Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Mark Bassett wrote:
 
> On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 05:29:12 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >Please allow me to briefly say somethng about annointing. I totaly
> >agree with you that annointing should not be used to gauge someone's position anymore
> >than the Gifts of the Spirit should be used to gauge someone's walk with GOd-( after
> >they have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the inital sign of speaking in
> >tongues). I believe it should be the ---- Fruits of the Spirit---.
> 
> This is a somewhat different area than was in focus before. We were
> saying that the evidence of anointing ought not be applied as a
> measure of one's message. There are many reasons for this, besides the
> fact that God will provide an anointing to communicate to people from
> diverse sources, and to the human mind, these sources be in analysis
> at odds with one another.
> 
> An  example that comes to mind is from my own first year of walking
> with God - before I received the Holy Ghost, God dealt with me by this
> scripture:
> 
> "For if our heart condemn us,  God   is   greater   than  our heart,
> and knoweth all things." - 1 John 3:20
> 
> Preached to me with the anointing, this was a comfort to me. It told
> me that no matter how unworthy I was feeling, and no matter how
> guiltbound and hopeless - God's judgement was greater than my own
> heart.
> 
> Later, after I prayed through to the Holy Ghost, God dealt with me by
> this same scripture, except now it was expressing another throught,
> akin to the old wisdom "To thine own heart be true". I learned the
> value of conscience, and keeping our hearts with all diligence. Now
> the heart that condemned me was a forewarning that what I knew God
> certainly knew, and to fix the matter up.
> 
> If the preached had elaborated these thoughts, and they did, under the
> anointing, both would be correct at that moment.
> 
> Only one interpretation is 'in context', the second one, the one
> writen to the church: From the ealier verse: " And hereby we know that
> we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. "
> 
> On this other matter, I agree with you that a man can and will be used
> above and beyond his worth and ability by God who reserves the right
> to use instruments (holy or unholy) in any way he wants. This is the
> profound truth that many misuse, and understand too late. The
> anointing of a backslider's mind and heart to see light occasionally
> while his life plunges toward destruction is not evidence of his
> aproval by God, but rather of God's mercy and desire to shower His
> people with hope and blessings, and win them to restoration. Some seem
> to think that the old prayer "hedge him about with thorns until he
> sees the light" is consistent witht he nature of God. God does -not-
> always prevent people from experiencing positive things until they are
> "straight arrow" :-) We sometimes put far too little emphasis on
> "examining ourselves to see if we be in the faith". God has done it,
> yes, but does not treat us as fools, and will not be blamed just
> because he blessed someone who didnt deserve it. Of course, God is
> also not responsible for our reading of the Bible, or our HEARING of
> His word. We are. The owness is on the STUDENT. :-)
> 
> Back to the earlier point, related to prophect, much of the church
> undertood the dispensational, and classic "endtime" reading of
> Daniel/Revelation for a long time, with annointed prayer and Bible
> study. There are other aspects, I must agree, however its going to
> take a lot more than thesis, assertions that it was all inherited,
> and the claim of anointing to absolutely unseat the idea that the Lord
> is coming soon, national Israel is coming to a point of recognition of
> the Messiah by divine inspiration and sovreign work of God, and that
> the apostate gentile world is facing a "cutting off" from opportunity
> as well as judgement very soon.

To clear the record, I believe Jesus is coming very SOON!  Do not mean to 
say that I do not due to my prophetic ideas.

And what "Church" believed these "classic" ideas for a long time?
Is the RCC idea of the CHURCH tradition, giving validity to an
interpretation due to its TIME LENGTH OF BELIEF in that interpretation
akin to our understanding of what is truth?

Time does not matter when it comes to truth.  Th eonly other factor
regarding the loss of such understanding is not that such people
must be lost, but that such people may simply have been slack in
spirituality.  Andf again, I am not saying that those who disagree
with a certain idea are slack in understanding or spirituality.

Overall accusations before one actually knows one's ideas are futile.
 
> The signs of the times say this much. A few passages that a re
> difficult for a few people doesnt warrant rejecting plain talk, much
> like one would reject abstracted godhead doctrine for the sake of
> plain talk.

Keep in mind that, to use your idea of weighing a dogma's validity by
popular opinion and time-length of a doctrinal interpretation,
people were convinced Hitler was the antichrist.  Who did not,
at that time?  Others 
were convinced Stalin was the antichrist.  Others - napolean.
Others, Nero.  Others, Kissinger.  Others, Sadat.  Others, JFK.
It goes on and on.  And if Jesus should not come until the year
2301, there will be many more added to the list.

> Time for a great day in the Lord! God Bless you!
> 
> -mw bassett
> milford, ct
> http://eli.wariat.org/~mbasset

Let us be open that we may have been taught about prophecy is not 
precise. Including my own thoughts!  Any agree?

-- 
---
In Christ,  
Michael F. Blume   
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/writings/mike.htm