1/ re: "spirit of accusation"
If we overcome the Revelation 12 accuser by the blood of the Lamb & the word of our testimony, then why are so many sounding the alarm about "spirit of accusation" instead of applying the Blood & the Word by faith?
2/ According to the text, that spirit is not overcome by contending against a public narrative. The Blood of the Lamb, and word of your testimony don't require videos, articles, posting on social media, or sermons... But controlling narrative does, so does controlling perception
3/ So why aren't the "spirit of accusation" crowd just applying what the scripture says overcomes the accuser?
Maybe 1 reason is that the Blood only atones for REPENTANT hearts, & does nothing where there is impenitence.
4/ Does it seem to anyone else that many who have been teaching on "accuser of the brethren" as something operating against them in the church are the same people hiding or aiding scandals as revealed/exposed in the last couple years?
5/ Joyner & Bickle at the top of that list, & those who bought into their ideas.
Joyner, at the 2008, & 2019 exposures of Todd Bentley cried "accuser of the brethren". He cried this again when Bickle began to be exposed. Rick "I know the accuser, and this is the accuser"
6/ How many others ministers, with credible accusations verified OFTEN by more than the required 2-3 witnesses, are crying "accuser, absalom, leviathan". They are controlling narrative, & perception but impenitent, they are in fact unrighteous.
7/ In light of the oft abused text of Rev 12 by abusers, it just might be the tell tale sign that someone is an abuser by their use of Rev 12 to deflect scrutiny from themselves. That sure seems to be the tendency when scanning this trend over the last 25 years.
8/ so be warned: When someone is pointing their own finger "accuser of the brethren, Absalom, Leviathan"... because there is a well confirmed history of those same people with piles of mangled souls in the wake of their "ministries".
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ the narrative here is not true. Clement prophesied about a praying president who would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Clement himself wrote in an article that this was about Obama; though the NARish narrative is that this prophecy is about Trump. It never was.
2/ Clement: "the Spirit of God spoke a prophecy through me, saying that He would fill the next President with the Holy Spirit while he was in office. Well, why would that change suddenly because a Democrat was chosen? Yes, He can and YES HE WILL!" 65583.stablerack.com/Articles-?blog…
3/ read the 5th paragraph in the last link. He is speaking directly and specifically about Obama. The "Praying President" prophecy cannot be about Trump.
How then do so many believe that it is about Trump?
1/ Another Tale From Jerry's Dairy:
The Ever Evolving Angelic Visitation
I have heard or read at least 4 accounts from Jeremiah about his angelic visitation he claims to have had at the 2018 Vision Conference hosted by Morningstar Ministries.
2/ Jerry spoke at the morning sessions of Dec 29th & 31st. In both of these sessions he referenced an angelic visitation he claimed to have had the night of the 28th/morning of the 29th.
Audio of his prophecy and references:
3/ He prophesied at the beginning the 12/29 session, "there will be a boom in the upper room in 2019". Just 9 days earlier, Josiah Johnson posted on Facebook almost word for word the same thing. More on that later.
1/ Brown's statement on the Mercy Culture video 55:16-56:00
"I would dispute the credibility of the two people that claimed they saw Sarah sitting on my lap i would dispute their credibility and whether their their testimony withhold in the court of law, to be candid."
2/ "This picture that's painted I mean people said "Well she sat I read it on the internet she sat on your lap and you groped her and kissed her on the lips." Never happened absolutely categorically not."
The 2 witnesses he refers to are Gregg Montella, & Kat Marialke
3/ Kat texted Brown that she saw first hand Sarah sitting on his lap.
1/ What this teaching will not cover:
It will not cover the issue and warning of offending one of the little ones who believe in Jesus, effectively CAUSING them (according to Jesus) to lose their faith.
2/ It will not cover the fact that Jesus puts far more weight of the responsibility of offense on the person who is causing the offense than He does on the person who takes offense
3/ This teaching is NOT the full counsel of God on the topic- not even close. In that it is presented as the full counsel when it is partial at best, it is dangerous. It's been weaponized against people over the decades now
1/ This mentality can prevail when NT contexts are not understood.
Drawing from Act 15, James was not the final voice, the only voice, or the pharoah at the top of the pyramid of man's petty kingdom
2/ the Acts 15 controversy broke out it says, "men came down from Judea and taught the BRETHREN..."
in 15:2b "THEY determined that..." grammatically and contextually understood, the BRETHREN or the whole church was involved, & THEY determined to send Paul, Barnabas, et al
3/ The discussion takes place & consensus is reached. in verse 22 "then it please the apostles & elders, w/ the WHOLE CHURCH..."
do you see this OTHER entity involved? They were not just rear ends in seats & and cash in offering plates... they were functional, & not subjugates
1/ De-weaponizing 'Offense' teaching:
the issue of offense is weaponized to have a narrative control in church abuse situations.
100% of the time the teaching on offense LEAVES OUT 3 people that the scripture explicitly mentions when it comes to 'offense'.
2/ Jesus was offended, and He said so out of his own mouth to Peter...
"Get behind me, satan, for you are an OFFENSE to Me..."
was Jesus unspiritual? Being carnal? Overly sensitive? Just having a bad day?
3/ Paul was offended and he penned it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... in a passage describing his suffering
"Who is made to stumble (skandalon, offended), and I do not burn with indignation?"
Was Paul unspiritual, being carnal, overly sensitive, just plain bitter??