Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
I agree. But if the differences between Christians are *not* important, then by remaining divided we are dividing Christ's body over petty matters. And Christ prays three times (in John 17) that His disciples would be one, "perfected in unity".
On the other hand, if the differences between Christian *are* important, then we should definitely talk about them.
-A8
Thanks, Dear Heart.
Am humbled by your kind words.
And 10 X's the blessings of The Lord right back at you and family. LUB
-A8
Here's the danger. If God might just at any time "lift the anointing and give it to someone else", then we would have no way of knowing who has the anointing.
NOT AT ALL in my experience and in my reading of Scripture. Particularly, to the discerning, prayed up, confessed up, repented up, obeyed up, filled-up with Holy Spirit--the departure of the anointing is very obvious. And, sometimes, it's almost or literally as though a cold wind comes in behind the departure. Certainly there's a dryness, a hollowness, an empty-ness which seems to descend. Detecting the departure of the anointing is easy for anyone seriously spiritually sensitive . . .as all Christians ought to seek to be, imho.
Throughout all of redemptive history, "the gifts and calling are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29).
GIFTS AND CALLINGS of God are DIFFERENT from the ANOINTING of God.
David in your example above would probably have been blessed of God to have removed Saul then and there. After all, God delivered him into David's hand. DAVID CHOSE to respect God above that expected in terms of refusing to touch God's anointed in a functional, title sense. The spiritual anointing had left Saul long ago as Scripture is clear about.
Sampson was anointed again while chained between the two pillars in the banquet hall. He brought the house down literally. He had forsaken his anointing and it was lifted from him when he disobeyed God and told the woman the secret of his power, anointing.
That notion that God might just (or maybe just did) "lift the anointing and give it to someone else", disconnects form and matter, word and witness, spirit and sacrament. It is a form of gnosticism that completely undermines the possibility of Church authority, for everyone gets to determine on his own who has the anointing, and that is an entirely subjective endeavor.
NOT AT ALL. I Corinthians 14 takes care of that. Each local congregation is to test the spirits . . . discern what is of God in this or that prophetic sharing etc. Paul clearly laid it out for The Church Universal to follow. Few do.
But Jesus *breathed* on the Apostles. And the Apostles *laid hands* on the bishops. There was a physical endowment of the ordination authority they received through this sacramental act. The Church has always taught that no one who has been validly ordained can be unordained, just as one who has been baptized cannot be unbaptized (even if he renounces his baptism).
That's not THE ACTIVE, ALIVE, CURRENT VIBRANT, POWERFUL, POTENT, ANOINTING OF GOD'S SPIRIT UPON THAT INDIVIDUAL IN THAT MOMENT UNLESS GOD CONFIRMS IT AS SUCH WITH SUCH.
Folks can go down into baptism a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner depending on the attitude of their heart. They can have all the hands in the congregation laid on them in some sort of formal 'anointing' and installation in this or that office--it can mean nothing in terms of God's perspective. God looks on the heart and applies His Spirit's anointing, or not, ACCORDING TO HIS STANDARDS AND PRIORITIES, NOT OURS.
If he repents and returns to Christ, he is not to be re-baptized, because his baptism remains with him eternally. And so does his ordination gift. That is (in part) why Paul tells Timothy not to be hasty in the laying on of hands. Sacraments cannot be undone.
SACRAMENTS AND ANOINTING ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS IN TERMS OF THE ANOINTING I'M SPEAKING OF. There is an anointed with oil for an office. One hopes that Holy Spirit literally anoints with Himself in a powerful way at the same time. I've observed that He rarely does so . . . in this era--regardless of the Christian organization involved.
That is a non sequitur, and thus a false dilemma.
-A8
So who are the discerning? You, I suppose? Out of the 20,000+ Protestant sects, you and your fellow [let me guess, Pentecostals] are the discerning ones? My point is that each sect thinks its own members are the discerning ones. Who determines who are the "discerning"? Second-order discerners? You see how this leads either to an infinite regress, a viscious circle, or an arbitrarily determined starting point (e.g. me and all those who think just like me; *we're* the discerning ones). That is why I said that the gnostic position you advance removes the possibility of determining objectively who has the anointing. Because it is entirely subjective, your position reduces to "everybody has the anointing", which means in practice, that nobody has the anointing.
-A8
Meant to ping you, too, to 807.
My challenges to my Roman Catholic friends: give me a convincing example of some doctrinal or ethical principle which make the following five criteria. Give me an example of some doctrinal or ethical principle that is (1) not already in Scripture; (2) not contrary to Scripture; (3) based upon what is properly identified as tradition (that’s what all these introductory questions were about); (4) is necessary in some sense to the Christian life or Church (necessary); and (5) could not have been revealed during the days of the Apostles.Any teaching on the moral dilemmae of out modern time would do, for example, the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion, cloning, artificial insemination, or euthanasia; or evolution and other scientific claims.If the Roman Catholic Church intends to be taken seriously when it tells us that tradition supplements Scripture, then it should be able to offer an example of something that is not in the Bible, that’s not contrary to the Bible, it’s part of what’s properly considered tradition, is necessary for the Church but could not be revealed in the days of the Apostles. We have to understand why it couldn’t have been revealed in the days of the Apostles! That’s the first problem that I would give to my Roman Catholic friends. Can you even give me a convincing illustration of something that matches all these criteria?
LOL Great point, brother
LOL What other scripture is there that you dispute?
Washington wasn't the First President. Benjamin Franklin was
Provided the believer remains in faith through Christ, he continues in that anointing and the work of the Holy Spirit within the believer provides sufficiency in the believer's thinking to discern properly.
If the believer is scarred by past thinking, such as placing faith in any other person before Christ, then he falls out of fellowship and the Holy Spirit is not free to further sanctify the believer in sin, but is grieved until the believer returns to God, confesses and turns away from sin, allowing that past sin to be removed as an obstacle to their fellowship.
Roman Catholics present these very same arguments to argue in favor of Roman tradition, papal tradition! And then you turn around and find out that Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the same arguments in favor of what they call their ‘Holy Tradition’ which is contrary to papal tradition. And so here you have two august Christian bodies (professedly Christian bodies) claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other; their traditions conflict with each other. And yet, they laugh at Protestants for their ‘paper’ pope.
Something that I never thought about and most Catholics either. Every Church has its traditions, some more sacred than others, but Protestants don't elevate their traditions to the level of Scripture, or atleast they shouldn't. Some traditions conflict with others. Some patriarchs disagree with others. The early writings of some patriarchs disagree with their later writings. And where many of these patriarchs are now, I'm sure that they might wish that they could take back some of the things that they wrote. It is definitely not so with the writers of the Scriptures.
What ??????
However, as you may or may not be aware, when Paul wrote his epistle, THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT. It was much later that the Church fathers went through and determined which were Canon.
This is an excellent point. The Apostles had Jesus's Power of Attorney, so to speak, and a Power of Attorney cannot pe passed on by one who has been granted it. And neither can an Apostle.
If you were a theologian, I would say that is heretical; however, as you have no formal training and I doubt your "pastor's" training extends very far beyond Jack Chick comic books, I will presume that you merely spoke from ignorance.
Which of the 20,000+ Protestant sects has the anointing? (If you say that they all have it, then why do they disagree with each other?)
-A8
Our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus is the head of the body, the body being his believers, who obey God through faith in Christ. He didn't ever say He was given a body of numerous sects or of heirarchal brotherhoods. Rather we are all members of the same body through faith in Him.
We disagree with one another when between two or more parties of the disagreement, one if not both happen to be out of fellowship with Him. At that point, our soul, still indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but no longer in fellowship with Him, falls back onto scarred thinking processes. While we rationalize independent of Him, we also sin.
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.