching. I could probably also have good fellowship with him, and I would probably accept an invitation to speak at his church.We have to discern between what is an imbalance, a tangent, or a tendency vs. what is true heresy. Do we ignore such imbalances? No, of course not. But this whole thing of, "I don't like their approach, so I reject the whole thing" is JUST as much an imbalance!I personally appreciate Wimber's emphasis on healing. While many here are too theologically sophisticated to even give his ideas a chance, let me put another spin on it. We might stick our spritual noses up at Wimber, but how many of us who do so have spent as many hours in hospitals as he did, weeping, hurting, and praying for the restoration of sick bodies?That doesn't make him right on everything. It doesn't mean he wasn't really wrong about some things. What it means is that we have to stop dividing the body over opposing ideas of theological precision when it isn't over an essential. Personally, I would rather see Wimber's tears than hear a thousand theologically precise sermons.Blessings,Jason

As much as I'd like to believe Ravenhill was just preaching to them because they needed to hear that message, I can't help but believe that he really thought very well of these "prophets" and seemed to truly fellowship with them.When I listen to Leonard Ravinhill in the latter years I hear a man desperate to see a move of God during his lifetime. A lot has happened since then. A lot has come to light. Personally I have distanced myself from a lot of things I used to praise in the early 90's. That is more because we both changed- both myself and the ministries I have distanced myself from. In my mind "they did run well"- but I am not so sure now- I am afraid to say too much on the matter. Nevertheless, Christ is preached, but I don't have the praise on my lips for them as I once did. I do think I have discarded some things I should not have. I pray I regain them.Unfortunately Ravinhill did not have these last 10 or so years to bring correction to his views in light of all that has happened. He was very hurt by what happened to Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. I would guess he once regarded them highly. Personally I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that had he lived to our times he would see wisely and clearly and with great discernment. He would have had a word for our times that may have made our ears tingle (as opposed to itching ears teachings). But God did not leave Him here to give us that word- He expects us to pursue Him (Christ) and press and get that word for our generation; with all the compassion and weeping and burden that Ravinhill had and all the more. It's up to us now. What is the word for this hour?God Bless,-Robert

Hi all,My first post here. I am a long time fan of the "mere man of the Great God" Leonard Ravenhill and also was in the Vineyard movement when the false prophets tried to "take control" of it.The complaints I have against the false prophets are:1. They tried to completely undo the good Word brought to the Christian community through Wimber that we are a "priesthood of believers." They wanted to take the church back to the Catholic idea of an elite group of rulers and establish themselves as a new Vatican. Their most common saying when they visited the Atlanta Vineyard was "you shouldn't be doing any of this stuff. Only we are appointed apostles by God and only we may hear from God, lay hands on people for healing, etc." It was more of a secular fraternity power grab than any move of God.2. Nothing is more hokie than saying "Bob Jones predicted the San Francisco earthquake 6 months before it happened, but God wouldn't allow us to tell you that he predicted it until after it happened." LOL

2. Nothing is more hokie than saying "Bob Jones predicted the San Francisco earthquake 6 months before it happened, but God wouldn't allow us to tell you that he predicted it until after it happened." LOL :-P Have heard more than a few similar 'post-predictions'..."The mere man of the Great God"... what a great line! You are off to a grand start Endy9, a most gracious welcome, hope to hear much more from your perspective.

They wanted to take the church back to the Catholic idea of an elite group of rulers and establish themselves as a new Vatican.Without a doubt, this has truly been the heart of the so-called apostolic/prophetic movement. Many are simply folks trying to get positions in already established churches denied to them otherwise. These men say they are interested in establshing true "church government." But that translates into "I am interested in establishing myself." A true God-birthed apostolic/prophetic movement would not be interested in establishing themselves as the head of the Church, rather, a true apostolic/prophetic movement would be interested in only establishing Christ as the head of the Church, for upon his shoulders will His government rest. When Christ is established as the head of the Church universally and locally, then the rest of the gifts/offices will be established.

Quote:"The complaints I have against the false prophets are:1. They tried to completely undo the good Word brought to the Christian community through Wimber that we are a "priesthood of believers." They wanted to take the church back to the Catholic idea of an elite group of rulers and establish themselves as a new Vatican. Their most common saying when they visited the Atlanta Vineyard was "you shouldn't be doing any of this stuff. Only we are appointed apostles by God and only we may hear from God, lay hands on people for healing, etc." It was more of a secular fraternity power grab than any move of God."Endy9, do you have any direct quotations or references that can add any substance to your stance on this issue? I am wondering if some of the leaders you speak of were involved in the Shepherding Movement. What "false prophets" do you speak of, specifically, and what direct quotations or evidence do you have to back up your stance? It seems you liked Wimber and his teachings but not some who followed after him in the movement. Is this true?Your use of the genereal term "they" is vague. If you don't mind, I am interested in who. But only if you have substantial evidence to back up your stance. Quote:"2. Nothing is more hokie than saying "Bob Jones predicted the San Francisco earthquake 6 months before it happened, but God wouldn't allow us to tell you that he predicted it until after it happened." LOL"What's the problem with this? This seems like a legitimate leadership move. Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."God might have used this occurance to establish Bob Jones in the eyes of the leadership of the church you were in (or to whatever leadership he told this to). But what need do they have to tell you? And if they felt like God was telling them not to tell the rest of the congregation until after it happened, then that's that. WOuldn't you want them to be obedient to that? If you trust them, it doesn't seem like there should be any problem. If you don't, then there was a problem before Bob Jones came into the picture, right?

What's the problem with this? This seems like a legitimate leadership move. Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."That seems quite a reach Todd, if that was the case, why bother telling anybody but the leadership?God might have used this occurance to establish Bob Jones in the eyes of the leadership of the church you were in (or to whatever leadership he told this to). But what need do they have to tell you? And if they felt like God was telling them not to tell the rest of the congregation until after it happened, then that's that. WOuldn't you want them to be obedient to that?Isn't this how cult's get started? Blindly following mere men without any way to verify what they are saying?Amo 3:7 - Surely the Lord God will do - For the Lord God “doeth” Nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets - So our Lord saith, “And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe” (Joh_14:29; compare Joh_13:19). While it is yet a “secret” counsel within Himself, He admitteth to it His servants the prophets. The same word signifies “secret” and “secret counsel with a friend.” So , “God revealed to Noah that tie would bring the deluge, and to Abraham and Lot, that He would destroy the cities of the plain, and to Joseph the 7 years’ famine in Egypt, and to Moses its plagues, and to Moses and Joshua all the chastisements of His people, and to Jonah the destruction of Nineveh, that they who heard of the coming punishment, might eithcr avoid it by repentance, or, if they should despise it, might be more justly punished. And so now the Lord is about to reveal through Amos, His servant and prophet, what He willeth to do to the 10 tribes, that forsaking their idols and turning to Him, they might be freed from the impending peril; which is of the great mercy of God. He foretelleth evil to come, that He may not be compelled to inflict it. For He who forewarneth, willeth not to punish sinners.”Lap.: “So He inflicted not on Egypt any plagues by the hand of Moses, but He first forewarned Pharaoh and the Egyptians by him; nor the sufferings by the Ammonites, Midianites and Philistines, related in the Book of Judges, but He foremonished Israel by Joshua Jos_23:12-16; Jos_24:19-20; nor did He inflict on the Jews that destruction by Titus and the Romans, but He foremonished them by Christ Luk_19:42-44 and the Apostles. So neither will He bring that last destruction on the world, without having first sent the prophets and Angels, who, sounding with the seven trumpets, shall proclaim it throughout the world” Rev_8:2.BarnesAlso reminded of:Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Joh 18:21 Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

What are your parameters according to which you discern true leadership and true prophetic ministry?To find our way in this jungle where truth, trustworthiness and tenderheartedness are rare commodities, we need to establish heavenly measure and we need to do so with a solid sacrificial attitude.Lars

"The mere man of the Great God"... what a great line! You are off to a grand start Endy9, a most gracious welcome, hope to hear much more from your perspective.crsschk,Thanks for the welcome. Always nice to find other Ravenhill fans. I don't agree with everything he teaches, but I love his persistent call for prayer to be a central part of every Christian's life. And his constant hunger for true revival. I discovered him when I prequented a Baptist prayer chapel and found the books Revival Praying and Why Revival Tarries there to borrow.

Todd,I can only go by my 15-20 year old memories. The people I refer to as false prophets were Paul Cain, Bob Jones, John Paul Jackson in particular. They were leaders of the Kansas City Fellowship and for awhile they convinced John Wimber that the Vineyard had weaknesses and needed KC to cure them. Wimber was distressed at this time because in the atmosphere of allowing people to learn to operate in the gifts of the Spirit, there were some excesses and some people were hurt in the process. Wimber began to question his teaching that it's ok to make mistakes, how else do you learn, etc.The KC Fellowship merged with the Vineyard and began to travel to many Vineyards teaching that they were the only current apostles that God has appointed and that everyone else should stop trying to operate in the gifts of the Spirit. The people that specifically came to Atlanta Vineyard and taught this were Paul Cain and John Paul Jackson.After about 2 years of conflict, because local Vineyard congregations did not accept this false teaching, Wimber repented of asking the KC Fellowship to join and expelled them from the Vineyard, declaring their teaching to be false.They found Wimber in a time of weakness (hey he was human), they lusted after his congregation and attempted to take it over. That's my read on what happened. Eye witness testimony.If you doubt that Paul Cain and group teach what I've said here, I'm sure you could easily find where they are still expousing this message today. They have not stopped their claims. They believe Wimber was wrong and in sin to stop them.The Bob Jones prediction was relayed to us by Paul Cain. 6 months after the San Francisco earthquake Paul came to our church claiming that Jones predicted it before it happened but that God wouldn't let them tell anyone.Can you show me a biblical reference where God spoke to a profit beforehand and told him not to announce it until afterward? Hard to see what effect that would have on anyone. Surely it wouldn't impress any unbeliever as a Sign and Wonder as God did many times in the Bible.I know God told Paul he couldn't speak of being drawn to the third heaven, but he was never allowed to speak of it.

Endy9, since you were an eyewitness I highly value your testimony, though I am unable to accept what you are saying without (as of yet) one bit of verifiable evidence. I have heard a lot of your opinion, but nothing substantial. This is typical of how misunderstandings spread. This is all much too vague. I've seen this time and time again. Even godly and sincere men of God that I've trusted (and still respect) have missed it big time concerning these types of things, and in turn led me in their direction of misunderstanding. Like I said before, if you bring forth anything substantial I would be interested in that. And though I'll listen to you because you were there, I can't simply accept your opinions. You probably understand that being in the Vineyard, as it has had it's share of misunderstanding.Quote:"Can you show me a biblical reference where God spoke to a profit beforehand and told him not to announce it until afterward?"Nothing comes to mind. But I also couldn't show you a reference where this is shown to be sinful. So no conclusion can be drawn. As far as I can tell, this is one of those "biblically neutral" situations. So who are we to say it's not God? Quote:"Hard to see what effect that would have on anyone. Surely it wouldn't impress any unbeliever as a Sign and Wonder as God did many times in the Bible."So what? Who knows why God does some of the things He does? He doesn't have to explain Himself to us. As long as what is happening doesn't clearly contradict Scripture, it's possible it's God. Right?

Alright folks, I'm coming to this a little late in the day but I thought a little thing that came to mind was a story from "the happiest people on earth" (amazing book-read it!) where they found a preacher the had brought in on others good reports had made a big call for money from the audience(at a tent meeting) and had basically run off with it demos said he didn't want it cos God hadn't blessed it but then had the same guy turn up on his doorstep about a year later, a vagabond. The point being that, while I can judge what these men have said and done as being wrong, I do believe that in there are born-again believers in most instances. They, for whatever reason, have had what was originally a God-given gift and calling polluted and compromised, I know a family with 15 children that had John-Paul Jackson prophesy over their kids years ago and are now finding those prophesies come to pass, also I've listened to the guy speak on prophesy and it has been excellent to a point - the point where he departs from clear scriptural backing. I'm very much in favour judging what is said and done as wrong(if indeed it is wrong) but also looking for the hand of the Lord at work. Many of these problems such as a desire for control etc. are manafested in our own churches aswell, usually toned down slightly. Where people have gifting and calling and there isn't appropriate castening along the way, mistakes and hurts and divisions can happen, however, Jesus said to Peter to "get behind me Satan".The appropriate response, I believe, is to pray for them and take any opportunity to gently and lovingly casten them when required.I dunno if that made much sense but I hope it did and helpsGod Bless from Ireland

I think when we listen to any man we ought to remember, we have to take what they say to God's Word and see if it is scriptural. Even the biggest men of God can make mistakes, because they are man.But we must seek God and not men. Seek what God says and not what men says.Love in Christ Janus

Todd, that's some creepy logic there.I have heard a lot of your opinion, but nothing substantial. This is typical of how misunderstandings spread. Are you not doing the same thing?Like I said before, if you bring forth anything substantial I would be interested in that. And though I'll listen to you because you were there, I can't simply accept your opinions. You probably understand that being in the Vineyard, as it has had it's share of misunderstanding.But we are supposed to accept a man's post-prediction as well as your opinion on the same basis? This doesn't make any sense. If you are in the position to defend, where is your evidence? Did you go there (the Vineyard)?"Can you show me a biblical reference where God spoke to a profit beforehand and told him not to announce it until afterward?"Nothing comes to mind. But I also couldn't show you a reference where this is shown to be sinful. So no conclusion can be drawn. As far as I can tell, this is one of those "biblically neutral" situations. So who are we to say it's not God? "So who are we to say it's not God?"Because using this logic is in effect saying that there is no point, no conclusion as you summed up here:So what? Who knows why God does some of the things He does? He doesn't have to explain Himself to us. As long as what is happening doesn't clearly contradict Scripture, it's possible it's God. Right?So what indeed. Why bother?The way this was construed originally, a "pre-diction" is worthless to state to a congregation after the fact. But you are asking us in effect to believe that this is 'possible'? That's absurd, we don't deal in vague possibility's, that's really scary Todd. To what end will that lead us? Might as well believe Joseph Smith and Jim Jones using that logic. And actually it does contradict scripture, no prophet ever went around stating things after the fact like this. Lets take it one step further. If he had this 'knowledge' before hand and kept it to himself because 'the Lord to him to' then he is without a doubt contradicting scripture and worse He is making God to be a liar by stating that He said something He never said. Why? Because by stating that there was going to be something as devastating as that earthquake and to warn no one is unfounded, is this the way God operates, by telling 'secrets' to His chosen people, only to reveal them later, after the fact?You are right in that God owes us no explanation, but He most certainly requires us to be honest and not deceitful. What effect does this have on the hearers? What kind of speculation would this bring? That this man is more spiritual because God tells him things but hides them from the rest of us dummy's? Though you didn't say it, if we were to start off with the question of whether or not he actually said this then there might be some argument to evidence. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Besides, if you read through his own material (Bob Jones) this is all just newspaper theology, predicting things on the basis of what is observable, possible or on speculationisn't 'prophecy', even if it's stitched together with scripture in clever ways. It's nonsense.For reference, their own words:http://www.whitedoveministries.org/index.phpBut other than that I would stay away from it.Todd, may have misunderstood you here in your intentions and I am one who often struggles to get my thoughts in order and expressed correctly. I also know you fairly well and know that you won't hesitate to point out my own contradictions and I welcome that. But this kind of stuff gets people into all kinds of needless confusion and can cause anxiety's and fears, though they exhort you not to...kind of like the ol 'Don't think of the color red'. Isn't it muddy enough, without all this 'extra' so called 'insight'? Don't we have bigger fish to fry, like getting back to the basics? This all seems but to be a diversion and just lends itself to more and more speculation, and leading people astray.Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; (John 14:29-30)

Crsschk, I want to state right at the beginnig that I think one of the biggest problems here is that you seemed to misunderstand a key element in this whole thing. That it wasn't Bob Jones that told Endy9's congregation about the prophecy. It was Paul Cain. Had that been clear, I think you probably wouldn't have written all you did. But I'll attempt to respond anyway. Here goes...Quote:"Are you not doing the same thing?"I guess the thing is, I'm not publically critisizing ministries. How can I provide substantial evidence that there is no evidence? The burden to back up their stance is clearly on the critisizing party, if they are going to be responsible (especially when challenged). When I hear a claim, especially a negative one, I want to know what it's founded on. I am a historian after all. It's in my bones I guess. It's like instinct now after all I've experienced with these types of things. Quote:"But we are supposed to accept a man's post-prediction as well as your opinion on the same basis?"No, I'm simply showing that you are not justified in outright rejecting it. And if it's not going to be used in a constructive way it should probably be left alone. Quote:"If you are in the position to defend, where is your evidence? Did you go there (the Vineyard)?"I don't think it works that way. Pretend you're the principal at school. A child comes into your office and says, "Johnny punched Jimmy in the face!" "How do you know?" "Well, they have been disagreeing about some things lately, and this morning Jimmy came to school with a black eye." Now is it the principal's job to furnish evidence here that Johnny didn't punch Jimmy or the child's argument is accepted? Of course not, it's the child's job to bring forth his evidence to back up his claim. Obviously in this case his logic is weak and unconclusive.I don't know if I'm in a position to defend. But I am in a position to inquire. Right?Quote:"The way this was construed originally, a "pre-diction" is worthless to state to a congregation after the fact...Lets take it one step further. If he had this 'knowledge' before hand and kept it to himself because 'the Lord to him to' then he is without a doubt contradicting scripture and worse He is making God to be a liar by stating that He said something He never said. Why? Because by stating that there was going to be something as devastating as that earthquake and to warn no one is unfounded, is this the way God operates, by telling 'secrets' to His chosen people, only to reveal them later, after the fact?"It seems clear hear that you missed a key to all of this. For one thing, Endy9 told us that Paul Cain is the one who relayed the information to thier congregation, not Bob Jones himself. This only strengthens Bob Jones prophecy since Paul Cain is now serving as a witness. So clearly Bob Jones didn't keep it to himself (if in fact this information given by Endy9 is correct). Quote:"And actually it does contradict scripture, no prophet ever went around stating things after the fact like this."That doesn't make it contradict Scripture. That makes it a "scripturally neutral" situation. You're making a classic logical mistake. You're using an argument from silence. That's like saying "Chrsit never spoke in tongues." Someone might respond, "How do you know he never spoke in tongues?" They answer, "Because the Scriptures never tell us He spoke in tongues." While this person may be correct, he cannot use what the Scriptures don't say as proof for his view. For another example, the Bible doesn't say Peter had children, but we're not justified in concluding from the Bible's silence on this point that Peter was childless. Quote:"You are right in that God owes us no explanation, but He most certainly requires us to be honest and not deceitful. What effect does this have on the hearers? What kind of speculation would this bring?"In John 2:19 Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews response clearly shows they thought He was referring to the physical temple there in Jerusalem where they go worship. Jesus knew they would misunderstand but He didn't bother clarifying. Was he being "deceitful"? Also check out John 6 when Jesus says things like "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Jesus knew they wouldn't get it. Was He being deceitful? Verse 66 says, 'As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore.'Quote:"But this kind of stuff gets people into all kinds of needless confusion and can cause anxiety's and fears..."If it hadn't been brought up in the first place I probably wouldn't have said anything. But I think more confusion is caused by misrepresenting ministries and sharing opinion as fact. Most of Endy9's post seemed to be shared in this way. At least he threw in there, "That's my read on what happened." Well, others clearly read the whole thing differently. So who am I to listen to? I would appreciate something substantial.Quote:"Isn't it muddy enough, without all this 'extra' so called 'insight'? Don't we have bigger fish to fry, like getting back to the basics? This all seems but to be a diversion and just lends itself to more and more speculation, and leading people astray."I suppose that should be leveled at Endy9 or whoever started this thread.

Lars,A little while back you wrote:"What are your parameters according to which you discern true leadership and true prophetic ministry?To find our way in this jungle where truth, trustworthiness and tenderheartedness are rare commodities, we need to establish heavenly measure and we need to do so with a solid sacrificial attitude."I've been thinking about your question (I think it was directed towards me). I guess I would say Scripture, love, and my relationship with God guide me in these things.

Dear Todd,My question was and is directed to you and to us all for the sake of establishing proper judgment, especially related to this difficult matter. Your answer is welcomed, but I must say that we are to become very mush ore specific in our definition.Mutual correspondence, i.e. a knowing together, a looking for truth in humility together, discernment based on fellowship and openness, all this and much more of the same kind has to be established among us for the sake of apostolic severity and verasity in times when conceit and deception are major traits of our leadership.The individualistic approach is not one which fits the true Church in the processes of everyday life. Doing ones own thing with a small tag saying “This I do and believe in unity with the Spirit”, doing and believing whatever is in focus unrelated to the Body is not in line with a minimum of a measure of Christ.Therefore, what are the parameters to be used in relation to spirituality, to things prophetic, to a solid testimony of the Presence of the Life of Christ in our fellowship and gatherings?Lars

Todd,I'd just like to state that I welcome the discourse and don't mind at all you challenging my testimony. I also want to state that I am not against any man, but against false teaching. If Cain, Jackson and Jones et. al. have repented of the false teaching that only a appointed few apostles can hear from God, then I welcome them as brothers in Christ.I would like to ask a question as food for thought.If Cain and his group had taught that only their small group of self appointed apostles were to spread the Gospel and that the Bible was being misintrepreted by people saying we all are to spead the Gospel, would you be as accepting of "God acting in mysterious ways" through them?Because to me their teaching was as offensive as the above scenario.And this isn't directed at anyone in here, but just an excuse to throw about another of my favorite Ravenhill quotes (grin)...paraphrased"a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. Because he will say 'But brother I lived it'." :-)

Excuse my naivity, I have heard a little of Mr Cain and the Kansas bunch. What happened in regards to them and the vineyard?

Seen it, sorry for the no brainer :oops:

No problem Zeke. I don't always read back through every page of a thread before replying either (smile).

Lars,Quote:"Your answer is welcomed, but I must say that we are to become very mush ore specific in our definition."I don't know that we do. But maybe somewhat more specific will be helpful. I don't have any comprehensive way to judge these things. Some kind of system or something. I feel like if I even attempted to do something like that it would take a book or two. Quote:"Therefore, what are the parameters to be used in relation to spirituality, to things prophetic, to a solid testimony of the Presence of the Life of Christ in our fellowship and gatherings?"I don't know if such objective parameters exist. But maybe here's something more objective... fruit and power. Though I think power is fruit in a way. Or maybe better- fruit is the result/manifestation of power. There's some connection there but I don't know if I'm making it clear. So maybe just "fruit" would be a good general term for now.A little while ago in another thread called "Are too many 'Christians' afraid to be wrong" (post:2004/8/14 17:02), RobertW wrote something very enlightening that I think applies here. I think he put it quite well so I hope he won't mind me restating it here:"As a final thought, Paul said that he would not know the speach of them that were puffed up- but the power (dunamis). Paul discerned the presence of God in their midst as to ascertain their spiritual condition. He did not listen to the words- but the approval of God manifest in the manifestation of His dunamis. Words linked together supposed to be truth are measured in a balance by God and the proof is in the dunamis. If God's Holy Spirit ordered those words at that moment God will show up and confirm it. Moreover, Paul could detect things that did not please God by walking into their company...In Paul's writings we read, "But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?" (I Corinthains 4:19-21 NIV)To Paul it was not about nouns, verbs, and syntax it was an issue of AUTHORITY. What is the litmus test of TRUTH- does God back the words?"I think there's a lot of truth in what Robert says there.

Endy9,You wrote:"I'd just like to state that I welcome the discourse and don't mind at all you challenging my testimony. I also want to state that I am not against any man, but against false teaching."I appreciate your openness and willingness to be challenged and not get overly defensive. Quote:"If Cain, Jackson and Jones et. al. have repented of the false teaching that only a appointed few apostles can hear from God, then I welcome them as brothers in Christ."I don't know that they ever taught that. It hasn't been established that they ever taught that in the first place- and I highly doubt they did.I very much doubt that if I went up to each one of those men you mention indivdually and asked, "Can only a few appointed apostles hear from God?", that any of them would agree with that statement.

Greg, Again, where's your evidence for all of these claims?

A small story to begin with:A couple of years ago I was asked to do some research concerning an American so called prophet, one of the “biggest”, who became popular in Sweden because of his bright predictions regarding this nation.He was found to guilty in regards to certain items and issues. I produced two articles, to be presented to him together with other material by a small group of concerned friends. He rejected our presence, and another of the “biggest” stepped in at his side to say a “You cannot touch the Lord’s anointed”, “You are not allowed to correct the prophet”. “We cannot have those intercessors run around speaking evil of us.” Item one. Prophets do listen. Prophets allow and welcome correction. Sensitivity is a major trait in the character of a prophet. To put John’s words in a slightly warmer fashion; those who have been with Jesus have learnt to listen – John 4:6.Item two. The Cross provides a way to humility. During my interaction with some of these “big” prophets and prophetesses, this has been one major thing irritating and causing doubt as to their fidelity to the pattern of a true prophet. The degree of humility is minimal. Even the humility existing is often a production of man alone.Item three. The Cross provides testimony, a history with God. The only way these men come into prominence is by mutual endorsement and the lack of discernment among the many who are ready and willing to move with the flow for the sake of the sensational. The Cross eliminates itching ears. The Cross provides listening ears.Item four: Fruit is a matter of attitudes and character. Theology is truth in a secondary fashion – but ever so needed. Life and living is truth presented in primary categories. The life of Christ is perfect otherness as compared to the world. This otherness is an uncontestable testimony of the fact of being sent by God –a testimony which is never proven by prediction or strange or sensational behaviour and teachings.These are but four parameters expressed in a simple manner. There are more to come. Any of you can and must make yourself acquainted with, and sit down to formulate, parameters defining true truth. It does not take a book or two to set them right. We have to be able to trust leaders. Therefore, they must come under scrutiny. The Cross is the tool provided as heavenly measure.Lars W.

A small story to begin with:A most excellent post Lars!

Thank you Lars.What helpful expression.Look forward to the continuation of this.Without a doubt if anything is needful in these perilous times it's discernment and having a Berean mindset. That they were more 'noble' I think can be just as misconstrued as anything. Is it not because they were truely seeking the truth as Lars put it more acurately, 'defining true truth'? I think for the most part that is what we are all attempting to do here in this forum though imperfectly.I don't know if 'giving the benefit of the doubt' is applicable to the life of faith. Well meaning is not the same as the Spirit of Truth, we can be just as well decieved if we are not able to take scrutiny without becoming offended. Besides, why of all people should we be? Who want's to hold on to misconceptions, falsehood's and wrong thinking? If it raises your hackles when your 'thus sayeth the Lord' get's questioned that in itself ought to be enough to bring pause.I know this is in a general sense and may not apply to everything said here recently. But another that comes to mind is an assumption that these Berean investigations are character assainations and thus need defending. It may reveal these aspects and if we are honest and attentitive we will likely see our own flaws coming out as well. But I don't believe the intention is to go in with swords ablazing, though in some cases...All this this morning had me wondering what the conversations amongst the Bereans sounded like in those days, not unlike these?

When the true prophets arise we will not be worried about claims such as we hear in these cases. We will be too busy doctoring our blistered ears. The word of their mouth will not be one that gains popularity, but draws forth a rage reaction from the hearers the like of which will appear animalistic to the viewers. They will live but a short while and will be left for dead. Their message is and has always been simple... "REPENT!" Forsake your wickedness- repent and turn back to your GOD for He is slow to anger and desires to deal with you graciously! WHY shall ye die? COME to Him and reason together! Be ye reconciled to your God! Remember the covenant that He made with you when you gave your life to Him- does your God not own you? Were you not bought with a price? Will you not glorify your God in your body that is God's? Why have you taken the love that belongs unto Christ and gave it to another? Where have you hidden that love? Today if you will hear His voice harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation- in the day of temptation in the wilderness when your fathers tempted Him, proved Him, and saw His works 40 years! Was He not grieved with that generation? Did He not sware in His wrath that they would not enter into His rest? Wherefor- if ye desire to receive that Kingdom to which He purchased on the tree receive His grace that thereby you may serve the Lord your God with reverence and godly fear- for your God is a CONSUMING FIRE! When I hear THAT type of message I will hear- not until then.

Crsschk, I want to state right at the beginnig that I think one of the biggest problems here is that you seemed to misunderstand a key element in this whole thing. That it wasn't Bob Jones that told Endy9's congregation about the prophecy. It was Paul Cain. Had that been clear, I think you probably wouldn't have written all you did.Not necessarily, thought it was more about what was said than who said it and when it was said, namely after the fact, a self -validating 'prophecy'. But I did overlook that so thanks for pointing it out.My quote: "But we are supposed to accept a man's post-prediction as well as your opinion on the same basis?" Your replyNo, I'm simply showing that you are not justified in outright rejecting it. And if it's not going to be used in a constructive way it should probably be left alone.On the contrary I believe we are to reject that which contradicts scripture. I don't think this idea of 'neutral' applies the way you have construed it. If you are going to speak in God's stead as a 'prophet' there most certainly is precedence set forth that we can gauge things by, scripture itself. If we don't use that as our barometer then we are left to every mans own thoughts being set forth as 'thus sayeth the Lord' and that is what is a huge concern. And I believe it is highly constructive to hold these things up to the light, again this is not about character assassination it's about what is truth. Partial truth is no truth to quote Katz.It seems clear hear that you missed a key to all of this. For one thing, Endy9 told us that Paul Cain is the one who relayed the information to their congregation, not Bob Jones himself. This only strengthens Bob Jones prophecy since Paul Cain is now serving as a witness. So clearly Bob Jones didn't keep it to himself (if in fact this information given by Endy9 is correct). That was never in dispute, as was originally stated: "Bob Jones predicted the San Francisco earthquake 6 months before it happened, but God wouldn't allow us to tell you that he predicted it until after it happened."This only strengthens it in their eyes and that's the problem, it amounts to here say.Again, what is/was the point in disclosing this after the fact? My concern is only on the hearers and this is just an example we are looking at, go look through their own material. There is a sense of this superiority that only they are privy to and then we are to take it on their word without examination? I don't think so.Besides that, reading through their stuff is just plain nauseating and grievous. It all sounds like fantasy if not fanciful, wishful thinking using endless analogies from scripture to attempt to give validity to their so called 'prophecies'.Think there is scriptural warrant here for sure:Dreamers of dreams.These things have gone out into the church in so many forms, undermining the truth of Gods word. Where and when did everything in scripture become an allegory? It is one thing to draw comparisons on principle, to draw out truth, but is it fodder for mere men to manipulate as they choose, to buttress up their dreams and visions?My quote:"But this kind of stuff gets people into all kinds of needless confusion and can cause anxiety's and fears..."Your reply:If it hadn't been brought up in the first place I probably wouldn't have said anything. But I think more confusion is caused by misrepresenting ministries and sharing opinion as fact. Most of Endy9's post seemed to be shared in this way. At least he threw in there, "That's my read on what happened." Well, others clearly read the whole thing differently. So who am I to listen to? I would appreciate something substantial.I don't see it as either. I believe it is simply not letting things slip by under the guise of 'not offending'. I am certainly thankful that some had the gumption to point out the errors when I was caught up in all this nonsense.Todd, I would appreciate something substantial at all times in this walk of faith. The problem as I see it is that the substance isn't there to begin with, it's not all cut and dry as you or I would like. I know I am talking again in a general sense, wish I could find the exact quote that got this all started recently but if we must here is some more to consider: http://watch.pair.com/counterfeit.htmlAnd keeping in mind that this discussion is not just a dialouge between a couple of people but many others and in that sense it is constructive that these things can be brought into the light.My quote:"Isn't it muddy enough, without all this 'extra' so called 'insight'? Don't we have bigger fish to fry, like getting back to the basics? This all seems but to be a diversion and just lends itself to more and more speculation, and leading people astray."Your reply:I suppose that should be leveled at Endy9 or whoever started this thread.That's not what I meant. The discussion isn't the diversion, it's the chasing after all this speculative so called 'prophecy' that is misleading many into all kinds of fantasy thinking, to not discuss it would be the greater error. To be honest I would much rather not deal with all the messiness that it creates, but can't let that stop me from sounding an alarm. This isn't 'neutral' at all, there is too many ramifications and am glad on the other hand that it is being exposed again. With that is the pointing back to basics, back to the old paths, the narrow path.

I think that a problem arises when we start making people "guilty by association" all the time. You could find negative things about any preacher in the world if you wanted. And i think we are being borderline pharisaical with all of our splitting docrtinal hairs. I know that doctrinal purity is very important, but i believe that we make a much bigger deal about it than God does...For example, If you line up the teachings of Charles Finney (who by some is considered to be a false teacher) next to the teachings of Charles Spurgeon you will find many differences, yet they were both used mighily of God...God is not a respecter of doctrines and God looks at the heart.What would we say about King David, God's annointed and a "man after God's own heart" if he were here today and if he committed the same sinful act that he did with Bathsheba? Would we right him completely off?I recently read Jack Deere's books "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit" and "Surprised by the Voice of God" and I was blessed by them both. He speeks highly of Paul Cain and tells some incredible stories about him. Whether or not the stuff said about him on this thread is true or not i dont know...but i would suggest those books to anyone interested. I also liked most of what John Wimber had to say in his book Power Healing...I think we can get too obsessed with pointing out false teaching that it blinds us to truth. I don't know enough about the KC prophets or Paul Cain or the others to make any more comments but in my opinion we have better things to do than point out the faults of people (much of which is probably second-hand or third-hand info. taken out of context, from anti-charismatic sources)Anyways, thats my two-centsJake Kail

I think that a problem arises when we start making people "guilty by association" all the time. You could find negative things about any preacher in the world if you wanted. And i think we are being borderline pharisaical with all of our splitting docrtinal hairs. I know that doctrinal purity is very important, but i believe that we make a much bigger deal about it than God does...It is hardly that. This is serious error, more like head splitting than hair splitting.I think we can get too obsessed with pointing out false teaching that it blinds us to truth. I don't know enough about the KC prophets or Paul Cain or the others to make any more comments but in my opinion we have better things to do than point out the faults of people (much of which is probably second-hand or third-hand info. taken out of context, from anti-charismatic sources)Big difference between pointing out 'faults of people' and holding up what they are saying and teaching to the unsuspecting. It is quite easy to dismiss things in this way without really investigating it.Read their own words, look through their own site's, who they are promoting and linked to.Why are second-hand sources necessarily assumed wrong? Surely there are those that have an opposite agenda, to just be plain divisive, but there are credible sources, apologetic ministries that are credible and site where they gather their information from. Nor is 'taking things out of context' always a viable defense, some of the things being stated as 'prophecy' and the like are so blatantly ridiculous you couldn't build a context to support it if you tried.By why take my word for it? I am no expert either, I am just appalled and concerned for the brethren that are caught up in all this nonsense as I once was, these people may be sincere but that doesn't substitute pointing out where their teaching and 'prophesying' is false.Here is a cross section of their own sites and those that are pointing out the errors. Look to who they promote, who they are aligned with and what their own people are saying. The associations that are pointed out by the 'opposition' if you will, are freely acknowledged by the ones in question's own sources and links.It's as muddy as it is scary...http://www.propheticroundtable.org/PaulCain/paulcain_intercessory_ministry.htmhttp://www.propheticroundtable.org/Archives/index%20page.htmlhttp://www.propheticroundtable.org/ministry_links.htmhttp://www.bobjones.org/http://www.bobjones.org/links.htmhttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/j08.htmlhttp://www.apologeticsindex.org/c06.htmlhttp://www.letusreason.org/Latrain5.htmhttp://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/quotes.html

I am brand new here. Found some great sermons including Ravenhill. But what do I find lurking - the accuser's of the brethren. I now understand why certain preachers and teachers sermons are not found here, sad! Well maybe I jumping to conclusions, without really knowing the facts .....HMMMMMM.....anyone else here doing that also.Disagreeing with someone's doctrines is one thing but accusing them of being false prophets etc is not going to cut it with Christ, He is not deaf And He knows who is false and who is true. Accusing brothers reveals ones heart and what that person has not learned from Christ.Overcomers to the right and accussers to the left. :-o

Just for clarification E2noch,Are you saying test no one? Do you accept the Rev. Sun Yung Moon, Joseph Smith, The Bai Hai who do claim Christ is God, but also say everyone is God, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. as your Christian brothers/sisters and tell others, don't worry about testing them just accept everyone as the truth?Just curious. Thanks,