Sorting out the history of true Christianity from that of the apostate Antichrist Roman church

I thought I had a pretty good grasp of church history and of the antichrist nature of the Catholic Church, but what I've been learning recently shows me that not only my own education in this area but what the Protestant churches in general know is sadly deficient. And I've heard some very good teaching on church history so this is saying something.

I'm talking about what I've been learning recently through Chris Pinto and Brannon Howse at their websites, and now this morning from Mike Gendron (pro-gospel.org), an ex-Catholic who seeks to educate Catholics to the truth, who was Howse's guest on today's radio show.

Much of the confusion comes from the fact that there are two different streams of church history, the Catholic and the Protestant, and it is possible to read a Catholic history without being aware that you are absorbing false propaganda. I'm sure that's happened to me many times. Getting the true history straight is not easy for the average reader.

A caller from the UK on Howse's program this morning referred to a book about the history of Christianity in England by Charles Bullock, titled The Story of England's Church written in the 19th century, which is online at Google Books. Wish I could copy out some of it. It's the sort of information that all Protestant churches should have been making a major effort to teach their people all along, so that no Protestant could ever be deluded that Roman Catholicism is a Christian church which so often happens.

Broader knowledge of this kind of information would have protected many individuals and even denominations from their own leanings in the direction of that apostasy that unfortunately seems to be growing these days, and it would have made a much stronger base for helping Catholics escape. It's certainly true that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but of course we cannot remember it unless we are taught it if it is a past before our time.

What I've been learning from these ministries is that the Roman Church was recognized very early on as the seat of the Antichrist, at least back to the first Waldensians, who fled to the mountains upon recognizing the Pope as the Abomination of Desolation sitting in the temple making himself out to be God, as scripture warns us is to occur. I'd otherwise had the notion that it was the Reformers who first identified the papacy as the Antichrist system. I also hadn't digested the fact before that the Pope by receiving the sort of worship he receives does make himself out to be God, if the title "Vicar of Christ" weren't enough of a clue [and the Roman numerals in that title as written in Latin -- VICARIVUS FILII DEI -- add up to 666, by the way (The phrase means "In the place of, or substitute for, the Son of God")]. I've also learned that the Great Apostasy or falling away was attributed to the doctrines of the Roman Church all the way back to the early church as well, and that the apostasy was a thing that grew over the centuries so that it is hard to identify the exact point at which it was fullblown. Perhaps by the time of the first official Pope at least, which was in the late 6th century. I've also learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Emperor Constantine was not a true Christian convert since he continued to affirm the pagan religions that a true Christian would have abandoned completely, and that it's even possible he may have confused Christ with the pagan god Sol Invictus.

From this fuller view of history it's easier to see how some would not necessarily be expecting a final individual to be the Antichrist, as he's been in the world all these centuries. It certainly makes clear that Nero was NOT the Antichrist as some argue -- was THAT familiar idea a Roman concoction perhaps?

There's plenty of reading on this subject on the internet. Just following out the entries on this Google page should keep you busy for a while. I see that Michele Bachmann's church rightly says that the Pope is the Antichrist but of course the entry on that has the usual politically correct spin, which in this case is the Roman Catholic slant. I particularly appreciate Ian Paisley on this subject. He's a fire-and-brimstone Irish preacher whose style of preaching can be rather offputting, but I became a fan when he was shown in one of Chris Pinto's films confronting the Pope as the Antichrist when he was speaking in British Parliament [correction:  that's the European Parliament, and Dr. Paisley is more than just a preacher, he's also a high-ranking government leader in Ireland with a chair in the European Parliament]. THAT's the spirit of Protestantism we need more of.

One recent comment by Chris Pinto on a radio show caught my attention as he took to task Marshall Foster who said something to the effect that after Constantine legalized Christianity the Roman Empire furthered the spread of the gospel. Chris Pinto objected that all the Roman Empire did was spread the apostate Christianity of the Roman Church. I need this sorted out better. I hadn't heard of Marshall Foster before, but I have heard teaching along the lines that the Roman Empire was one of God's means for spreading the gospel. This goes along with other teaching I've heard that God chose to send the Lord Jesus into the world when Koine Greek was the universal language so that the gospel writings could be easily disseminated, AND when the Roman Empire with its wide reach made travel easy. God of course disposes all things, and the gospel did spread throughout Europe, but did the legalization of it through Constantine aid that or not? The idea is that after the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Emperors were lifted it was easier for the evangelists to do their work, along with the idea that the fact that Roman institutions were established all over Europe, even just the Roman roads, facilitated the spread of the gospel as well. This may be something along the lines of what Marshall Foster had in mind, but of course I don't know. And even if so, Chris Pinto may be right that the legalization of Christianity didn't aid anything but the spread of apostasy and Marshall Foster simply has the usual Catholicized version of history that we are all so easily made prey to. Or perhaps there's some truth in both views.

That reminded me of a book I read a few years ago about the effect of Christianity in changing the world for the better, Alvin J. Schmidt's Under the Influence. As I recall, the book presents the effect of the spread of Christianity (and I believe he attributes this effect partly to Constantine's legalization of the religion) as specifically fostering humane treatment of the sick and suffering, including rescuing newborn infants left to die and the aged who were also put out on the street to die, by first taking such victims in and caring for them but then by establishing hospitals and orphanages. He also credits Christianity with liberalizing society's attitude toward women through the model of Christ, also with paving the way for true empirical science because of Christianity's view of God as a God of law and order, unlike the gods of the pagans.

But now after seeing Chris Pinto's films I recognize that Schmidt misrepresented Francis Bacon as a Christian, who was an occultist. He also wrote a reference book about secret societies in America, which clearly presents them as benign positive influences, quite the opposite of what Chris Pinto's films reveal.

The plot thickens.

Another misreading of Cahn's "Harbinger"

Proverbs 18:13: He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him

This review by a pastor Gary Gilley starts out positive about the book, though not in a particularly relevant way in my opinion, but then veers off into a serious misreading of the essential message:

So far so good. But then Cahn determines that Isaiah 9:10-11 contains a hidden second prophecy directed not to ancient Israel but to modern America.

No, Jonathan Cahn did not "determine" any such thing. What happened is that he OBSERVED that certain elements described in Isaiah 9:10, that demonstrate Israel's defiance of God's judgment of their nation, ALSO ACTUALLY LITERALLY OCCURRED OR "MANIFESTED" IN AMERICA in connection with 9/11.

Literally. Actually. Physical things: bricks, a hewn stone, a sycamore tree, a conifer tree, plus some speeches by American leaders that quoted this very scripture or echoed its spirit. This is based on the simplest possible reading of Isaiah 9:10, nothing added to it.

At this point the author massages Scripture and current events in an attempt to prove that God’s judgment on the United States has been hiding in these verses from the day they were given by Isaiah, but have now been unlocked by the careful investigation of Cahn.

Nonsense! Did this reviewer actually read this book? This is absurd and unjust.

Nothing could be further from the truth and, even more importantly, once someone decides they can cherry-pick verses at will, change the meaning of these texts to fit his theories and use random hermeneutical methods, anything can be “proven.”

Which I'm afraid describes what this reviewer has done to Jonathan Cahn! The reviewer has read all kinds of things into his book that simply are not there. Is this perhaps his own theology that he is imposing on Cahn?

Bottomline: The Harbinger is a semi-interesting novel that exposes the pride and sinfulness of America and God’s distain for such rebelliousness. But the novel does not in reality discover a mysterious Old Testament prophecy about America. Read as fiction with an important point, the book has value. Read as a prophecy, it is dangerous.

As I mention in my previous post, it's becoming clear that "Harbinger" takes some effort to really get the message to avoid some pretty odd misunderstandings, but sometimes it sounds like the critic didn't even really read the book or listen to Cahn's talks.

I could repeat my own description of what the book is about but I've repeated it so many times now I figure anyone who wants to won't have a hard time finding it-- label or key word "Jonathan Cahn" should do it.

Brannon Howse interviews Jonathan Cahn on "Harbinger"

Thank you, Brannon Howse, for having Jonathan Cahn on your radio program and giving him a chance to explain his "Harbinger" revelation. I hope this is sufficient to answer the misunderstandings expressed by Jimmy DeYoung about the book on a previous show.

I recognize that one doesn't necessarily have to read a book or see a movie to understand enough about it to criticize it fairly, but the more I hear about people's reactions to Jonathan Cahn's study the more I have to appreciate that it's a difficult message to grasp unless you spend some time thinking about it. Not that you have to have read the book but you do have to understand what he's actually saying, and apparently that's not easy to get UNLESS you either read the book or hear his talks.

The ways people have managed to misunderstand the message are a bit boggling. Cahn himself was boggled at the thought that anyone would accuse him of "replacement theology" but I guess it is possible to get that out of it if you don't spend enough time really thinking it through.

(I don't consider myself to be into replacement theology either, but I may be more in that direction than Jonathan Cahn is -- I certainly don't think physical Israel has been replaced by the Church, but I do think that the Church IS "Israel" in the spiritual sense, so that all who are saved and born again in Christ ARE spiritual Israel, and I believe scripture says that Abraham himself looked to a spiritual "land" -- although God certainly DID give physical Israel to his descendants. So there is no doubt yet a role left for physical Israel to bring glory to God as this wrecked and groaning planet reels to its soon-coming end -- but enough, I've posted on this recently already.)

It also seemed to me to be a handicap for Brannon Howse that he hadn't been able to read the book or find out much more about the "Harbinger" before doing the interview, as he seemed not to really "get it" for most of the interview, though maybe it was getting through to him more by the end. Cahn seems to be having to work extremely hard just to get the basics across. This message is more important than that, and I hope Brannon Howse will eventually find some time to give it some real thought.

I get that if you really believe God has given up on America you may not see the point of putting much effort into trying to understand a message which is really a call to repentance, but it seems to me that God's giving us these signs or omens or harbingers MIGHT suggest that He's still giving us time to repent despite it all.

Maybe not, maybe they are just supposed to stand as mute testimony against America just as the same signs were against ancient Israel, so that we really are doomed.

But again, God's even allowing this book to come out DOES suggest that we may still have some time IF the churches were to wake up and seek God in earnest. I personally think God's people and especially pastors and other leaders should be CALLING THE CHURCHES TO RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE OF THE HARBINGERS WITH REPENTANCE, PRAYER AND FASTING BEYOND ANY LEVEL OF COMMITMENT WE'VE EVER EVEN THOUGHT OF DOING BEFORE, instead of sitting back and ASSUMING we're doomed. [Sigh. Feel I must add here, days later, that I'm again assailed with the doubt that this could happen without the interference of all the antichrist forces now occupying what used to be orthodox churches, even the inclusion of Mormons and the Pope, ai yi yi yi. How I wish we could have such prayer for revival and leave all of them out of it, or make prayer against them an effective part of it.]

Just have to post for the umpteenth time Jonathan Cahn's talk on this from 2005 (I'd post the most recent one but it's not available online:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXei0Zb3dxM

O Christians, shake off the influence of the higher critics of the Bible, it's all the devil's smoke and mirrors

I've come to believe that Chris Pinto's films should be seen by all Christians -- they've been feeding my own concerns in my blogs for a couple weeks now, from American politics to the Bible disaster of 1881 to End Times developments in general, and especially have illuminated the horrifically evil involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in these things.

CHRISTIANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS.

Some of his radio shows should be heard too (I don't know what a "podcast" is, as opposed to a broadcast, but apparently that's what they are). His recent radio shows (March 26 and 27 at least) cover important information about the "higher criticism" of the Bible and how it can undermine the faith of Christians.

A GREAT MANY CHRISTIANS INCLUDING PASTORS ARE DECEIVED ABOUT BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP AND THE NEW TRANSLATIONS.

I was very happy to hear Pinto quote the first Psalm as an admonition to those who accept the counsel of unbelieving critical scholars such as Bruce Metzger:

Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Walking in the counsel of the ungodly is exactly what Christians are doing who accept the judgments of a Bruce Metzger. Sure, the ungodly may be great scholars in some ways, but on this subject which involves all kinds of subjective judgment calls about the history of Bible manuscripts, definitely not to be trusted.

This issue is very much like the evolution-creation issue, in which the evidence is also soft, largely a matter of mental gymnastics asserted as if it were fact, and when an unbeliever promotes such evidence it should NOT be accepted by believers.

Chris Pinto discusses Bart Ehrman on the recent radio programs, who claims to have been turned away from his original Christian belief in the inerrancy of scripture by this sort of evidence, evidence which gives an early date for a corrupt manuscript which, if accepted as valid, casts doubt on the traditional view of scripture as God's word. Ehrman was trained by Bruce Metzger. He's quite convinced, but such evidence is easily counterfeited.

Pastors and teachers who accept the judgments of a Bruce Metzger may think they are just being intellectually honest but this kind of work undermines the faith of many in the churches and can't help but do so. If they are convinced that all God's word is not all God's word, the faith of honest Christians WILL be shaken, and that undermines the power of witness in the churches.

This is the devil's work for sure.

Rumors of a soon-coming disaster

OK, after complaining about Brannon Howse's guests the last couple of days now I want to post today's radio broadcast (March 22) in which he brings up a topic he's touched on before, about indications that something disastrous is in the air. Here's the page for today's program (They're only available to the public for two weeks, then you have to subscribe to his Situation Room to have access to them).

23:10 They are discussing the recent updating of the executive order for emergency preparedness to extend the measure to NON-emergency conditions -- giving the government (the President) power at his discretion to take control of food, power, energy, health and transportation resources, and "all other material facilities and services" -- to create a condition of martial law.

At about 27.00 Brannon Howse asks if this might be connected to the recent revelation from an Iranian spy for the US that there are hundreds of Iranian sleeper cells in America waiting for some signal to start attacking some 800 sites.

Some hints or rumors include:

1) Law enforcement organizations have been getting directives that don't talk in terms of just being prepared IF we have some kind of disaster, but in a tone of certainty that such an event IS going to happen soon.

2) The government is showing signs of unusual activity in the direction of preparedness for something pretty enormous, construction of what may be an underground shelter or bunker under the White House lawn, plus a huge order of emergency food supplies (29:00) by some government agency, plus other emergency supplies and ammunition.[31-34.26 commercial break.]

3) Increase in spying equipment that can find out anything about anybody. Through chips being built into appliances, also anything on the internet is monitored, also all phone calls are monitored. (around 34.30+ ) "Don't ever assume whatever you say on the phone is private." Also all religious websites are being monitored.

4) 45:40 - Why you might want to start buying extra food to keep on hand in case there is a food shortage. 46.40 - 47.15 (Commercial 48:15 - 51:15).

No, there cannot be ACCEPTABLE animal sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple after Christ has come

I fairly recently discovered Brannon Howse and most of the time I appreciate his messages, but every now and then he supports a point of view that I decidedly don't agree with and that's happened a couple of times recently, both times a view given by a guest on his radio show.

I blogged a few times recently (below) on the remarks of Jimmy DeYoung on Jonathan Cahn's "Harbinger" which there's no point in repeating here. I'm looking forward to finding out what Brannon has to say after he's done some more research into this -- will he agree with DeYoung or Cahn?

Now today, March 21st, his guest was Dr. John Whitcomb, and I nearly fell off my chair* at what he said about the idea that during the millennium when Christ is reigning on the earth the temple will be reinstated and so will animal sacrifices as they were done in the Old Testament. [*Actually I shouted "EXCA-YOOOZE ME???" so loud I must have shaken up a few neighbors. Sorry, folks.]

I know of John Whitcomb particularly for his being co-author with Henry Morris of the 1961 book The Genesis Flood, which is credited with launching Young Earth Creationism as it is known today, and was probably the main reason I got so interested in the subject too. The only problem I'm aware of having with Whitcomb's views is that he argues for a ten-thousand rather than a six-thousand year old earth, for which I can't find any Biblical justification, and has said so on Howse's program too.

But here's what he said today (this all starts at about 37.20 into the broadcast). This was in answer to a listener's question how there could be a reinstitution of animal sacrifices after Jesus came to die for our sins, and particularly in the context of the Millennium when Jesus would be ruling physically on the earth. (The Millennium is interpreted by some to refer to a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth yet to come, after His Second Coming when His appearance ends the seven-year period of the rule of the Antichrist. The prophecies regarding this period are interpreted to include the reestablishment of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the main purpose of the Temple in Old Testament times was for animal sacrifice.)

Whitcomb says he studied this question for many years and discovered something about it that "thrills his heart and soul," whidch is basically that the Old Testament animal sacrifices were

"NOT TO TAKE AWAY SIN" but "to protect people from premature destruction when they entered the holy presence of God."

Here's where I woke up any dozing neighbors.

He goes on to explain that when Israel was about to come out of Egypt and God had them paint the blood of a lamb on their door frames, God said

"When I see the blood I will pass over you, NOT "save you." Not "regenerate you" but "pass over you." "I will not destroy you prematurely."

He further says that in the Millennium the sacrifices

will be a teaching aid, a visual aid of the holiness of God. They are not for the purpose of being saved, not to have their sins cleansed away as only the blood of Christ can do that and they will be taught that fact, but only to be a visual aid of the holiness of God, and the need for faith in the finished work of Jesus Messiah to be saved and accepted to God.

It is this sort of twisting of the scripture that is the main thing that keeps me from embracing the end times pre-trib rapture interpretations. They make some very good arguments until they get to the Millennium in which they posit these reinstated sacrifices and try to rationalize them as not the obvious blasphemy they are after the advent of Jesus Christ who IS our sacrifice for sin. It's not that there isn't scripture for such a reinstatement, but there is the problem that they WOULD BE BLASPHEMOUS. And besides, at the midpoint of the seven-year period of the Antichrist's reign scripture is clear (if you accept this interpretive scheme) that this wicked world ruler will put an end to the sacrifices that would have been instituted in the Jerusalem temple sometime in the previous 3-1/2 year period. Since they are blasphemous it makes no sense at all that they would be again instituted after the Lord Jesus returns another three and a half years after that.

What makes them blasphemous? This OUGHT to be unquestionable in the mind of any Bible-believing Christian it seems to me and I have a very hard time understanding how so many these days are trying to rationalize this away.

Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed but He would raise it up in three days. His resurrection from the dead would have been that raising, and all of us who are the Body of Christ are the stones of that temple He raised [I know scripture is needed here so I'll try to get back and supply it]. In 70 AD the physical building that was the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army, fulfilling the Lord's prophecy of its destruction. And now we have the new temple, the living stones of His Body. Nothing could be clearer but that the Old Testament system of sacrifice was ended once and for all in Christ.

We are taught in many parts of the New Testament that Christ is the propitiation for our sins. His death on the cross was the fulfillment of all the previous animal sacrifices that could not atone for sin, though His blood atoned perfectly for all who believe on Him [spelled out particularly in the Letter to the Hebrews]. God's call to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac typified this much-later EFFECTIVE blood sacrifice for sin, and that event just happened to occur on the very ground where Jesus eventually died on the cross too. The Messiah is described in the Old Testament as coming "to save His people from their sins," defining the purpose of sacrifice right there. {Again I'll try to get all the relevant scriptures in place eventually].

The Passover, which Dr. Whitcomb so misrepresents, was also a type of the sacrifice of Christ, who is called "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Whitcomb twists the meaning of the words to suggest that "passing over" the people is something other than salvation, but this flies in the face of orthodox theology for the last 2000 years. God's passing over the people instead of killing their firstborn as He did those of the Egyptians, definitely represents salvation as all the animal sacrifices do. We who believe in Christ have His blood covering our souls just as the lamb's blood on the doorposts protected the people within, so that the wrath of God which abides on all sinners no longer abides on us. THAT's the "passing over" that Jesus accomplished for us and it IS salvation. And there are many other Old Testament practices that foreshadow the same meaning -- the sprinkling of blood on the people by the hyssop branch and so on and so forth.

ANY attempt to reinstate the old temple is already blasphemous in this light, a direct defiance of God's gift of His Son as THE sacrifice for sin. IF the temple is reinstated in Jerusalem and IF animal sacrifices are performed there, it could only be a terrible affront to God, and after the Antichrist removes the sacrifices to set up the Abomination of Desolation in their place I don't see how they could ever be reinstalled again. The Abomination of Desolation can't really be much more of a blasphemy than the reinstated sacrifices now that the Lamb of God has come.

It also seems necessary to say that the Old Testament ought to be enough of a "visual aid" in the Millennium just as it is now, of God's purposes in the sacrifices, especially in the light of New Testament interpretation of the Old. Why should people in the Millennium have any more of a need than we do for such illustrations? The idea is, really, ridiculous, and blasphemous. But it's even worse to suggest that the sacrifices aren't wholly an illustration of what Christ did for us, but a "teaching aid" to more general principles.

The scriptures that support this view are many but here are a couple that show that the purpose of sacrifice was WHOLLY to atone for sin -- NOT to be a "visual aid to the holiness of God":

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Even before Moses gave the law to the Israelites, sacrifice was practiced as an atonement for sin:

Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of [their] feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings [according] to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

And here are a couple of commentators who agree that the purpose of the animal sacrifices was to atone for sin:

Matthew Henry on Lev 4:1-12 which describes sacrifices appointed by God [go to Leviticus 4 at Blue Letter Bible and click on the button for Commentaries]:

The laws contained in the first three chapters seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the statutes of another session, another day. From the throne of glory between the cherubim God delivered these orders. And he enters now upon a subject more strictly new than those before. Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, it should seem, had been offered before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai; those sacrifices the patriarchs had not been altogether unacquainted with (Gen. 8:20; Ex. 20:24), and in them they had respect to sin, to make atonement for it, Job 1:5. But the law being now added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19), and having entered, that eventually the offence might abound (Rom. 5:20), they were put into a way of making atonement for sin more particularly by sacrifice, which was (more than any of the ceremonial institutions) a shadow of good things to come, but the substance is Christ, and that one offering of himself by which he put away sin and perfected for ever those who are sanctified.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on the same passage also treat all the different sacrifices as for the purpose of atoning for sin [also at Blue Letter Bible Lev 4 Commentaries]:

35. it shall be forgiven him--None of these sacrifices possessed any intrinsic value sufficient to free the conscience of the sinner from the pollution of guilt, or to obtain his pardon from God; but they gave a formal deliverance from a secular penalty ( Hbr 9:13, 14 ); and they were figurative representations of the full and perfect sin offering which was to be made by Christ.

It is this very meaning of the sacrifices as FOR SIN that John Whitcomb so studiously denies, his denial even "thrilling his heart and soul." WHY? Why do so many these days seem to want to whitewash the rebuilding of the temple with its sacrifices? God Himself destroyed it because its true purpose, the Messiah, had come and fulfilled it. Eventually, we know from scripture, great numbers of Jews will recognize this and be saved with us. When that happens THEY aren't going to want to keep the old temple either. What's with all this attempt to justify the Old Testament religion that Christ fulfilled?

Musings on prophecy for today (pray more and fast some and you may change your opinion on this)

Just a note inspired by the second to last post:

I know that some Christians are adamantly against the idea of prophecy in today's church, and since there is a lot of false prophecy, especially in the charismatic movement, that's a prudent view to take these days.

But think about the fact that David Wilkerson's church had been expecting some sort of disaster and the leaders called them to prayer over it for weeks before 9/11 occurred (see the video in the previous post). That's true prophecy isn't it? And you can't deny it. They were seeking God about something the leaders of the church felt was coming, for quite a while before 9/11 hit. David Wilkerson years ago wrote about a prophetic word he'd received about the destruction of New York city mostly through social breakdown, and that has not yet occurred. If it was really from God then it will eventually occur.

Believers who are deeply and consistently in prayer, in touch with God, reading the Bible, spending much time at it, DO experience God's speakings. At the very least we hear from Him on a personal level. God has spoken to me personally about my own spiritual life many times, often in correction or rebuke, alas, but very direct and personal (no, not audibly, but by a vivid impression on my spirit). I know I've had at least two dreams in my life that came from God, also about my personal situation. When it comes to external things, such as this blog is about, God does sometimes lead me and I know He is leading me, and the more I pray and seek Him the more I am likely to receive such leadings but this doesn't come in the form of visions or dreams or prophetic words, just the promptings of the Spirit. ALL Christians experience something of this leading of God, which often comes through the Bible, a particular passage just "jumping out" as you read, that has such a specific connection to something you've been experiencing or thinking about you know it was from Him.

We also sometimes have experiences of being hindered in some way, kept from doing something we fully intended to do, or on the other hand made to feel some urgency to get someplace we are going, then to find out that the hindering or urgency put us in a position we needed to be in, often to be of help to another Christian. I know many of us have had this sort of experience, and what is that but God intervening PERSONALLY in our lives? This isn't exactly prophecy but along with His leading us through His word it doesn't seem all that different from His actually making us aware of a direct message from Him. And all that COULD be said to be prophecy in a sense because it comes from God Himself. But certainly receiving a direct message must be called prophecy. It's not just "forthtelling the word" as some claim is the only form of prophecy we have today, it's a specific message for our time NOW, if only for oneself concerning something in your own very limited circle. OF COURSE IT MUST NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE. And again, those who spend much time seeking the Lord are the ones who are most likely to have such experiences-- and conversely, perhaps it's those who don't spend a lot of time in prayer and Bible reading who are the critics of such experiences.

The REAL problem with claims of hearing from God is when they contradict His word or are provably false. And that happens an awful lot in charismatic churches, particularly when a "prophet" comes and gives a "word" over a brother or sister in the church that doesn't pan out. The devil CAN give messages into people's minds too, and discerning the difference isn't always easy.

I'm saying all this because I know some object to Jonathan Cahn's message as a personal prophecy and I hate to see this obviously true message being dismissed out of hand on such a basis without giving it a fair hearing. It's really not a prophecy at all, it's his observations of connections between a Bible verse and real public events that anyone can check out for himself. But the Jewish Messianic movement of which he is a part does support prophecy for today and at the end of the talk he gave in 2005 which I've linked many times, including in the previous post, he describes some other experiences only tangentially related to the 9/11 message that are prophetic in nature, that I too have some doubts about.

But the "harbinger" message remains intact no matter what you think about such spiritual gifts for today or this branch of the church or Jonathan Cahn himself. I think of him as a dedicated Christian brother myself.