Gene
This is an excellent description.
It would be more effective if you distinguished what you have received as a seer from what is based on your experience visiting various countries. The former should be tested as prophecy, whereas the latter should be tested for logic against other peoples experience.
The experience in the United States will be much more mixed than you suggest. Government will totally collapse in some states, some cities, and many small towns. However, the federal government in Washington will grow stronger. They have the power to get the resources that they need. People will gladly give it to them in hope of getting security. The faith in government in America is incredibly strong, much stronger than you would expect, given the illusion of the tea party.
The USA will go on to be the Beast of Revelation, the most powerful empire that the world has known, even as towns and cities are collapsing internally.
The US will not come out in ten years as you suggest. It will take much longer for the federal government to collapse and when it does, it will be very painful. This could take a generation or two to work out fully in America, if it is not destroyed first. Which way it will go is still in the balance, and depends on choices made by God's people.
The restoration of Christian community and government is not automatic. It will only happen if Christians are prepared and know what to do. If they are not ready, they will just be wiped out lime the rest of their society. It is really urgent that Christians start getting ready for what lies ahead.
Blessing
Ron
Interesting Presentation you made. I kinda wish I hadn't read it. It's good enough that it could color what I hear or perceive. Your comment which I would publish, didn't yet come up on my blog. I will watch.
TO the point you made, one I have struggled with, one I am becoming settled in, what does one who is asking for a seers anointing and getting a vision do with understanding and experience? How does that color or shape the vision?
I have considered that carefully. One thing that helped me a great deal was a descriptor of the Prophetic and the Experience mixture from a Catholic Priest who was an early founder of the Charismatic Renewal in the late 60s in this country. I'm not catholic, but we have a good catholic radio station in our area. Driving I tuned it in. This charismatic priest was discussing this very issue. The potential for our experience and understanding to color prophetic utterances.
His comments helped me find balance. No-one can or will prophesy without some frame of reference and understanding. Even if it's language. I speak some German, and there are understandings in the language that have a way of saying that would make the exact same pronouncements understood by the hearer differently depending on the language. There are things I can say in German that cannot be said in the same way in English.
The same is a cultural framework. I see things thru the glass darkly based on my American experience. And because I have lived and traveled around the world that experience is enhanced.
There is no separating human understanding from the vision a seer might get. This much is certain, we see in part, we understand in part. In fact the paper you presented is in part. It frames from your experience and understanding.
When I ask the Father to see, I am given glimpses and they look like things I can understand. That understanding comes out of experience. When we read Ezekiel's wheel, the taking up of Elijah, Isaiah 18 (with whirring wings) they were describing what they saw prophetically based on their cultural and experiential understanding. Even the Book of Revelation, which is John trying to describe something has to be framed in what he knew, understood and experienced.
So, it is with modern prophets. The discernment and judgment must come from those reading the prophetic word. I know what I see. What I see comes from understanding and revelation. The two feed one another. A person who lived in a closet until they were 30 years old and then given the gift of Prophecy would be hard pressed to use adequate descriptors to define what he sees even when he sees all things in the Spirit.
I don't correctly know how to tell you which is which any more than those who prophesied of old did. I know what I see when I get a vision as a seer. Some certainly is extrapolation from experience and understanding, but most is not.
About this I am certain, things are about to change, the change is the Love of God in Judgment. The result if we respond correctly under the pressure well will be the victory of our God. It will be as rapid as the collapse is rapid. If we come under wrath, there will be no hope. But the Judgment of God is mercy to his people. Now is the time for the Church of God to rise up. We will if we understand what is about to happen and what the opportunities are to be made ready. It's my assignment as a Prophet to describe them and yes, I will get in the way. Imperfect. Dark Glass vision. In part. BUT the Word of the Lord.
Who will have ears to hear?
Blessings to you too my brother:
Gene
10 comments:
Part 1
Thank you for your detailed reply. Unfortunately, what you say is correct, but it does not deal with my concern.
You are correct that God speaks into the context of our experience. He uses the images, words and places with which we are familiar when he does speak to us. When prophets communicate their words they use words and images with which their listeners are familiar. All the prophets did this.
My concern is different. You say part of your post is “informed by a seers anointing” and part comes from your “understanding of history and observation from traveling the world”. It seems to fairly obvious to me that part of what you are sharing could be a direct revelation from the Lord. However, part of the post is your understanding of how that will work based on your understanding of the way a society functions. Both are valid, but it is very dangerous to mix them. When they are confused in this way you have mixed them, your readers can become confused between what God is saying and Gene’s application.
The biblical prophets used everyday language and context when they spoke, but they were also very clear about what was a revelation from God and what was a description of their response or their experience.
Part 2
In the article I gave you, I saw the three mountains spiritually and heard the Lord say that they would have to come down before his kingdom could come. That bit was prophetic. The rest was my application of that revelation. I used my God-given wisdom, and knowledge of how society functions to challenge people to prepare for what lies ahead. I built on years of studying the scriptures and thinking (with a relatively renewed mind) about the way the Lord wants his people to operate. Some of these thoughts would have come as insights of the Spirit. I also used all my skills in communication. This is valid activity.
There is a sense in which that second part is prophetic too. It gets to the heart of the issue. It gives guidance for the future. I describe things that few other Christians have seen. Yet I would not call it prophetic, because that would give it a status that it does not deserve. Listeners are free to reject all or part of my application of the word the Lord gave. Some may suggest a different application that may be more appropriate in a different society. They can do with this our denying, God’s word. They can just say Ron got that bit wrong. I can live with that.
Listeners can also test the picture and words that I claim to have received from the Lord. That is more challenging for me, because if they say I got it wrong, then they are suggesting that I am listening to a false voice. If that is the case then I really need to get my life sorted.
In the same way, your post would be more effective, if you were to state clearly what you received as a seer. People can then test that. If you were clear, about what was your understanding of the implications of the revelation, people could debate that and maybe expand on that with you have given, without questioning or changing what the Lord has spoken.
One possibility is that the entire post is the consequence of your thinking through the current times in the light of revelations that the Lord has given you. That is fine, and very useful, but in that case you should not guild it by saying that some of came with a seers anointing. If we go to far down that track, we end up calling every good sermon a prophecy.
Part 3
In the same way, your post would be more effective, if you were to state clearly what you received as a seer. People can then test that. If you were clear, about what was your understanding of the implications of the revelation, people could debate that and maybe expand on that with you have given, without questioning or changing what the Lord has spoken.
One possibility is that the entire post is the consequence of your thinking through the current times in the light of revelations that the Lord has given you. That is fine, and very useful, but in that case you should not guild it by saying that some of came with a seers anointing. If we go to far down that track, we end up calling every good sermon a prophecy.
Thanks Ron, Good stuff.
I will give you what I understand experientially. I sit with a pad of paper and a pen, or quietly and wait for what the Lord is to say. I try to clear my understanding, my mind, my intellect. It's not easy because there is clutter there. But at some point if I inquire of the Lord I will get a wave, some call it a download. It's not my reason, it's a picture, a flow, a stream. I write down what I get. That much is the pure prophetic. I try to put into words and concepts I use in my everyday language shaped by understanding what I get. That then is ME. Where does one stop and another start? I don't think anyone really knows.
I do differentiate between the Seer and the Prophetic inquiry. AND, I don't use the term to guild, but to define what I get as not being just from my own well. To say a good sermon is prophetic mostly is wrong, but can be right. I have heard some that were. And many that were not. IF they are, I am not upset if the speaker says, "I got this from the Lord in a download". It doesn't guild it, it does cause me to say, I want to hear this and judge it according to it's canon measurement. If it doesn't line up, it's nothing.
Seems like we have had this discussion several times over the years. I spend enough time with various local and even national prophets to say, we all see in part, prophesy in part and always thru the dark glass. Demanding more or crystalline differentiation is not in anyone's purview. Certainly not mine, nor yours.
Part 4
Gene
This is not the same issue as we have discussed in the past. Previously, I have chided you for making prophecies for the future that are vague and imprecise. This issue here is different. You word about the government mountain is precise. The problem is with the way that you have labelled it. I am not sure if it is a word from the Lord or human wisdom.
When I look at the way you have written this word it does not seem to be much different from what many pastors do on a Saturday night to get their Sunday sermon. They clear their mind and wait. When the flow comes they right it down. It is actually not much different what I do every time that I sit down to write something. Following that practice can produce the prophetic, but often it does not, except in a very broad sense.
A prophet must be able to distinguish between what comes from the Lord and what comes from their own understanding. If they cannot do that, they are on a very slippery slope, which usually leads to disaster. Prophets should be very clear about the source of the words. If a word comes from the Lord, the prophet should say so. If it comes from their understanding, they should say so. If they are not sure, they should be careful about saying that it came from the Lord. Humility would be suggest that they would be better to say they that it may have come from their understanding.
Getting down to a practical issue, in your last paragraph, you said, “ in ten years with a new platform a new USA will emerge better than it was”. It is important for your readers to know whether the “ten years” came from the Lord or from Gene’s understanding of the situation. Both would be relevant, but would be taken in different ways. If it is a word from the Lord, it becomes an important prophetic marker, but if it is you understanding then it is just useful information to be put into the mix.
I appreciated your post called the Mountain of Government. My problem is with your description of it. I did not know what status to give it. It looked like something from your understanding, but you were saying it was received with a seer anointing. Very confusing.
The prophets that you refer to are misquoting 1 Cor 13:9-12. Paul is explaining our human situation, not providing an excuse for weak prophecy. We see in part, because God does not reveal everything to us. He only gives each person the small part that he wants us to have. It is incorrect to say that we always see through a “dark glass”. That is not what Paul is saying. He is actually explaining the difference between our situation now and that in the next life. Because we live in the physical world, we miss most of the important spiritual stuff that is going in.
The truth is that the Lord speaks clearly. He only gives us a small part of the big picture, be he give it to us very clearly. Because, we are human, we may not always receive it as clearly as he has given it, but sometimes if our heart is right, we do. We can often get our small part of his total revelation very clearly. The role of prophets is to share their part clearly, not explain to explain all parts dimly. If all the prophets give their part clearly, we will get what we need. If all the prophets give the whole picture dimly, we will just get confusion.
If the prophets in the US believe that all seeing is through dark glass, then it is not surprising that some of the words given on prophetic bulletin boards are so weak. They often seem very similar to the sort of exhortation that many godly pastors give on a Sunday morning. It is good stuff and encouraging, but it is not prophecy. We should label it clearly and not pretend that it is prophecy, just because we were sitting quietly when we received it.
Part 4
Gene
This is not the same issue as we have discussed in the past. Previously, I have chided you for making prophecies for the future that are vague and imprecise. This issue here is different. You word about the government mountain is precise. The problem is with the way that you have labelled it. I am not sure if it is a word from the Lord or human wisdom.
When I look at the way you have written this word it does not seem to be much different from what many pastors do on a Saturday night to get their Sunday sermon. They clear their mind and wait. When the flow comes they right it down. It is actually not much different what I do every time that I sit down to write something. Following that practice can produce the prophetic, but often it does not, except in a very broad sense.
Part 5
A prophet must be able to distinguish between what comes from the Lord and what comes from their own understanding. If they cannot do that, they are on a very slippery slope, which usually leads to disaster. Prophets should be very clear about the source of the words. If a word comes from the Lord, the prophet should say so. If it comes from their understanding, they should say so. If they are not sure, they should be careful about saying that it came from the Lord. Humility would be suggest that they would be better to say they that it may have come from their understanding.
Getting down to a practical issue, in your last paragraph, you said, “ in ten years with a new platform a new USA will emerge better than it was”. It is important for your readers to know whether the “ten years” came from the Lord or from Gene’s understanding of the situation. Both would be relevant, but would be taken in different ways. If it is a word from the Lord, it becomes an important prophetic marker, but if it is you understanding then it is just useful information to be put into the mix.
I appreciated your post called the Mountain of Government. My problem is with your description of it. I did not know what status to give it. It looked like something from your understanding, but you were saying it was received with a seer anointing. Very confusing.
Part 6
The prophets that you refer to are misquoting 1 Cor 13:9-12. Paul is explaining our human situation, not providing an excuse for weak prophecy. We see in part, because God does not reveal everything to us. He only gives each person the small part that he wants us to have. It is incorrect to say that we always see through a “dark glass”. That is not what Paul is saying. He is actually explaining the difference between our situation now and that in the next life. Because we live in the physical world, we miss most of the important spiritual stuff that is going in.
The truth is that the Lord speaks clearly. He only gives us a small part of the big picture, be he give it to us very clearly. Because, we are human, we may not always receive it as clearly as he has given it, but sometimes if our heart is right, we do. We can often get our small part of his total revelation very clearly. The role of prophets is to share their part clearly, not explain to explain all parts dimly. If all the prophets give their part clearly, we will get what we need. If all the prophets give the whole picture dimly, we will just get confusion.
If the prophets in the US believe that all seeing is through dark glass, then it is not surprising that some of the words given on prophetic bulletin boards are so weak. They often seem very similar to the sort of exhortation that many godly pastors give on a Sunday morning. It is good stuff and encouraging, but it is not prophecy. We should label it clearly and not pretend that it is prophecy, just because we were sitting quietly when we received it.
I don't even know how I ended up at this post. I am glad I did. First gene appreciate the testimony. Some times it takes me several months of prayer and seeking God in searching His Word to minister to Him and hear. As Kenneth Hagin would say if you start out seeing asked God to teach you to hear if you start out hearing ask God to teach you to see a prophet is both in the new testament and should be well balanced. While not dogmatic about it.I attend to agree with that.Somtimes the Spirit of knowing and seeing has given understanding and it seems so clear yet when presented aspects need to be taught out and explained as it seems even in my experience sometimes ministers just don't understand the material presented. I do know this God never goes contrary to His Word which is vast.Ron McKenzie has stated quote (This could take a generation or two to work out fully in) The written Word states when the branch is tender a generation shall not pass. We are not under the law and mans days shall be 120 years. so that comment of generations is subject to question as every resource I can find all say the branch is Israel and it became tender when Israel became a nation.
Post a Comment