Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
There are some studies of the 'Anointing' which discern between our souls being filled with the Spirit and the Indwelling of the Spirit. The Indwelling being a permanent state with believers in the Church Age, and non-experiential, while the filling of the Spirit might be experienced in as many different ways as there are different gifts of the Spirit.
This perspective nicely accounts for the Sovereignty of God in the regeneration of the spirit and perceives the atonement of Christ being unlimited. One saved, always saved perspective, but discernible from a contuous filling of the Spirit. An alternate perspective tries to rationalize the effects of post-salvation sin as evidence of one not having been saved or losing one's salvation. (Both of which I assert are heretical.)
Of course, as long as we place our faith in Him in all things after keeping our accounts short with Him regarding our known and unknown sins, it's rather a moot point as to which we refer because then He is free to indwell and fill us with His Spirit.
I didn't see which post where Quix referenced a 'computer chip', but an interesting analogy has been made by some dispenationalists regarding predestination and election back in the '80s. Some described the 'computer of divine decrees' as being composed of two computer chips. Predestination as a ROM chip and election as a PROM chip.
The ROM chip having been programmed by God's Will or Sovereignty. The PROM chip was programmed by God's omniscience and is man's free will.
Predestination and election are merely printouts of those chips.
Our motivation, volition and mental attitude are only produced by our soul and not interfered by God,..by His design and His plan.
Accordingly, being a computer chip isn't always that bad of thing, considering who did the original programming.
I have, and I find your comment somewhat patronizing, as if I have never read Romans 10 in faith and prayer, and as if all disagreements between the 20,000+ Christian sects could be cleared up just by having them all read the Scriptures with faith and prayer. That's precisely what got us into the 20,000+ mess in the first place.
I've read through your post a couple times, and I still cannot find any explanation of how to determine who has the Spirit. It looks like another purely subjective determination.
-A8
It doesn't take anything more than this. All the top-heavy bureaucracies are just that -- extraneous to the merciful fact Christ paid for every sin His sheep have committed and will ever commit.
None of this refutes the fact that 'sola scriptura' is an historical novelty, the classic indicator of heresy.
-A8
It doesn't really matter. Our salvation isn't from other men, but from God Himself, through faith in only one man who is both God and Man.
Finding an appropriate pastor-teacher is fine, but again, that will come from the Holy Spirit and the logistical predestination that God has already set in motion.
Place it in His hands and let Him do the work.
In regards to patronizing,..don't take my word for it,..simply place faith in Him and take His Word for it. It is purely a relationship between the believer and God, always through faith in Him.
Did you baptize yourself?
-A8
Why then the Church? If it is all just 'me and God', then what is this thing, the Church?
-A8
I do? Wow, I think you give me way to much credit. *wink*
I think the church isn't in unity because man in his fallen state has to believe that "I'm right and you're wrong", and enter into endless discussions and battles with one another about who is right and who is "wrong" rather than operating as Christ's body... healing the sick, setting the captives free, preaching the gospel, loving one another.
I believe on that day of judgement, there will be many who thought they were "in" because of the pew they are sitting in, or because they were dunked or sprinkled, or because they drink wine or grapejuice, or because they play instruments or don't play instruments, or they speak in tongues or don't speak in tongues -- many, are going to be suprised to find that Jesus just wanted to KNOW YOU. To be the LORD of your life. Sometimes He must just look at us and shake His head. We so miss the mark, daily. Lord, forgive us.
Please don't put quotes on that like I said that .. I never said that. That's sorta like bearing false witness, ya think?
I would hope that Catholics would be excited about Jesus also? So I'm not thinking you're upset about that.
I never said the next part of your statement, so .. well, goodbye. I apologize if I offended you.
In retrospect, it was wrong of me to phrase it that way and I apologize. You most certainly did not say anything like that and what I wrote wasn't really directed at what your wrote. However, there are many anti-Catholics who say such things.
Well said.
I think the church isn't in unity because man in his fallen state has to believe that "I'm right and you're wrong", and enter into endless discussions and battles with one another about who is right and who is "wrong" rather than operating as Christ's body... healing the sick, setting the captives free, preaching the gospel, loving one another.
Should we pretend that we are *all* right (and nobody is wrong), even though we disagree about many things? I agree that we should "preach the Gospel", but I think you and I would disagree about what the Gospel is. So, it seems to me that if we are going to preach the Gospel together, we have to come to agreement about what the Gospel is. Pretending that the disagreements are unimportant or insignificant is naive. We can never resolve these disagreements until we are honest with each other about their existence and their seriousness.
are going to be surprised to find that Jesus just wanted to KNOW YOU. To be the LORD of your life
Christ is omniscient; He already knows everything, including all human persons. Some might be surprised to learn that they had spurned Christ's appointed means of coming to know Him, love Him and serve Him, i.e. the Magesterium, the sacraments, the Church, the Saints, the Fathers, the Tradition, etc.
-A8
Thank you for that .. you speak more eloquently than I .. *smile*
The analogy was the indescribable hugeness of the mysteries of God, verses our finite ability to try to articulate it.
Please forgive us for having that laugh. It wasn't meant to offend you. Don't allow that offense to take hold.
I'm sure quix's frustration comes from a percieved lack of genuine interest in what we're talking about, it appears you only want to keep it going in circles, while you don't have any interest in seeking God about it. Forgive me if I'm mistaken about that.
I'm done with this conversation too .. (That and I need to get some work done.)
Peace to you, A8
Apology accepted .. peace, wagglebee
In their view, there was no way to adjudicate between me and them. I either got the burning or I did not. Every sect in the world could use the same test, and there would be people who seemed to get the 'burning' for each and every sect. You seem to be saying the same thing as the Mormons with respect to how to determine whether someone has the anointing. The test is entirely subjective (except for your test regarding healings, but you know of course that even demons can perform signs and wonders, so that doesn't tell us anything).
= = = =
No. The "test" is not entirely subjective. It is observational and experiential.
And, as to demons . . . Christ's standard remains . . . Do the individuals, sources involved confess that Jesus came in the flesh etc. and Jesus as Their Lord, and humans as their Savior, or not?
Counterfeit miracles are genearlly flavored, toned, colored, tainted with their source . . . particularly after closer examination and reflection by discerning folks but usually by most anyone with any horse sense.
Healings via folks attesting to Christ coming in the flesh and all the other basic doctrines in a service overtly glorifying God and GOD ALONE . . . are highly unlikely to be satanic counterfeits.
Holy Spirit can cause a burning within that I'm sure LDS folks would assert is the same. They are good at including everything including the kitchen sink as covered and included in their scheme of things. It's not the same, in my book.
But I didn't mention such a thing as a way of discerning whether someone is operating in an anointing, or not. Extrapolations are not usually my close friends in such matters. I try hard to say what I mean.
I think Christ said it best: MY SHEEP KNOW MY VOICE.
I think it's akin to a mother and child knowing one another's voice. I wonder how many would call that subjective.
"Entirely subjective" is simply false.
Sounds to me like folks not accustomed to hearing His Voice and acting on it might do well to check up on their relationship with Him. He didn't put qualifiers in that sentence.
I suspect that anyone who seriously wants to find GOD'S ANSWER on this issue . . . and who SEEKS HIM FIRST AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS . . . AND who asks HIM to show them His truth . . . will likely find in the next 18 or so months that He has. Of course, they might well need to be obedient enough to put themselves in likely situations according to The Leading of His Holy Spirit . . . in order to observe such.
I think you are not understanding me. My point is that this subjective notion of "seeking God about it" is precisely the *problem*, because thousands of different conclusions come out of that approach to answer theological questions. It is precisely this notion that Mormons use to justify their position, as I explained above. The fact that so many people come to so many different conclusions using this method shows that the method is utterly unreliable. Do you think that you alone, among all the other thousands of different groups who use this subjective approach, are right, and they are all wrong? That's the fallacy called special pleading.
-A8
But for the first 1500 years of Church history, the test was apostolicity; who had been ordained in succession from the Apostles.
= = =
Not my construction on reality. Sounds like historical revisionism, to me.
The Little Pebble wasn't adequate regardless of the politics.
But even IF THAT WERE [which I'm convinced it wasn't] the way things started out in AD 50 or 70 or whatever . . . it seems clear to me that at least for great chunks of time . . . the anointing has been lifted . . . as it has with all other organizations and groups.
And, regardless of kosher doctrine; regardless of human works of righteousness as filthy as a minstral rag; regardless of lineage; regardless of organizational purity . . .
WHEN THE ANOINTING IS LIFTED, REMOVED . . . all else is chaff . . . flesh . . . noneternal.
That's encouraging.
BTW, to some of us, the title of this thread is an entirely baiting wording.
I appreciate this post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.