How To Test The Spirits

Robert

2024-04-27 03:21:55 UTC

========================
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:00:09 -0700,
========================

Post by Robert
incarnate
adjective[often postpositive]|?n?k??n?t,?n?k??ne?t|
(especially of a deity or spirit) embodied in human form:God incarnate.
•[postpositive]represented in the most fundamental or extreme form:here is
capitalism incarnate.
verb[with object]|?n?k??ne?t,??nk??ne?t|
embody or represent(adeity or spirit) in human form:the idea that God
incarnates himself in man.
•put (a concept orquality) into concrete form:a desire to make things which
will incarnate their personality.
•(of a person) be the living embodiment of (aquality):the man who
incarnates the pain of the entire community.
incarnation|??nk???ne??n|.
noun.
1a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality:Rama was
Vishnu’s incarnation on earth |Beethoven was an incarnation of artistic
genius.
•(the Incarnation) (in Christian theology) the embodiment of God the Son in
human flesh as Jesus Christ.
2(with reference to reincarnation) each of a series of earthly lifetimes: in
my next incarnation, I'd like to be the Minister of Fun,•the form taken by
a person or thing during an incarnation: in a previous journalistic
incarnation, I worked at Westminster|the pub has gone through several
incarnations.
Jesus was not incarnated. IOW’s, He was not implanted in the flesh or a
body. This is the basic premise of incarnation as understood from Greek and
Roman gods as they inhabited the bodies of humans in order to fight or rule
other gods. This whole premise was introduced into Roman Catholicism by pagan
philosophy and philosophers that “converted” to Christianity because they
were loosing many students to Christianity. Thus the idea was accepted into
the RC theology and taught through the ages.
The word or its inferences was never in the Greek scriptures, never in Hebrew
language either. Never once mentioned in any prophesies. Only in the vulgate
was this introduced.
It is well known that man is constructed with Body, Soul, and Spirit. Three
parts of one Human being.
“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole
spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” (1Th 5:23, KJV)
Now as to the Body of Jesus? He too was formed as we, with Body, Soul, and
Spirit, at the moment of conception. All the educated people of the world
know that when we are conceived, it is at the moment that a sperm enters an
egg. “Conception”, it is not yet flesh in is an embryo. Thus was the
birth of Jesus The Messiah.
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I
have gotten a man from the LORD.” (Gen 4:1, KJV)
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to
take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Ghost.” (Mat 1:20, KJV)
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and
shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father
David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.” (Luk 1:31-35, KJV)
There you can see that Jesus was conceived in the same manner as Cain, as all
the descendants of Adam, however the Faith of Jesus is the same Heavenly
Father as the one who rebirthed all who are born again.
This is the same constructed being that the Believer is reconstructed as, the
exception is that while our reconstruction by rebirth is later on in out
life, we receive the Holy Spirit at that point, whereas Jesus was filled with
the Holy Spirit after he came out of the water when he was baptized.
Jesus was tempted in all manner just like you and I are, except that he
Never Sinned. Yet he died as sinners.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin.” (Heb 4:15, KJV)
And,...
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Co 5:21, KJV)
Yes, He bore all our sin.
Now. Back to our form. Body, Soul, and Spirit.
Jesus born with the body of man, appointed once to die, as man.
Jesus born with the soul of Man, and like us he could be tempted as man. He
was under the same limitations as man, and as such He can full understand
what we go through, who better to be our High Priest in Heaven?
Jesus, God and Jesus Spirit. Who gave up all his privileges and power to be
born as a mans spirit by His Father who is pure.
He could chose to walk in the flesh, or chose to walk in the spirit, just
like any born again believer can, which is why we as Born Again Believers
are able to walk as did he, if we walk in the Spirit. FOR,... “Herein is our
love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because
as he is, so are we in this world.” (1Jn 4:17, KJV)
I prefaced my reply in order to give a clear understanding in regards to the
erroneous “incarnation” as a supposed dogma of "testing the spirits”

We're not using the word in the evil
sense you are trying to portray it, but
according to how it is currently
understood by most Christians. Whenever
you can't refute the content of a
teaching, you try to defile it by
association.

You wrongly accuse, this I have said for over 25 years as a result on the
study on incarnation which carnal men teach and conception which God was a
part of and described in both the OT and the NT.

There are a whole lot of incorrect teachings that many just assimilate
because men have taught it for years, stuff that emanated from both the RCC
and the GO. It is what Jesus showed us are the “traditions of men” which
AT shares as well as yourself. If you don’t believe it then just look at
the misconceptions in the various biblical translations hand down just in all
the English Bibles that are based on the KJV. Look up an easy one called
Easter. A pagan celebration which occurred do to the joining of the pagan
holiday merged with passover, and in addition to that they changed the time
of the celebration of that event from one that is historically correct. To
their credit, the GO differed in this matter from the RCC. Yet they too
celebrate “lent”, which is not biblical.

So even your accusation as based on your personal reasoning skill level is in
error. You are not the only one guilty of that for others who try to
associate me with charismatics, pentecostals, etc. also do in order to defile
by Godly associations. Which in truth is far better to be associated with,
then with carnal “christians”, AI, and others that lack the walking in
the light of God, for there are those that walk in a way that seemeth right
thereof, but the end of it is death.

“To the pure all things are pure, but to
those who are defiled and unbelieving
nothing is pure; but even their mind and
conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15,
NKJV)

Says the one who knocks Charismatics, speaking in tongues, the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, etc. Yeah, I get it, and no doubt so do many others who are
familiar with the Word of God and the Heavenly Father.

1. Misinterpretation of Incarnation
Objection: Robert argues that Jesus was
not "incarnated" in the same way that
Greek and Roman gods were believed to
inhabit human bodies temporarily,
suggesting that the Christian
understanding of "incarnation" is
influenced by pagan philosophy rather
than originating from biblical texts.

Are you now inferring that Jesus was not incarnated in the way of pagan gods?
In essence agreeing with my conclusions as shown to me?

Did you read the definitions of Incarnation as well as re-incarnation which
was based on understandings of pagan beliefs as well as originating with the
RCC in the latin bible? You should have, rather than having a knee jerk
reaction and replying without any time spent on the subjects both from a
scriptural standpoint as well as a historical standpoint. This is the exact
reasoning behind the word teaching us to be slow to speak and to be sober in
thought. Of course a prideful man has no time for such things. ;)

Refutation: This objection
misunderstands the Christian concept of
incarnation, which is fundamentally
different from the mythological accounts
of gods temporarily taking human form.
The biblical doctrine of incarnation
states that Jesus, who is the Word
(Logos), became flesh permanently and
was fully human while remaining fully
divine (John 1:14). This was not a
temporary condition but a permanent
union of divine nature and human nature
in one person, Jesus Christ. Unlike
mythological stories, the incarnation is
rooted in the fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecies (Isaiah 7:14,
Isaiah 9:6) and is central to the
salvation narrative where Jesus had to
be fully human to represent humanity and
fully divine to bear the infinite weight
of sin.

Had you read the word of God, part of which was quoted to you in my reply
which showed the manner of the birth of Christ, in comparison with the
natural order of things as ordained by God, then you should have realized
that scripture already negated you excuse making.

2. Historical Influence
Objection: Robert claims that the
doctrine of the incarnation was
introduced into Roman Catholicism by
pagan philosophers who converted to
Christianity. According to him, this
idea was accepted into Catholic theology
and perpetuated without basis in the
original Greek or Hebrew scriptures.

Not at all, and only the foolish would try and manipulate what I wrote. Which
shows to me that you read without the ability to read with comprehension. The
RCC absorbed the philosophy of the pagan philosophers of Grecian and Roman
influences which were not around in the time of Isaiah. Or the OT scriptures
as they were written.
Your understandings are surreal and also include the skills of Goalpost
shifting. To your shame. Of course you can say whatever you want to as your
name is not on your posts, and you also include your god AI on whom you could
blame all your errors at some point.

Refutation: The concept of God becoming
man is not a late invention but is
deeply rooted in the earliest Christian
documents and creeds, which predate
these supposed pagan influences. The New
Testament itself offers clear
testimonies to the incarnation, such as
in Philippians 2:6-7, where Paul
describes Jesus as existing in the form
of God but taking on the form of a
servant, being born in the likeness of
men. Early church fathers, well before
the establishment of the formal Catholic
doctrines, preached and defended the
incarnation based on their understanding
of Scripture and apostolic teaching. The
Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which
affirmed the deity of Christ against
Arianism, was not adopting pagan ideas
but defending apostolic tradition as
recorded in Scripture.

Not at all, in response to the last part of this rant. The nicean creed was a
dogma one was required to quote showing they they were adherents to Roman
Dogma, and thus their life would be spared from death and or torture of they
claimed to be a Christian but were not aware or the RC Way. That creed has
been modified many times over the years, thus showing it was from men, not
the Heavenly Father.

The early ekklesia had no such teachings, as those teachings are not to be
found within the NT scriptures. We have the apostolic teachings in the NT,
and those are the words given to us today by the Spirit of God, the Holy
Spirit as directed from the Heavenly Father. With the exception excluded in
some of Pauls teachings, which he excluded, yet said they were were with the
permition of God.

3. Biological Argument
Objection: Robert contends that Jesus,
being conceived normally (though
divinely instigated by the Holy Spirit),
was an embryo and not flesh at
conception, thus challenging the idea
that He was "made flesh" from
conception.

You did not read what I wrote. There was NO embryo implant.
It was the seed of God and the egg of the woman. That took place, similar to
Seths from Adam and Eve.
Wuit trying to change and modify the wording of others to suit your eminence.

Refutation: The biological status of
Jesus as an embryo does not negate His
incarnation.

There was no incarnation, or “enfleshment” as some attempt to falsely
state.
Obviously there was no flesh for him to be implanted into, at that time.
There was however, an egg. Many an egg has been flushed from a woman without
shame, as there was no life in those eggs.

Sadly so far I have not seen one reasonable thought or understanding
emanating from your mind which had any form of merit.

I am very hesitant to read any more time of this post as there appears no
merit to anything that you have said, so far. But I will check to see that
your next point is, and we will see what happens.

The doctrine of incarnation
encompasses the entire human experience
of Jesus, from conception to death and
resurrection. Luke 1:35 explains that
the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and the
power of the Most High overshadowed her,
resulting in the holy being born would
be called the Son of God. This indicates
that from the moment of conception,
Jesus was both fully God and fully man.

D’ uh. Which I already quoted from scripture, and have no disagreement
with. The big difference being that I took a moment to explain the mechanics
of the event, spiritually.

The biological process through which
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit
does not diminish His nature as
incarnate but rather affirms the miracle
of God entering into the very fabric of
human life.

The “biological process” had no part of anything to due with
“incarnation”, which BTW, you did not have either the knowledge nor the
guts to lay out what the definition of it is. Same thing with “trinity”.
There are plenty of daffynitions abounding, none of which correlates with the
direct testimony of Gods words. And lest this seem overwhelming for you to
grasp, both words were part of the base language in those days, and had
either of both of them fit the bill as to what the Heavenly Father would have
used, then I am sure those words would have been freely used in scripture.

I see no point to continue in my reply to this post. I seek not to totally
destroy your POV, as erroneous as it is but everything you have pointed out
has been erroneous, and also included wording so as to reshape what I said,
while holding me responsible for your insinuations and misconceptions.

One could say that I “tested the spirits of you thoughts” and you are
found wanting. This is very much like the RCC and a few others do as well.
Sadly it benefits no one.

4. Scriptural Absence
Objection: Robert points out that the
term "incarnation" or its concepts are
not explicitly mentioned in the Greek or
Hebrew scriptures and were only
introduced later in translations like
the Vulgate.
Refutation: While the term "incarnation"
itself may not appear in the original
texts, the concept is thoroughly
biblical. John 1:14 states, "The Word
became flesh and dwelt among us." This
directly speaks of God becoming human,
which is the essence of the incarnation.
Moreover, verses like Matthew 1:23 echo
the prophecy of Isaiah, saying, "Behold,
the virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and they shall call his name
Immanuel" (which means God with us).
These passages affirm the theological
truth of God becoming man, clearly
supporting the doctrine of incarnation
as central to Christian belief, even if
the specific term "incarnation" is a
later theological formulation.
As an example of the way the word is
currently understood and used by
I. Prologue"”_INCARNATION_, Chapter
Joh_1:1-18 (McGee John 1, emphasis mine)
They denied the _INCARNATION_, reasoning
that God could not have taken a human
body because all flesh is evil.
Therefore John distinctly declared, "And
the Word was made [born] flesh, and
dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,, emphasis mine) full of
grace and truth"? (Joh_1:14, emphasis
mine)(McGee 1 John 4:2-3, emphasis
mine).
Docetic Gnosticism, considering the
_INCARNATION_ impossible since God could
not unite Himself with anything evil
such as a body, taught that Jesus only
seemed to have a body, but actually He
did not. For example, when He walked He
left no footprints (McGee 1 John 4:2-3,
emphasis mine).
As we have already seen, love and truth
are inseparable. Christ is the epitome
of both; He is the _INCARNATION_ of both
(McGee 2 John 1, emphasis mine).
The difference is that in the New
Testament the love of God has been
translated into history by the
_INCARNATION_ and death of Christ (McGee
Deuteronomy 6:1-5, emphasis mine)
Obviously, he is not the man, but it
reveals the great need for the
_INCARNATION_ of our Lord. He must be a
Mediator so He must be God, but He must
also be of the same clay as we are
(McGee Job 33:1-33, emphasis mine).
When God sent the Lord Jesus into this
world, He came as the only begotten Son,
and by His _INCARNATION_ yonder at
Bethlehem He became the Son of God
(McGee Psalm 89:1-52, emphasis mine).
Before His _INCARNATION_ Christ said,
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume
of the book it is written of me,,
emphasis mine) to do thy will, O God"?
(Heb_10:7, emphasis mine) (McGee Psalms
101:1-8, emphasis mine).
He is the perfect human in His
_INCARNATION_. He is lovely. He is the
bundle of camphor. He is the One of whom
John could say with enthusiasm and deep
expression, ""¦ Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world"?
(Joh_1:29, emphasis mine) (McGee Song of
Solomon 1:14, emphasis mine).
his "live coal"? has come from the burnt
altar where sin had been dealt with. In
the next chapter we will see the
prediction of the birth of Christ, but
it is not the _INCARNATION_ of Christ
that saves us, it is His death upon the
Cross (McGee Isaiah 6:1-13, emphasis
mine).
It was the revelation of the mystery of
the _INCARNATION_ of God, for which all
this was to prepare the way (McGee
Isaiah 34:1-4, emphasis mine)."?
This verse and also verse Eze_1:26 ("the
appearance of a man"?, emphasis mine)
speak of the _INCARNATION_ of Christ,
the fact that God became a man (McGee
Ezekiel 1:1-28, emphasis mine).
"Whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting."? His birth, the
_INCARNATION_, has to do with His
humanity. He clothed Himself in humanity
when He came to Bethlehem. But His
existence was before His birth (McGee
Micah 5:2-15, emphasis mine).
"A man riding upon a red horse."? Who is
this man? He is the Lord Jesus Christ
before His _INCARNATION_ (McGee
Zechariah 1:7-17, emphasis mine).
"Standing before the angel of the
LORD."? This angel is the Lord Jesus
Christ before His _INCARNATION_, as we
have seen in the previous chapters
(McGee Zechariah 3:1-7, emphasis mine).
There is a striking contrast between the
first and second comings of Christ.
Redemption is the high word of His first
coming; revelation is the high word of
His second coming. It was reconciliation
at His first coming and recognition at
His second coming. It was the
_INCARNATION_ at His first coming and
identification at His second coming
(McGee Zechariah 13:1-6, emphasis mine).
THEME: Prologue"”_INCARNATION_; Word is
God, Word became flesh, Word revealed
God; witness of John the Baptist;
witness of Andrew; witness of Philip;
witness of Nathanael (John 1:1-18,
emphasis mine).
The prologue presents the _INCARNATION_
of the Word"”He is God, He became flesh,
He reveals the Father (McGee John
1:47-51, emphasis mine).
Christ was "made a curse for us."? The
question is: When did Christ become a
curse? Did He become a curse in His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee Galatians 3:6-29,
emphasis mine)?
The logical explanation of these verses
is that since Christ ascended, He must
have of necessity descended at some
previous period. Some see only the
_INCARNATION_ in this. The early church
fathers saw in it the work of Christ in
bringing the Old Testament saints out of
paradise up to the throne of God. We are
told that He descended into hell. It is
not necessary, however, to assume that
He entered into some form of suffering
after His death. His _INCARNATION_ and
death were His humiliation and descent,
and they were adequate to bring the
redeemed of the Old Testament into the
presence of God (McGee Ephesians 4:7-16,
emphasis mine).
The theory promoted was the kenosis
theory, which is that at Christ's
_INCARNATION_ He emptied Himself of His
deity (McGee Philippians 2:1-4, emphasis
mine).
Let me give you a very homely
illustration that I trust might be as
helpful to you as it is to me. I confess
it is rather ridiculous, but it will
illustrate the humiliation of Christ in
His _INCARNATION_ (McGee Philippians
2:5-8, emphasis mine).
By the _INCARNATION_ God came down to
man; by the blood of Jesus man is
brought up to God (McGee Colossians
1:20-23, emphasis mine).
He bore the suffering that is common to
humanity when He was born in Bethlehem
at His _INCARNATION_ over nineteen
hundred years ago (McGee Colossians
1:24-29, emphasis mine).
"God was manifest in the flesh."?
Certainly Paul is teaching the virgin
birth of Christ, but he is also speaking
of Christ's existence before His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee 1 Timothy 3:14-16,
emphasis mine).
This statement emphasizes the Lord's
_INCARNATION_ (McGee Hebrews 2:5-18,
emphasis mine).
John didn't say that it was a new and
living way open to God, because the
_INCARNATION_, the life of Christ saves
no one. We enter into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus. Our right of entrance is
not through His _INCARNATION_ but
through the rending of the veil; that
is, through His death (McGee Hebrews
10:19-25, emphasis mine).
John, of course, is speaking of the
_INCARNATION_ of Jesus and of his own
association with Him when He was here
upon this earth (McGee 1 John 1:1-2,
emphasis mine).
"An old commandment which ye had from
the beginning."? From what beginning?
Well, the "beginning"? in 1 John is the
_INCARNATION_ of Christ (1 John 2:3-14,
emphasis mine).
"The beginning"? in 1 John goes back to
the _INCARNATION_ of Christ. That "which
ye have heard from the beginning,"? that
which you heard concerning His
_INCARNATION_, that which you heard
concerning His life, that which you
heard concerning His death and
resurrection"”in other words, that which
they had heard from the beginning when
the apostles began to preach the gospel
(McGee 1 John 2:15-29, emphasis mine).
John often speaks in this epistle about
"the beginning."? The beginning he is
talking about is the _INCARNATION_ of
Christ (McGee 1 John 3:4-24, emphasis
mine).
Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, and
it begins there with his _INCARNATION_
(McGee 1 John 4:1-6, emphasis mine).
The beginning"? refers to the beginning
of the ministry of Christ in His
_INCARNATION_ (McGee 2 John 1:1-6,
emphasis mine).
________________
Works Cited
McGee, J. Thru the Bible Commentary
Series. Thomas Nelson, 1991.

Post by Robert
Also the author of the post I am replying to is in error in regards to much
of the rest of his post, especially in respect to trying to confuse the issue
with things spiritual, gifts of the Spirit, etc.
The cause for his errors is that he operates soulishly and not spiritually,
thus lacking any depth of understanding

Says the charismatic who regularly
promotes malcontentment with the
superior spiritual blessings of the New
Covenant, in favor of the inferior,
physical blessings promised to Israel in
the Old Covenant.

Post by Robert

1 John provides profound insights into
discerning the spirits and recognizing
who belongs to God and who is aligned
with the devil. This discernment is
critical for maintaining the integrity
and purity of our faith, especially in a
world where false teachings and
deceptive spirits abound.
1. Confession of Christ's Incarnation (1
John 4:2-3)
This is a fundamental test. The passage
says, "Every spirit that acknowledges
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
is from God, but every spirit that does
not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."
The Greek term "homologei" (confess)
implies a deep, personal conviction, not
merely a superficial acknowledgment.
Therefore, any spirit or teaching that
denies the full humanity and deity of
Jesus Christ is not of God.
2. Obedience to God's Commands (1 John
2:3-6; 5:2-3)
Obedience to God's commands is a clear
marker of those who know God. "By this
we know that we have come to know Him,
if we keep His commandments." The Greek
word for "know" (ginosko) suggests an
intimate, relational knowledge.
Obedience flows naturally from a loving
relationship with God.
3. Love for Fellow Believers (1 John
3:10, 14; 4:7-8, 20-21)
John repeatedly emphasizes love as a
distinctive mark of believers. "By this
it is evident who are the children of
God, and who are the children of the
devil: whoever does not practice
righteousness is not of God, nor is the
one who does not love his brother." The
Greek word "agape" denotes a selfless,
sacrificial love that reflects God's
nature.
4. Righteous Living (1 John 2:29;
3:7-10)
Those born of God practice
righteousness. The term "poieo" in
Greek, which means 'to do' or 'to
practice', indicates a habitual,
consistent pattern of life. A life
transformed by Christ naturally
gravitates towards righteousness.
5. Belief in Jesus as the Christ (1 John
5:1)
Faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of
God is central to being a child of God.
The Greek word "pisteuo" (believe) here
involves trusting and relying on Jesus,
not just intellectual assent.
6. Overcoming Worldly Influences (1 John
5:4-5)
Those born of God overcome the world.
The term "nikao" in Greek means 'to
conquer' or 'overcome'. This implies
that a true believer, through faith, is
not enslaved by the world's values or
systems.
7. Confession of Sin and Pursuit of
Purity (1 John 1:8-10; 3:3)
Acknowledging and confessing our sins is
vital. Those who claim to be without sin
deceive themselves, according to John.
The pursuit of purity, modeled after
Christ's own purity, is a mark of a
believer.
8. Worldly Ideology (1 John 4:5a)
Teachings that align with "kosmos" (the
world), indicating a system of values,
priorities, and practices opposed to
God, suggest a source not from God. This
refers to ideologies and teachings that
cater to worldly desires, often
contradicting the core truths of the
Christian faith.
9. Acceptance by the world (1 John 4:5b)
When a teaching is readily accepted and
unchallenged by the world, it often
indicates a compromise or alignment with
worldly thinking. 1 John 4:5 notes that
those who are from the world speak from
a worldly perspective, and therefore,
the world listens to them. This
listening, implied in the Greek term
"akouo," goes beyond mere hearing; it
involves a level of agreement or
acceptance.
10. Listening to Apostolic Teaching (1
John 4:6)
A key indicator of being from God is a
positive response to apostolic teaching,
as laid out in the New Testament. This
involves not just hearing but obeying
("akouo") the teachings of the apostles.
Those who know God show a willingness to
align their beliefs and practices with
these teachings. Conversely, a rejection
of or indifference to apostolic teaching
signifies alignment with the spirit of
error.
In exploring the criteria set forth in 1
John for discerning spirits, it's
equally important to note what is not
mentioned as a test.
The epistle makes no reference to
supernatural manifestations such as
healing, speaking in tongues, performing
miracles, drinking poison, or being
unharmed by serpent bites as definitive
markers for discerning the spirits.
These miraculous signs, while they have
their place in the narrative of the
early church, are not the benchmarks 1
John sets for identifying those who are
of God.
Instead, the focus is profoundly
centered on the confession of Christ,
obedience to God’s commandments, love
for fellow believers, righteous living,
belief in Jesus as the Christ,
overcoming worldly influences, and the
response to apostolic teaching.
This emphasis suggests a deeper, more
foundational approach to discernment—one
that hinges on the transformation of
character and alignment with the core
truths of the Christian faith, rather
than external or sensational
manifestations.