Prophecy re-thinking?

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

Mark Bassett wrote:
 
> Thanks for the extensive answers Bro Blume, Please forgive excessive
> harshness in my expression in the earlier message. I cannot presently
> find a satisfactory approach given the extent of the verbiage.

No problem. Just the implications that I was prejudiced and  
suffered favouritism kind of knocked me a bit.  

> As I said earlier, I personally felt that the [months] earlier
> analysis of the the so-called "Plymouth Brethren" dogmas regarding
> Daniel/Revelation were insufficient to prove them faulty. we can get
> ino this another time, perhaps. Im not going to now, as I dont have
> more time than what was already given.

My point was never to get into denominationalism and its doctrines,
but rather to simply say that we should, as Apostolics, reconsider
their views which have been handed down to us.  That is all.  I have
no desire to get into an "anointed" or "non-anointed" topic.  Only,
and not beyond this, it indeed causes me to stop and consider all.
My experience, and certainly not anyone else's I know about (I can 
only speak for myself), was that upon hearing prophecy being taught,
there was not the same "higher-fire" that went along with the message when
the minister began straying from traditional ideas about prophecy that there
was when the minister began getting away from such things.

It was not a PROOF (as some think I meant it was) that their ideas
and interpretations were wrong.  But it was enough to make me stop and try
the message content.  For every single time such thoughts were mentioned
the anointing was not there.

In no way do I believe we need that fire burning out of every message in order
for it to be truth.  I am strongly convinced it is God's will to "burn hearts"
with His presence manifesting strongly everytime qwe minister, but it does not
prove we are not speaking truth if that presence does not manifest.  I simply
felt all agreed this was a given.  I have heard preachers preach
Oneness with no more "unction" than a door knob, but that does not mean
Oneness is wrong.  See my point?

But when EVERY time I heard such traditional thoughts lacking that special
"something", after a while it made me wonder.  That is all I have been saying.
I so wish to stray from this area of chat and get into some chapter by 
chapter commentary by all on board for all our consideration.

> Let me just briefly address what you must have sen as near, if not
> direct assault.

Believe me, brother, no direct assault was intended.  I will prove it 
by the points you make below.

> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:17:32 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> >It is the witness of the Spirit.  If you would have felt what
> >I felt that morning I opened the study up with encouragement from the words
> >of Revelation, you would understand what I mean.  But alas, you weren't
> >there.
> 
> >I think I know what anointing is and is not.
> 
> It is not, in my humble opinion, valuable to collective Bible study to
> cite the "anointing" one feels when one gets a flash. 

Again, as pointed out, I was not judging whole doctrine on such "flash"
anointing.  I am saying a consistent lack of it should cause anyone to 
wonder.

And the reason I said I think I know what the anointing is, is that
I amn experienced in receiving from God.  I had better be if I am
going to hold license and claim a ministry and a calling.  But to call it 
merely a "flash"..  Let's just leave the personal side out of it.  

Notice I generalize my opinions about my views as though not to
hit anyone individual.  Trends must be broken.  Perhaps it is 
a trend that needs breaking when it comes to pop-prophecy issues.
Only consider it.  We are certainly open for this.

> (Please pardon
> me for deliberatly minimizing the sense of profundity, but it makes
> the point).
> 
> You see, you are talking to someone who ALSO experiences anointing,
> and a sense of profound truth, Holy Ghost power and the presence of
> God, when considering ideas which happen to be seemingly at odds with
> what you are expressing :-) 

Did I say you do not know the anointing?  If not, then why the reference
to "assault"?  But to mere say, "Yep" to my experience is not 
conducive to the chat.

> Ive got the Holy Ghost for sure, speak in
> tongues, pray with results, live for the most part with the victory,
> have a teaching ministry which seems to work, have the recommendation
> of recommended elders, etc etc. Those who know me will tell you that I
> am reasonable and balanced, and hold a high regard for scripture as
> well as for the Body of Christ.
> 
> OK required horn tooting is over..

Keep in mind that when two ministers discuss as we are, and are at odds,
the saints are watching, brother.  

> Theres a few implications here. Let look at them:
> 
> 1. Evidently people can experience a sense of confirmation over
> seemingly different concepts.

Sure 'nough.  But no one said it was an absolute criteria.

> 2. As real as it is, claiming the "anointing", with proper
> identification or not, is not a valid means of proving one's point.

Again, I was noting the repeated lack thereof in my experience.  It made
me look and indeed I looked and found.  

Another element that caught me was that every argument that opposed the others
convinced me at one time or another, until I said...  That's it.  God you
show me!  And I believe He will not give me a serpent if I ask for an egg.
(Now, don't put words in my mouth and say that I feel everyone who disagrees
with me has received serpents!)

> When one attempts to certify his correctness by speaking of how he
> experienced anointing, it implicitly asks others to call them liars. 

Maybe in your cultural way of living.  But my intentions were that
it was not a simple little thing to be unconcerned over when I felt
such powerful witness that I did.  Your "Yep" prompted me to wonder
if you agreed with whether I know anoiting or not.  

Implicitly I was asking whether you believed me or not, for "yep" 
answered nothing.  If my word on this cannot be received and you 
insist on saying I called you a liar, then we should avoid one
another's posts.  Lack of communication is not a sin, but it sometimes
helps when sins are attributed to its results.  (Not saying you sinned -
just to clarify my words in case communication fails again.  But to think
I called you a liar is in my opinion sinning.  And if I am looked at
as sinning, then communication must cease lest further lack of it
dig deeper holes.)

> I
> hope you understand this, Bro. If we disagree and you say that your
> understanding is  "anointed" and therefore correct, then I am left
> with two options. Either shut up, or imply that your sense of reality
> is warped. 

Listen to my viewpoint regarding my intentions earlier.  I did not by any 
means imply anything similar to you being a liar.  All you can do is agree
and believe me that I did not imply you were a liar.  Again - I meant to say
that I know what anointing is and that such news should be common
knowledge amongst all our UPC brethren since we should have
confidence that  the fellowship wold not ordain those who know nothing
about anointing.  Again, it was due to your "Yep" that I said this.

> Not a good tactic, wouldnt you agree ? I hope you didnt
> intend to direct the conversation in this way.

No I did not.  And I hope you will believe I am telling you the truth.

> 3. Words of revelation speak for themselves and will move those who
> are honest and submitted to God. 

Exactly my point in mentioning the Sunday morning incident.  The whole crowd
was overwhelmingly touched.  Certainly moreso than commonly.  And
when THAT happens, I take notice.


> We'll see what comes of this.
> 
> You cited that some agreed with you, such as Ken Reeves. Does this
> invite others to list those who agree with their understanding
> (besides the "unanointed" Plymouth Brethren. Darbyites) ? :-)  I sure
> hope not.. we'll have to buy a new disk to store the list. :-)

Again to say I said that Plymouth Brethren are unanointed is to 
say an incorrect statemnt.  I never said that.  Find the paragraph where
I did.  I was speaking amongst ourselves.  

> In any case, I'll mail you privately from here out. I'm sorry to have
> gotten a case of criticism so quick regarding these matters. It
> probably goes back to feeling that an inadequate airing was given to
> good doctrine before condemning it wholesale.

I trust you mean to say (love hopeth all things) that such a feeling
is not good enough to go by and not that you are saying something grey.

> To answer an earlier question, I think I skimmed "the Late Great
> Planet Earth" - we never considered Hal Linsey too significant.

Most have read  it or skimmed it.  My point in part.

> 
> -mw bassett
> milford, ct
> http://eli.wariat.org/~mbasset

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