Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > A Response on Imaginative Prayer  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Spen replies: Spiritual experiences in our imagination are no different for Christians than for non-Christians or spiritists.

Christians have scripture and the Holy Spirit. Thus, spiritual experiences are different.

quote:

Spen replies: This is sooo different. Far from being something "forbidden," we know that "speaking in tongues" is something that God has actually promised to us. He has told us in scriptures that this can happen among believers.

A promise?

Joel 2:28
"It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions."

John 5:39
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."





Swan,

I believe that the passage you quoted is true and is for today. It does not imply, however, that visions of the dead or experiences with them are in any way allowed in that promise. I am not contesting that the Holy Spirit CAN inspire our imagination and give us visions. I am stating that the Holy Spirit doesn't inspire visions that bring us Jesus and the dead giving us messages.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

BJS
Registered Member


Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 2:56 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth

quote:
Spenlake: "That good experience could have been provided by evil spirits in order to delude you into thinking this technique is a legitimate means of grace and to write a book to lead others into it."


That comment ranks at an all-time high on the Unintentional Comedy Scale.


BJS, sorry but this comment was NOT necessary since I don't think Spen Lake meant it as a joke.




Hence its ranking on the Unintentional Comedy Scale. Big SmileBig Smile


Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Back to Top
 

SwanLake
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I believe that the passage you quoted is true and is for today. It does not imply, however, that visions of the dead or experiences with them are in any way allowed in that promise. I am not contesting that the Holy Spirit CAN inspire our imagination and give us visions. I am stating that the Holy Spirit doesn't inspire visions that bring us Jesus and the dead giving us messages.


OK, I'll grant you, having granny say something to me (something scriptural, by the way) in my imagination is kind of funny but you have a problem with Jesus talking to you??? He's NOT dead, you know.

You've heard of the resurrection, I assume.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey

Back to Top
 

SwanLake
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 3:09 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
See spenlake, it says "test the spirits" not "avoid the spirits".

If an encounter with Jesus reaffirms scripture, that passes the test.

If a spirit says, "give that lady carrying groceries, up the hill, in the rain, at night, a lift", that passes the test.

If a spirit says, "'Man Of War', in the fifth", that fails the test. But here's $5 just in case. Eyebrow


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 5:08 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake

See spenlake, it says "test the spirits" not "avoid the spirits".

If an encounter with Jesus reaffirms scripture, that passes the test.

If a spirit says, "give that lady carrying groceries, up the hill, in the rain, at night, a lift", that passes the test.

If a spirit says, "'Man Of War', in the fifth", that fails the test. But here's $5 just in case. Eyebrow



Swan,

An encounter with Jesus AND the dead in which they interact and give you messages does not affirm scriptures. Spirits that inspire experiences in your imagination with the dead oppose the ordinance of Deut 18. The message communicated is immaterial. A false prophet/spirit may say something that is factual or even true and still be "false" because the methods used are forbidden.

While you have pointed out that I may have what you consider to be "silly" views on Jonah, I would assume that we could both agree that Balaam was a false prophet. He is condemned from Numbers to Revelation. Nonetheless, his prophecies concerning Israel and the Messiah in Numbers 23 are among the most clear in the Old Testament. The message that he gave was factual and "true" but he was false. Why? He was a diviner. He was not a prophet of God. He is not blessed for his message but he is killed as a diviner by Joshua and Israel. I believe that the messages that he had came to his imagination. What he was involved with, however, was forbidden.

Spiritual experiences with the dead that are inspired in our imaginations cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit as this is against the written decree of God. The message communicated does not justify the means that it was obtained.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

SwanLake
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 5:45 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
An encounter with Jesus AND the dead in which they interact and give you messages does not affirm scriptures. Spirits that inspire experiences in your imagination with the dead oppose the ordinance of Deut 18. The message communicated is immaterial. A false prophet/spirit may say something that is factual or even true and still be "false" because the methods used are forbidden.


Jesus told his disciples to leave others alone because "he who is not against us, is for us" and "a house divided against itself cannot stand". So:

1. Jesus is not dead (I hope you affirm this)
2. Jesus and granny spout scriptural truths about love and forgiveness
3. These scriptural truths are not against scripture (a tautology)
4. A house divided against itself can't stand, he who is not against us, is for us, Matthew 12:25, Mark 9, Luke 9
5. There's nobody in the middle, no priest, no channeler, no medium
6. The past is being re-evaluated, the future is not being requested

Personally, there's other methods I don't like that others use, but who am I to say God isn't calling someone to use methods not to my liking?

Like the Jonah indictment and the Nephilim quackery, you hang an awful lot on.... not much of anything.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 6:18 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
An encounter with Jesus AND the dead in which they interact and give you messages does not affirm scriptures. Spirits that inspire experiences in your imagination with the dead oppose the ordinance of Deut 18. The message communicated is immaterial. A false prophet/spirit may say something that is factual or even true and still be "false" because the methods used are forbidden.


Jesus told his disciples to leave others alone because "he who is not against us, is for us" and "a house divided against itself cannot stand". So:

1. Jesus is not dead (I hope you affirm this)
2. Jesus and granny spout scriptural truths about love and forgiveness
3. These scriptural truths are not against scripture (a tautology)
4. A house divided against itself can't stand, he who is not against us, is for us, Matthew 12:25, Mark 9, Luke 9
5. There's nobody in the middle, no priest, no channeler, no medium
6. The past is being re-evaluated, the future is not being requested

Personally, there's other methods I don't like that others use, but who am I to say God isn't calling someone to use methods not to my liking?

Like the Jonah indictment and the Nephilim quackery, you hang an awful lot on.... not much of anything.




Inspiring spiritual experiences withe the dead, which is contrary to scripture is not being "for Jesus." Balaam spoke at length about Israel and Jesus and was still condemned as a diviner. Practicing necromancy doesn't need someone in the middle, just the person that has spiritual experiences with the dead. There is no definition of necromancy that mandates requesting the future in scripture that I am aware of. A spiritist that seeks to "reconcile" with a dead loved one and has spiritually inspired experiences in their imagination with the dead is just as wrong (though the motive may be "noble") as the one who seeks information from the dead on the horse race.

The spiritually inspired experience itself is what is forbidden, not just "bad" or false messages. The fruit is already evident, a sinful action that is forbidden in Deut 18. There is no need to go deeper and consider the message if the method is forbidden. In one sense, this book teaches a person to be their own medium and seek spiritually inspired imaginations to experiences for themselves. The fact that these experiences include the dead, which is forbidden, is obvious that the spirit that inspired them is not the Holy Spirit.

I do believe that Jesus is alive, resurrected bodily, and sitting at the right hand of God the Father. He doesn't come and consort with the dead in our imaginations to bring us messages.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

SwanLake
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 6:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Practicing necromancy doesn't need someone in the middle, just the person that has spiritual experiences with the dead.


http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/n/necromancy.html
quote:

Necromancy

Necromancy is the act of conjuring the dead for divination. It dates back to Persia, Greece and Rome, and in the Middle Ages was widely practiced by magicians, sorcerers, and witches. It was condemned by the Catholic Church as "the agency of evil spirits," and in Elizabethan England was outlawed by the Witchcraft Act of 1604.

Necromancy is not to be confused with conjuring devils or demons for help. Necromancy is the seeking of the spirits of the dead. The spirits are sought because they, being without physical bodies, are no longer limited by the earthly plane. Therefore, it is thought these spirits have access to information of the past and future which is not available to the living. It has been used to help find sunken or buried treasure, and whether or not a person was murdered or died from other causes.

The practice of necromancy has been compared by some to modern mediumistic or practiced spiritualism. Many consider it a dangerous and repugnant practice. Dangerous because it is alleged that when some spirits take control of the medium they are reluctant to release their control for some time.

Necromancy is not practiced in Neo-pagan Witchcraft, but it is practiced in Voodoo.

There are two noted kinds of necromancy: the raising of the corpse itself, and the most common kind, the conjuring or summoning of the spirit of the corpse. A.G.H.


medium? corpse?

Necromancy's etymology comes from two Greek words. "Nekros" which means "corpse" and "manteia" which means "prophesy".

The origins of the word "necromancy" itself comes from the Greek and Roman world where necromancy was practiced as the name might suggest: divination out of corpses.

corpse?

Was there a corpse involved?

quote:

As any kind of sorcerer, necromancers many times have invented their own rituals. The most common objects (but not always essentials) used in these rituals were bones, hair and other parts of animals or even humans.

yuck


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 10:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Swan,

quote:
Swan says: The origins of the word "necromancy" itself comes from the Greek and Roman world where necromancy was practiced as the name might suggest: divination out of corpses.

corpse?

Was there a corpse involved?


If the word "necromancy" offends you, just let it be and deal with the concept behind it. The word "necromancy" doesn't exist in the Hebrew. Deut. 18:10 is the passage and it simply says that to "call up the dead" is detestable to the Lord. What does this passage refer to? What do the Hebrew scholars think that it means? This passage means something and that something is forbidden and detestable to the Lord. Saul was involved with something as well and it didn't involve a corpse.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

1Heart
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 11:43 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Spen replies: Spiritual experiences in our imagination are no different for Christians than for non-Christians or spiritists.

Christians have scripture and the Holy Spirit. Thus, spiritual experiences are different.

"Ezekial saw the wheel, way up in the middle of the air...."




WHAT DOES "SPIRITUAL" MEAN? Biblically, it means "according to the Spirit" -- Holiness.

So, a "spiritual experience" is a REAL event where we are not controled by the passions of the flesh, but instead humbly embrace God's perspective on life.

A "spiritual experience" is an ordinary but greatly humbling event. Like seeing someone like a small autistic child in need, and being humbled at being able to do such a small part in helping him. . .even while being humbled more by his own courage, love, and resiliance under pressure.

Upheld by grace, received as God's creation, supported as His New Creation in Christ. . . given a task and a calling. . . walking by faith. . .


"Spiritual experience" is not "mystical!"





Thank you POW, for the beautiful description of what being spiritual means.

God Bless,
Jo-Anne


"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

Back to Top
 

1Heart
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 11:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake

Swan,

quote:
Swan says: The origins of the word "necromancy" itself comes from the Greek and Roman world where necromancy was practiced as the name might suggest: divination out of corpses.

corpse?

Was there a corpse involved?


If the word "necromancy" offends you, just let it be and deal with the concept behind it. The word "necromancy" doesn't exist in the Hebrew. Deut. 18:10 is the passage and it simply says that to "call up the dead" is detestable to the Lord. What does this passage refer to? What do the Hebrew scholars think that it means? This passage means something and that something is forbidden and detestable to the Lord. Saul was involved with something as well and it didn't involve a corpse.



Spen,

You are obviously making an accusation that is unfounded, so it has nothing to do with being personally offensive, it has to do with perception. You are perceiving this whole thing. It is not based in reality. How much of the book (for about the 6th time now), did you actually read? And why are you so bent on destroying it? If there was necromancy, as Swan outlined - then fine, but there isn't. There wasn't. An actual spirit was not contacted in the book, except the Holy Spirit, and since He is alive and well - necromancy doesn't apply.

Jo-Anne


"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 11:53 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j

Thank you POW, for the beautiful description of what being spiritual means.

God Bless,
Jo-Anne


You can tell John Earp. He needs to hear something nice about me.
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 12:09 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j

Thank you POW, for the beautiful description of what being spiritual means.

God Bless,
Jo-Anne


You can tell John Earp. He needs to hear something nice about me.



PoW,

(EXCELLENT post on spirituality, by the way)

I do think you mean well, I just find the implication unreasonable and possibly arrogant (whether you mean to make the implication or not) that the guys you cite are somehow "spiritual," and thus those who differ with them are somehow NOT spiritual.

From what I can tell of your posts here in the past two years since I've been coming to this forum, you truly do mean well, and you truly do think that you are doing what is right by constantly affirming "the tradition." I just don't see how in doing this you are NOT saying anyone who differs with "the tradition" is somehow less devoted to Christ than he or she should be.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 12:38 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John Earp: PoW,

(EXCELLENT post on spirituality, by the way)


pOw: Thanks.


John: I just find the implication (whether you mean to make it or not) that the guys you cite are somehow "spiritual," and thus those who differ with them are somehow NOT spiritual.

PoW: I don't offer myself as more spiritual. But I try to post the best material I can. Billy Graham for instance.


John: ...you truly do mean well, and you truly do think that you are doing what is right by constantly affirming "the tradition." I just don't see how in doing this you are NOT saying anyone who differs with "the tradition" is somehow less devoted to Christ than he or she should be.

PoW: I have broad background, and a tendency to think I'm right, or "my group" (whatever that may be) is good. But I also think that I have to come humbly before what is best and to aim for that.

Here is something I found:
quote:
The first approach holds that the Church exists wherever the essentials of the apostolic tradition can be found in matters of doctrine, sacraments and ministry. . . For irenic purposes, this approach also holds that, although the Church of Christ exists fully or perfectly in one communion alone, it may be found imperfectly or by participation in others #8209; inasmuch as they, too, possess certain gifts or endowments that belong by right to the one true Church.

My favorite authors are those that have something wonderful to affirm, but also have their eyes wide open, and can critique their own tradition. (Like Schmemann who can talk about Communion, and also lament the same deterioration among his own people as those Protestants his books have helped.)

Do I love Orthodoxy, yes. Do I love the piety of my Roman Catholic friends, yes. Do I prize my years with Wesleyans, yes. Calvinist and Reformed, yes. Evangelicals -- especially. I am interested in how Orthodoxy and Latin Catholics share some things in common, Orthodox and Calvin others. Orthodox and Evangelicals, much -- very much.

Soooo....... when 'times change' and shifts happen, and old Evangelicalism is different from new trends in Evangelicalism. And when "old line" churches are drawing new lines.....THINGS GET REALLY INTERESTING!!!!
Back to Top
 

timlings
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 12:39 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey y'all

Just a few thoughts.

When I was with YWAM, a guy came and spoke about the Father Heart of God. At one point in his teaching he was talking about how God is with us everywhere and all the time, and even the darkness is light to him. He got us to remember a dark memory from our childhood and then, as we played it back in our heads, ask Father to show us where Jesus was in all of it. My memory was of being alone in my house, terrified that murderers were coming to get me. I was in my bed, scared out of my mind. But when I went through that memory, Jesus was there, holding me, in the bed. It was a powerful healing experience.

Now I know that no dead people were involved with that. But my experience of Jesus was real. Father was replaying my memory tapes and showing me how he was there all along, contrary to what I felt at the time. That was a renewing of the mind.

And that renewing of the mind is very important. I do agree that we need to forget what is behind and press on for the goal, but if there are unresolved things in our past, they do hold us back. I will have trouble believing God is with me all the time if I can look back in the past and point out times that I perceived he wasn't. If God changes my thinking about the past, I'll be able to trust him more in the present and for the future.

I think that's my understanding of imaginative prayer. And if memories are quite old, they very possibly may involved dead people!

Another thought. When I was younger, a missionary family we knew died in a plane crash. A younger sibling of mine had not returned a toy to one of the children who died. My mum got her to write a letter to the dead friend as a way of letting go and saying things that needed to be said. Is that 'communicating with the dead' in a way that is forbidden by the bible?

Lots more things I could say, but I have to go to bed.

love in Christ

Timlings

ps. Has anyone read "the final quest" by Rick Joyner? In the vision he has, he gets to talk to dead people! What's that all about??
Back to Top
 

1Heart
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 3:02 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Timlings,
I appreciated what you had to share in your last post. Thank you.

(Timlings)When I was with YWAM, a guy came and spoke about the Father Heart of God.

(Jo-Anne) Our daughter went with YWAM to S. Africa in 2000. She also leads YWAM wilderness leadership camps. I recall her talking about the "Father Heart of God," though I never got a clear picture of what she meant.

(Timlings) At one point in his teaching he was talking about how God is with us everywhere and all the time, and even the darkness is light to him. He got us to remember a dark memory from our childhood and then, as we played it back in our heads, ask Father to show us where Jesus was in all of it. My memory was of being alone in my house, terrified that murderers were coming to get me. I was in my bed, scared out of my mind. But when I went through that memory, Jesus was there, holding me, in the bed. It was a powerful healing experience.

(Jo-Anne) I went through the same thing, at a time when I needed Him, but He "didn't come through for me." How do you explain to people who are being victimized why He holds some and not others, why He stops some from being hurt, but not others. The open view changed how I saw what happened to me. Before, all I could assume was that for some mysterious reason (which I wasn't question), it was part of His plan, or that He didn't want to stop what happened (since He could have). The open view helped me to see that it wasn't just "in God's hands." The whole free will thing, and complexity of creation explains a lot. I know the Father cried over what happened to me, but to stop it He would have had to take away free will.

(Timlings) Now I know that no dead people were involved with that. But my experience of Jesus was real. Father was replaying my memory tapes and showing me how he was there all along, contrary to what I felt at the time. That was a renewing of the mind.

(Jo-Anne) That is wonderful Timlings - and healing. I've come to understand Rom. 12:2 - The renewing of our minds, in a much broader sense than before.

(Timlings) And that renewing of the mind is very important. I do agree that we need to forget what is behind and press on for the goal, but if there are unresolved things in our past, they do hold us back. I will have trouble believing God is with me all the time if I can look back in the past and point out times that I perceived he wasn't. If God changes my thinking about the past, I'll be able to trust him more in the present and for the future.

(Jo-Anne) Sometimes - we need to remember - so we can forget.


(Timlings) Another thought. When I was younger, a missionary family we knew died in a plane crash. A younger sibling of mine had not returned a toy to one of the children who died. My mum got her to write a letter to the dead friend as a way of letting go and saying things that needed to be said. Is that 'communicating with the dead' in a way that is forbidden by the bible?

(Christian counsellors use this as well. It is a way of working through grief and forgiveness. Sometimes you have to do this, because you cannot confront the person, or it is impossible to confront them because: 1) They're dead 2) You don't know who they are (rape) 3) They would hurt you more with their response (retraumatizing) 4) It would destroy others lives unnecessarily. Something that I learned through the whole process is that it is possible to forgive, without trusting again. The two can be separated.

Lots more things I could say, but I have to go to bed.

ps. Has anyone read "the final quest" by Rick Joyner? In the vision he has, he gets to talk to dead people! What's that all about??

(Jo-Anne) I've never read anything by Rick Joyner. Care to comment Spen?

God Bless,
Jo-Anne


"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

Back to Top
 

SwanLake
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
 
   Posted 6/29/2004 5:21 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake

Swan,

quote:
Swan says: The origins of the word "necromancy" itself comes from the Greek and Roman world where necromancy was practiced as the name might suggest: divination out of corpses.

corpse?

Was there a corpse involved?


If the word "necromancy" offends you

Or doesn't fit (no corpse used in imaginative prayer)
quote:

Saul was involved with something as well and it didn't involve a corpse.


But involved a medium. DOH!

Imaginative prayer: no corpse, no medium, no necromancy


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey

Back to Top
 

spenlake
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
 
   Posted 6/30/2004 2:04 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Timlings,

Who was the person that spoke on the Father's love out of curiosity? Was it Jack Winter or James Jordon?

I have read Rick Joyner's book The Final Quest as well as the sequel, The Call. In both books Rick has experiences that he calls open visions in which he believes that he goes to heaven. He meets Jesus in various ways. Often Jesus appears to him in the form of Wisdom. He interviews many saints that he finds there including Adam, Lot, a reformer, and several modern saints. Some of his most extensive interviews are with Paul the apostle.

In the introduction to his book, Rick explicitly states that he is communicating visions that God has inspired and that he is not writing an allegory. He believes that his message and visions are true and necessary to the church today. He believes that his visons aer not necromancy but are given to him by God and Jesus, who actually introduces him to these saints. There is a particular passage that was shocking in which the apostle Paul tells Rick Joyner that his writings should not be considered foundational. This spiritual Paul tells Rick that only Jesus' words in the gospels are foundational. This is in direct contradiction to what we find in scriptures in which Peter calls Pauls writings scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. In 1 Cor 14:38 Paul states that that his writings are authoritative and that if there are those that don't recognize this, then he commands us not to recognize this person.

Who is right? The writings and commands of the Bible or the spiritual experiences and visions that Rick Joyner communicates to us in which the dead claim that what they wrote isn't what they stated while they were alive?

Rick Joyner spoke at the Conference on the Holy Spirit in Minneapolis in the past couple of years along with several other men from the city. It does not seem to be such a good thing in light of what he is claiming to be true.

I believe that the experiences that he has are in contradiction to the commands of Deut 18 and that it is, "detestable to the Lord." If you read both books I believe that there is a similarity in the narratives. Rick Joyner may be sincere and willing to sacrifice for his message but I believe that it is a false message and that he uses forbidden methods to receive it.


Spen Lake

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/30/2004 3:25 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I DON'T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT BOYD'S BOOK, BUT I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH IT IS RELATED TO CERTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS. (VERY DIFFERENT FROM EASTERN TRADITIONS.)


    Notice the difference in the two quotes at the beginning of this article! :

    quote:
    A Comparison of the Mysticism of Francis of Assisi

    With That of St. Seraphim of Sarov


    Originally printed in Synaxis: Orthodox Christian Theology in the 20th Century, Vol. 2, pp. 39-56.


    • "During my prayer two great lights appeared before me (deux grandes lumibres m'ont ete montrees) Œ one in which I recognized the Creator, and another in which I recognized myself."
      Œ Francis' own words about his prayer


    • "The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God."
      Œ Dictum of St. Isaac the Syrian




    SEE www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/st_francis_st_seraphim.htm


    "The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God."




    quote:
    ...St. Isaac of Syria in his Directions says, "A soul which loves God, in God, and in Him alone finds peace. First release yourself from all your outward attachments, then your heart will be able to unite with God; for union with God is preceded by detachment from matter." [11] It is the plain speaking of St. Nilos of Sinai, however, that slashes through with distinct clarity to present a serious juxtaposition to the alleged Divine visitation that Francis experienced. In the Text on Prayer, he admonishes: "Never desire nor seek any face or image during prayer. Do not wish for sensory vision or angels, or powers, or Christ, lest you lose your mind by mistaking the wolf for the shepherd and worship the enemies — the demons. The beginning of the beguilement (plani) of the mind is vainglory, which moves the mind to try and represent the Deity in some form or image. [12]


    and then...

    quote:
    Francis' ecstatic prayer was answered, but in the light of both St. Isaac's and St. Nilos' counsels, clearly not by Christ. The chronicle says that "Francis felt himself completely transformed into Christ," transformed not only in spirit, but also in body, i.e., not only in spiritual and psychological sensations, but also in physical ones. While granting that Francis was fully convinced that he had been spiritually taken up to the Logos, the rise of special physical sensations cannot, according to St. Isaac, be ascribed to the action of a spiritually good power.

    Francis' physical sensations can be explained as the work of his own mental imagination moving parallel to his spiritual ecstasy. It is hard to say, in this given instance, which was dominant in Francis' beguilement (plani): his spiritual pride, or his mentalism (mental imaging); but, in any case, the mentalism was rather strong. This is confirmed by the substantive circumstances of the unusually complex vision which was presented to Francis after he felt himself completely transformed into Jesus which is clearly a very severe state of plani, having its roots, as St. Nilos says, in vainglory.

    The exaggeratedness of Francis' exaltation, which was noted in the description of his vision, is revealed very boldly when compared with the majestic vision of Christ which St. Seraphim of Sarov experienced while serving as a deacon on Great Thursday of Passion Week. [13]



    quote:
    ...it should be noted that the highest spiritual state, attained through the way indicated by the ascetics in the Philokalia, develops in a person's heart outside the mental and sensual spheres, and, consequently, outside the sphere of mental imagination. Abba Evagrios in his Texts on Active Life — To Anatolios, says:

    The mind will not see the place of God in itself, unless it rises above all thoughts of material and created things; and it cannot rise above them unless it becomes free of the passions binding it to sensory objects and inciting thoughts about them. It will free itself of passions by means of virtues, and of simple thoughts by means of spiritual contemplation; but it will discard even this when there appears to it that light which, during prayer, marks the place of God. [16]

    The experience of man's mystical union with God is, therefore, usually very difficult to convey in human terms. It happens, however, that visions are allowed people who have cultivated passionlessness in themselves, but in the majority of these cases these visions are momentary, and they strike the inner being of the person — they come as if from within. St. Isaac the Syrian elaborates: "If you are pure, then heaven is within you; and in yourself you will see angels, and with them and in them, the Lord of Angels." [17] The Fathers of the Orthodox Church teach that all these experiences are beyond any expectation of the humble man, for the ascetic in his humility does not feel himself worthy of this.

    Recapitulating St. Seraphim's experience, it can be seen that it bore the following characteristics:

    * Simplicity;
    * Repentance;
    * Humility;
    * An unexpected vision beyond sensory and rational categories;
    * Spiritual ecstasy or ravishment.

    Emphasizing the last item, St. Isaac, quoted above, explains: "…the contemplation of a hyper-conscious vision, granted by Divine Power, is received by the soul — within itself immaterialy, suddenly and unexpectedly; it is discovered and revealed from within, because, in Christ's words, 'the kingdom of heaven is within you' — This contemplation inside the image, imprinted in the hidden mind (the higher intellect) reveals itself without any thought about it." [18]



Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/30/2004 3:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Notice that the list that the Orthodox monks would put together would just include:

    Simplicity

    Repentance

    Humility

    NOT expect(ing) visions beyond sensory and rational categories

    "Spiritual" ecstasy -- that is "immaterialy" and not physically, emotionally -- defined as realization that discovered and revealed from within that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you.' THIS is not a permanent high, but, perhaps, seeing clearly when the veils of earlthy care are at their "thinnest" (to use C.S.Lewis' word).



.

Billy Graham's list would include two things: Scripture reading daily (he's never missed a day), and constant prayer (he does not stop!) To that the monks would add "ascesis"/discipleship -- which Mr. Graham does anyways!!!


Back to Top
 

timlings
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
 
   Posted 7/1/2004 1:36 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey

Thanks for the response Spenlake and Jo-Anne

The Father Heart of God is basically a load of teachings, from Floyd McClung originally, about what the heart of God is actually like. How do we see him? Is He distant, cold, unapproving or is he near, warm and accepting? There was some pretty amazing stuff in there - do we believe that God wants to touch us, to hold us, to make contact? The teacher gave an example of a friend who, whenever he woke up in the night, would assume God wanted him to pray. Whilst praying, he felt God say to stretch out his hands, and as he did he felt some feet [with holes in...]!

Spenlake, it was Richard Lehey James, from YWAM London. Awesome guy..incredibly anointed, yet very humble too.

Rick Joyner...

Knew that would raise a few eyebrows. I won't say much...

quote:
There is a particular passage that was shocking in which the apostle Paul tells Rick Joyner that his writings should not be considered foundational. This spiritual Paul tells Rick that only Jesus' words in the gospels are foundational. This is in direct contradiction to what we find in scriptures in which Peter calls Pauls writings scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. In 1 Cor 14:38 Paul states that that his writings are authoritative and that if there are those that don't recognize this, then he commands us not to recognize this person.


Good point. I understand what Joyner writes is saying is not that Paul isn't scripture. Rather, we should build our doctrines on Jesus, and then use Paul as embellishments of that (if that makes sense...).

Doesn't Paul himself distinguish commands that come from Jesus, and then stuff that's his?

But this is all getting off subject, kinda.

Best go to bed

love in Christ

Timlings
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 7/1/2004 1:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I can hardly believe I'm agreeing with spenlake on this, but I have to say a hearty AMEN!!! to spen's observations about Joyner's books and teachings. A false prophet if ever there were one. Joyner almost makes me want to repent of being a tongue-talker.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

timlings
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
 
   Posted 7/2/2004 1:10 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John Earp

I probably shouldn't be replying to your post...but hey.

I have personally found the writings of Rick Joyner and Morning Star Ministries incredibly helpful and powerful. I know that no one's got it all right and some people have got it downright wrong. However, I wouldn't call him a false prophet. What are the biblical standards for using that label? I know that he's a bit on the "far out" side of Christianity. But prophets often are. Where the Holy Spirit moves brings controversy, and has done throughout history.

"An Ark? Noah, are you mad?"
"Leave Ur? Abraham, are you mad?"
"Lead the Israelites? Moses, are you mad?"

I would be challenged rather than call someone a false prophet. From Joyner's writings, he's got an awesome love of scripture. A word from God is more precious than all the treasures in the world! However, he says that he loves Truth, not just a particular truth.

Can we have a bit of dialogue on what Joyner was talking about re: Paul's writings? He wasn't saying the epistles aren't scripture. I think he challenging our order of importance of scripture hermeneutically. Surely we put what Jesus teaches above, say, what Leviticus teaches? We don't ignore the Levitical laws, but interpret them in the light of Jesus. The same is with Paul's writing. We interpret what he's written in the light of Jesus and his teachings.

Is that making any sense?

love

Timlings

ps. If this is getting off topic, I could start another thread??
pps. what's a 'tongue-talker'?
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 7/2/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Timlings,

A "tongue-talker" is one of the names we Pentecostals go by. Bandit

As to Joyner's stuff, I find that it is at best fanciful and at worst plainly unscriptural, if it is judged by the standard of the Bible.

I'm not really interested in digging out his books right now, but if you would like to post a short excerpt of his that is representative of his work, I would be more than happy to point out what I see as wrong with his approach. Primarily, the main thing that concerns me about Joyner is that with him virtually everything is an allegory, and virtually every event has a "prophetic" meaning.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

1Heart
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
 
   Posted 7/2/2004 5:48 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.


Hi Timlings,
I like your post on this, and the questions that it raises.

(Timlings) Is He distant, cold, unapproving or is he near, warm and accepting?

(Jo-Anne) He feels distant (often), but He is not. A friend recently commented that He is spiritual and His presence is manifested in the physical realm, and that we are physical and our presence is manifested in the spiritual realm.

How spiritual is it to confess that we don't always feel His presence? But honestly, if we are totally honest, we don't always.

(Timlings) There was some pretty amazing stuff in there - do we believe that God wants to touch us, to hold us, to make contact?

(Jo-Anne) With the new covenant Judaism went from referring to the Father in a reverent way (having to wash 7 times before even saying
God's name to being able to approach him as "Abba!" "Father!" Yes, I believe that He wants to touch us, that He touches us in so many ways, if we are open to His Spirit (even Cataphatic prayer!), that He wants to hold us, and that He definitely wants to make contact. This, to me, is the Father heart of God.

(Timlings)Rick Joyner...
Knew that would raise a few eyebrows. I won't say much...

(Jo-Anne) You're right Timlings. It raised mine, but you know what? He may believe some things that may seem far out, but grace makes room for us all. The Father took all of these things that were considered foolish, or odd, or imperfect, and made them righteous in His blood.

God bless you too.

Jo-Anne


"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads