Protecting Yourself Against the Great Sin of Pride by Having A Submissive Spirit

One of the most important areas of godliness in the life of a believer is the area of submission. If one is not submissive but rebellious in spirit, there is a great danger of pride and sin. Many warnings are given in Scripture towards that state of rebellion and un-submissiveness in a believer’s life.

We must recognize God’s sovereignty and rule over all creation, our lives and the Church. We must submit our minds to the authority of Scripture as we submit to God in our spirits; He owns us now. We must submit to those whom He has equipped with callings and giftings in the Church to lead the body of Christ.

God always has and always will place shepherds in the body of Christ to help oversee and protect the flock of God under the chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord.

When we follow the way of un-submissiveness and elevate our own selves we fall into the place of being ruled by the spirit of lucifer or Satan, who was the first to rebel against God. Thus he will influence us to rebel against God and all of His delegated authorities that have been set up.

“As we examine what it means to have this spirit of submission, we need to let go of our human reasoning and our cultural trappings so we can fully accept what the Word of God teaches. Unfortunately, we have inherited this rebellious nature from Adam. So don’t be surprised to discover it fighting to stay alive. We’ll be helped if we allow the light of God’s Word to reveal this rebellion and then deliberately choose to believe what the Scriptures say instead of what our flesh says.

from: http://gospelfellowships.net/principles-book/

The problem is that we have a church full of sinful leaders, who expect submission from a church full of sinful believers. The leaders are the ones who hold the responsibility of showing an example to the flock and will be held extra responsible by God for the position they assume.

If the leaders show that they are serving in the same way as Christ served, then the flock will follow.

Uncrucified flesh in them all is the problem. They will not believe that it is already done and walk in the faith of it, turning from all sin.

Sree

A man who has not had his flesh dealt with through crucifixion cannot be truly humble - the flesh will show at some point.

Of course we are to submit to leaders but leaders who show lack of humility and other sins, will be a stumbling block to weaker believers. How many leaders do we have who can say with Paul 'imitate me'? Knowing the truth of that shows how far the church has fallen.

The fashion these days is for leaders to show their failings with even a sense of pride instead of showing the crucified life of sacrifice.

We will not agree about perfection, but if you do not seek it, it is true that there will never be perfection in your sight.

We will not agree about perfection, but if you do not seek it, it is true that there will never be perfection in your sight. Krautfrau

I rather think that it was you woman who said that there were no perfect people either in the churches or in the leadership of the churches. Clearly there has never been any perfect men in your sight! Why do you always twist things around. Say what you mean and let it be plain. Sree, as with the overwhelming majority of believers realise that they cannot attain to sinless perfection. Moreover if anyone has been reading your posts carefully they will also realise that without it, according to your doctrine, they are yet without Christ. Now you can complain about my calling you a woman as well!

Here is a riddle for you!

Is it light which breathes to light?
Or breath which lights the mind?

Andrew

There have been many perfect in my sight - I have talked about some of them, though there are many thousand in total. Today however, there are few. Come the great revival there will be many again.

I have no problem with you calling me a woman. Exposing my full name however, in your quotes, when I have not divulged it here, is taking away my right to divulge it if I so wish.

I don't speak in riddles, nor desire to try to work them out.

There have been many perfect in my sight - I have talked about some of them, though there are many thousand in total. Today however, there are few. Come the great revival there will be many again.

I have no problem with you calling me a woman. Exposing my full name however, in your quotes, when I have not divulged it here, is taking away my right to divulge it if I so wish.

I don't speak in riddles, nor desire to try to work them out.

You may be able to deceive yourself Krautfrau but I am not deceived by the things you say. As for riddles the saying "in my sight" ought to mean what it sounds like. As for the "many" you have only ever mentioned a few and of those I could catalogue a testimony or horrors as to their effect in most instances. As to the present day….. we are in your estimation speaking about the past 100 years or so. In all of that time according to your doctrine countless millions of "believers" have perished because they did not have the fullness of Christ at all. As to your name even a child could work it out as you have openly advertised it on this forum and continue to do so. As I say I am not deceived by the politeness of your posts and the reality of their content. Nor do I hide behind words no matter what the consequences are for me. As a matter of fact I will continue to press this false doctrine of yours and will do so unto destruction of my own circumstances. I have always been willing to suffer complete loss and will never change my mind. Call on whom you will it will make no difference to me!

Andrew

I can only say that I grieve for you for the consequences of opposing the work of the Holy Spirit.

The last time holiness doctrine was believed in the church, that is the true version, was during the Hebredian revivals. One day it will be broadcast at large again, and you will be very busy indeed if you are still here that is.

It is one thing to oppose error as you see it (but is and always has been a part of the church no matter how much you protest) but quite another to mount a campaign to discredit and belittle a fellow believer.

I wish nothing but God's blessing on you.

Just for clarity, I asked Greg to intervene as Andrew was quoting my full name which he had found during his extended searches for information about me. I consider it a breach of privacy to do so as I have only quoted my Christian name so far. Not that I am ashamed of anything I say, I just wish to reserve the right for full disclosure. Greg agreed with me and obviously spoke to Andrew but Andrew has obviously been offended by my action.

I can only say that I grieve for you for the consequences of opposing the work of the Holy Spirit.

The last time holiness doctrine was believed in the church, that is the true version, was during the Hebredian revivals. One day it will be broadcast at large again, and you will be very busy indeed if you are still here that is.

It is one thing to oppose error as you see it (but is and always has been a part of the church no matter how much you protest) but quite another to mount a campaign to discredit and belittle a fellow believer.

This is the difference between doctrine and truth in a single sentence freely expressed for a purpose of your own.

It pleased the Lord to take me to the Hebrides in the early 1990's without any knowledge of either the Hebrides or the revivals which have taken place their over the past 200 years. I met and fellowshipped with men and women who were saved in the revival after the second world war, as well as several brethren who were instrumental at that time. In one instance this had to do with a brother who the Lord used by invitation of Duncan Campbell to pray in a house in Arnol shortly after the revival started in Barvas more quietly, where the Bragar men came to oppose the work of the Holy Spirit. Their presence was so overwhelming that Duncan could not even pray. In the end he invited the "boy Donald" to pray. After this praying of Donald for thirty minutes the house shook and the power of these men of Bragar was broken by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

I can tell you that in Lewis you will not find too many believers who either retained the effect of this revival or who even accepted the fullness of the Holy Spirit even at that time. Lewis is no less worldly and devise than any other place. You ought not to confuse what you read in books, which are often selective and intended for encouragement, with the fullness of things as they are in times of real revival. The "boy Donald" became a man of course and ended up as a missionary. At the end of his life he came back to the Island and I spent some time with him over two years and his children as well as extended family and discussed these things in detail. I could tell you some things which would shock you about the reality of what men can be like even after times of great revival. Yours is a philosophical presentation of a doctrine of sinless perfection. You are confusing the exceptional with the day to day reality of mens lives without first hand experience or knowledge beyond one moment in your life over ten years ago. Since then you have incorporated many threads of understanding into your explanations for your own failure to walk sinlessly and these almost entirely attend to your own body, and the consequences of choices others made in your life. In wrestling with your body you have gained some semblance of control. This however is not sinless perfection. It is nothing more than understanding physiology.

In Lewis it was possible for three believers to be standing in a single queue of men and women and to give no acknowledgement of the other for reasons of tradition and doctrine. I know because I spent four years standing in those self same queues and challenged the behaviour by wilfully speaking to everyone including the heathen unbeliever. I spoke to a number of men and women in their 30's and 40's who themselves spoke of nothing but bitterness of their souls because of the hard heartedness and lack of liberty of their parents and grandparents, those who were saved in the revival.

In fact I have never before experienced such darkness of the proud soul which casts down all others until the Lord Himself raises them up by appointment of salvation. Neither have I personally witnessed such doctrinal divisiveness outside of Northern Ireland anywhere in the UK. Nothing I have shared here is an exaggeration. I visit the Island regularly in the course of going about Britain and as recently as 12 months ago I spent a week with Donald MacPhail's son Peter and his family and renewed my understanding of his fathers testimony and part in the revival of 1949 as a fifteen year old boy. When those who have been blessed with revival of God begin to make doctrines of them or their successors the end result is almost inevitably a cause for stumbling. The life we have in Christ is not a doctrine espoused. In revival it is in the air, in ordinary times it must be in the man or the woman and not in mere words.

As for a campaign to discredit and belittle you as you suggest, make that case to the moderators. In the end this will be pressed and the end will be as it will be. That includes myself being cast down and belittled and the thing brought to an end. If you don't have the stomach for it then don't set yourself up as a teacher of men. Appealing to sentiment is a base thing for those who press doctrines of devils.

Just for clarity, I asked Greg to intervene as Andrew was quoting my full name which he had found during his extended searches for information about me. I consider it a breach of privacy to do so as I have only quoted my Christian name so far. Not that I am ashamed of anything I say, I just wish to reserve the right for full disclosure. Greg agreed with me and obviously spoke to Andrew but Andrew has obviously been offended by my action.

Not that this needs to be explained but for clarity. Brenda lists her full name with initials in her profile. I did not find it by doing an extensive research at all. Therefore in the two instances in which I used Brenda's full name, that is to say Christian and Forename to indicate that I had quoted her, the information…i.e. the Forename….was taken from this site. The Christian name was from Brenda signing her posts "Brenda" on various occasions. What ever research I have done had to do with establishing to my own satisfaction what Brenda teaches and has taught for over ten years. That is of course a matter for her, unless she presses others with it then it is a matter for whosoever.

Stop playing the victim Brenda. You made your own choices and in the face of everything you continue to press them.

And yes Greg did of course e-mail me and agreed with your request not to be named in full. He did so in a gracious and non offensive way and I agreed with him. He was bound to have to ask me as he himself had been asked. This is a public forum and of necessity this would have to be the case. As far as being offended I am not offended Brenda I understood perfectly why you asked and would have in any other circumstance as well, agreed to the same limitation on my part. Though your posts have all the hall marks of someone who cares little for what others think. So I take it that your request was simply a construction.

Even when there is true revival of the church and by implication newly saved lives as well, this does not mean that this way of God working will produce lasting fruit.

One of the most remarkable things to me was what I witnessed in the Outer Hebrides. Not only extraordinary divisions amongst believers, many of the older ones having been soundly saved in the Hebridean Revival after the war in which Duncan Campbell is known to have had a part, but also how this divisiveness effected the unbelieving population, particularly the youth.

The burden of the two sisters who received God' promises and shared them with the elders, was principally informed by a lack of youth or else a total absence of youth in the Barvas church. Yet today the youth of the island are just as worldly minded as are any young people. In Stornoway the principle town, the drink problem was visible every weekend with hundreds of young people just getting drunk and taking the streets as their own. Revival in Lewis has happened 10 times over the last 200 years. Yet the Island is gripped with divisiveness and all of its attendant problems. No doubt it would be an extraordinary thing to be in such a revival but lets not kid ourselves into imagining that even if we were to experience such a move of God this may not of itself produce a permanent effect of repentance and a permanent desire to walk a holy life. Our flesh would soon get the upper hand if we did not continue in that knowledge of the presence of God and thereby make it real on a daily basis.

Personal revival is lasting in this sense and it is daily. Knowing how far we personally fall short of this way of walking simply means that we should seek for a willingness to be faithful and obedient ourselves without hiding behind outward things, even remembrances of revival.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=47730&forum=40&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=0

Andrew

You gave the impression that you obtained my name from an article I wrote 10 years ago, as it was after you did that, that you started to quote it.

It is very fascinating to read about your experiences in the Hebrides and about the people you know. It does not surprise me however, in the least to hear about the divisions and lack of any influence remaining. As this revival was along the same lines of the Keswick teachings, it surprises me even less. As people find out, second blessing does not bring the sort of sinlessness people desire and more often than not, people think they receive entire sanctification when they have not. It is however an amazing experience and the effects last some time but there is great danger of it fading which is what you are describing I think, if they do not carry on seeking.

It is a whole mess, but that's what we should expect when Satan is around and he certainly is whenever holiness is discussed and is no reason to stop desiring to be holy.

I found that when I visited the Faith Mission in Edinburgh, that all of the influence from the revivals coming from preachers who had been trained and sent out from there, had disappeared. I think that the revivals of the 20th century were particularly confused.

It is now 23 years since it was revealed to me that we are sanctified by faith and I received a 'second blessing' not 10 years and I have been preaching it since.

Colin, sinless perfection which is a phrase I do not like to use, due to the erroneous opinions of it, is a state where we still make mistakes, still suffer from illness, and still can fall into sin but we are in a state of union with Christ and can walk as He walked. Being sanctified is where we do still sin if we are not guarding ourselves, and must repent, but we have the power not to sin. Carnality is where we cannot stop certain sins. So it is a case of being delivered from the guilt, the power then the presence of sin.

You gave the impression that you obtained my name from an article I wrote 10 years ago, as it was after you did that, that you started to quote it. Krautfrau

Strange to say it prior to my many postings into that thread in contention to this doctrine of sinless perfection which you promote I spent several hours writing a different kind of response altogether. It was after searching for substance to your own contributions to that post that I changed my mind and posted as I did. Until that point I had no reason to be so emphatic with your full name. I did so then precisely to be emphatic and create a visual reminder for your sake that we are accountable for the things we write ourselves and not some other. I had known your name for months prior to that for the very reasons I stated earlier. It is in you profile.

It is a whole mess, but that's what we should expect when Satan is around and he certainly is whenever holiness is discussed and is no reason to stop desiring to be holy.

The following will make sense of the mess!

Colin, sinless perfection which is a phrase I do not like to use, due to the erroneous opinions of it, is a state where we still make mistakes, still suffer from illness, and still can fall into sin but we are in a state of union with Christ and can walk as He walked. Being sanctified is where we do still sin if we are not guarding ourselves, and must repent, but we have the power not to sin. Carnality is where we cannot stop certain sins. So it is a case of being delivered from the guilt, the power then the presence of sin.

On the face of it this answer to Colin's question seem very reasonable. The following quotations will give a fuller picture as to what you really mean.

It is my understanding that Wesley did not wish to contend over the term sinless perfection because there is so much misunderstanding about it..........not that it is not scriptural...........He did teach that man can be without sin........To make it clear - I do not believe that it is possible for a man to never have sinned in his whole life. I do not believe that once a man is entirely sanctified that he cannot sin again - he certainly can fall.............I believe that a man can have a pure heart and as sin comes out of the heart, and this is where I disagree with Paul West, not the other way around from head to heart, if the heart is pure there cannot be an evil thought coming into the head................I do not believe that a man can be like God in that he never makes a mistake but a mistake is not a sin..............It is an error of judgment and not a moral issue..............I am not aware of any sin at this moment of time and I have walked with absolute assurance but this is not about me. It is about whether the doctrine is true or not. I don`t want the attention to be on me but I am willing to answer questions so long as they are respectful. 2013/5/11 9:03

I believe that Colin differs from me in that he thinks that entire sanctification means that there is no conscious sin. Maybe if he is still here he can confirm this to avoid confusion...........I don`t go along with this and think that this doctrine brings discredit because the claimant is displaying sins that others can see yet say that one must walk without sin.............To me, it is a contradiction of terms. Entire sanctification means to me simply that - no sin. 2013/5/11 9:16

And forgive the next question but do you think you are qualified to be an authority when you have not entered His rest? I say this because it is not possible to tell those who are repeating the doctrine from those who have or are there and confusion results. 2013/5/11 12:54

Brother PaulWest asked earlier that we define the terms we are using to help the discussion, and I have given mine on the previous page but no-one else has offered theirs so please will you do so. I see the same misrepresentation of the term over and over.I do not actually like to use it I prefer to call it His Rest as in Hebrews but am forced to use it due to the error that has come into the church since Wesley which talks about freedom from conscious sin alone. Thank you. 2013/5/12 2:11

I admit that we have growth once we have been made pure. But if the heart is made pure then there is no need to have sin revealed gradually. That process occurs before heart purity in the run up to it if our hearts are open still to His teaching and we have not become hardened.

There is no such thing as hidden depths in a pure heart. It is impossible for the scripture tells us that both clean and polluted water cannot come forth together from a tap/faucet. 2013/5/12 2:25

When asked a straight forward question concerning your teachings you answered as follows:

Question:

krautfrau, correct me if I'm wrong but if my memory serves me right from past threads, you have stated that this "entire sanctification" or "perfection" is an essential to one's salvation. In other words, do you believe that one can be saved without being in that state of complete deliverance from all sin?

Answer:

Well it depends on what one, means by saved. For me, in its fullest meaning it is that one is saved from sin as scripture says that Christ came to save us from sins, washing us from them in His own blood Rev 1:5. The scriptures are clear but men add to them with words like `lifestyle` etc........So I think that one can be a believer yet still sin though saved from the worlds thinking and separated in that way, to be conformed to the image of Christ through sanctification.

The brother who asked you this question seems to have thought that your reply was somehow sincere or else full of meaning in the direction which is inferred in it. However, what you have really said is that the world may view one who sins as saved but in reality they are not, until they are completely free from sin. This convoluted answer of yours is in keeping with your three stage process of salvation. In which the third and final stage amounts to true salvation and sinless perfection. As you have stated with your own words you don’t like to use that expression because it is contentious. I can post dozens of examples of your convolutions Krautfrau but as I have seen clearly despite my plain writing you will not answer anything straight forwardly and in keeping with what you actually believe. Yet when left to your own devices and seemingly free from scrutiny you open the subject up right back at sinless perfection being the only true condition of salvation. You have used numerous instances where this is both implicit and clearly stated over the past four months alone.

In response to another brothers question as to whether you yourself were conscious of any sin in your own life, you wrote:

The state of entire sanctification is one where the sins you mention, even the unkind thought, do not occur. I know this because I have walked in this state as I have said before on this forum and have also said that I had a period where I lost my assurance and was merely walking in a state of avoiding conscious sin.........Now you want me to say whether I am without sin at this present time. I have decided not to answer the question for the following reason..........Although it would not be unsafe for me to look at myself to see if I sin, like Peter on the water, as one is very conscious indeed to be in this state, I do not feel it useful at this time to do so. I do not feel led to do so........I would testify to those who are deeply seeking for the experience but for those whose motive is unclear, and possibly ungodly I feel it would be unhelpful to answer. .............I would not wish to bring God`s wrath upon mockers though I am not saying that you are a mocker. I also do not wish to bring upon myself the wrath of Satan, as I am in a very fragile state of health though I am being healed..........You say that it is important to know so you can know if the doctrine is true. But I could be deceiving myself, and if you did make me publicly commit a sin that would not disprove the doctrine. It would just disprove my belief that it applied to me..........I also do not want to have that amount of attention as we are discussing a doctrine.

So I must decline to give you a definite answer apart from that I am not consciously sinning like others here. 2013/5/13 4:48

These comment of yours Krautfrau are sufficiently clear to draw some disturbing conclusions. The chief of which is that you view walking from conscious sin as a “mere” state, in which there is no assurance. This assurance may mean assurance of salvation altogether and point to a psychological mind of concern derived from a doctrine which necessitates sinless perfection to be true and it may also mean that your comprehension of sinless perfection as a necessary condition to salvation is maintained by a witness without which you have no peace. Either way it speaks of a dilemma. This dilemma is ordinarily worked out by a believer understanding that Christ is our sanctification in His own body crucified for sin and that the Father is both just and righteous to forgive us our sins if we confess our sins.

This itself at its root forms the basis for what you have now stated amounts to revelation going back some 23 years.

The thing is Krautfrau you have shared on this site several accounts of the deliverance which you have spoken of. The one 23 years ago can be found at the end of this post in the link from which I have taken all of these quotations of yours. I have also a recollection of you claiming a great revelation from reading The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. You have also shared a slightly different version from ten years ago as well, and you are unwilling to agree that you have no sin in your life. If all of this were simply a private matter as you insist then it would indeed be private. As it is you speak of these things openly to anyone who is able to read them and offer to instruct brothers privately in their endeavours to achieve this entire sanctification experience. For you this is a third stage of salvation, the other two being justification (believing) and baptism of the Holy Spirit (Regeneration). The third is yet another deeper revelation of which you believe that few have any knowledge off and in your ardent moments you say that John Wesley was ignorant of it, and then claim that Wesley’s entire sanctification formed the basis for the 18th century English Revival. You also diminish the Keswick convention and so on. These are pretty remarkable claims by any measure. When you say these things you make the meaning very clear by acknowledging that you do not understand why you have been chosen to receive this knowledge and that most others have not. Just today to myself you have said something similar although you do not seem to realise that what you are speaking about is the exceptional benefit of true revival and has little to do with the Normal Christian Life. It is the power of God in the air bringing men and women to Himself through Christ unto eternal life, precisely because of the sins of men, and not the issue of walking by faith and the rewards of faithfulness. Only believers generally resist God in revival. Unbelievers generally respond with tears when they first know of the Father and of Christ. Such is revival. Unbelievers being saved by God Himself and believers either withstanding or else submitting.

It is very fascinating to read about your experiences in the Hebrides and about the people you know. It does not surprise me however, in the least to hear about the divisions and lack of any influence remaining. As this revival was along the same lines of the Keswick teachings, it surprises me even less. As people find out, second blessing does not bring the sort of sinlessness people desire and more often than not, people think they receive entire sanctification when they have not. It is however an amazing experience and the effects last some time but there is great danger of it fading which is what you are describing I think, if they do not carry on seeking.2013/8/20 12:59

Again you seem to be unaware of what you said earlier, namely, “The last time holiness doctrine was believed in the church, that is the true version, was during the Hebridean revivals.” This saying of yours points both to something which is true and something which is false. What is true has to do with an experience of God in such a way that the recipient of that encounter is radically motivated to please God. It is an attitude which amounts to and leads to the Normal Christian Life. Every believer ought to have such a moment with God as such an encounter if true produces reality and not theology. The fact that many do not, is simply because it is not taught that it is a normal thing to know the Father and Christ through obedience. For any man or woman who has such a revelation of the Father and Christ it ought to lead to a desire to make it a thing to be laid hold off as a matter of normalcy and not exceptionally. At any moment any child of God regardless as to their own condition of faithfulness could know the Father and Christ in such a way as to change them completely and radically alter their walk. You may believe that you have taught this, but in fact you slip away from this and move into a gnostic mind in which pride prevents you from accepting that what you have is the Normal Christian Life and not some exceptional or hidden teaching which must needs be sought for in the pages of historical books or else through the chosen few. Hence why you have in reality just one man to speak of in this regard. This is George Fox.

We need to be clear what sin is. The sermon on the mount shows us that it is in thoughts as well as actions, and attitudes. Would you say it is normal to love God with your whole heart consistently from day to day and never put anything before Him? Never have an unkind thought, always to love ones enemy? That is what a sinless state is. If one is still sinning in this way then the provision is for them to come to Christ and be forgiven for not walking in that state 1John 1:9 and then walk as in sermon on the mount. After that there is no such thing as constant coming for forgiveness. That is crucifying the Lord again. 2013/5/15 9:20

In this Krautfrau you make an indirect reference to Hebrews 10:26-31. This is because this passage has to do with an idea which believers generally understand to mean that a saint can be left with the possibility of being unable to repent after a certain point in their lives if they continue in wilful sin. Regardless as to how accurate this interpretation is, the context of your saying it is very different. Yours is an idea which necessitates the acceptance of the claim that all sin is consequentially the same in effect and outcome. Whether conscious or not, in your doctrine all sin is of the devil and no one who is born of God sins. Therefore the one who sins is of the devil. Its a type of proof in the pudding argument. When I made reference to 10 years ago I wasn’t fictionalising I was quoting yourself. However in keeping with your own date of 23 years ago I would remind you of your own words once again. You have been a believer for 40 years thirty of which were spent in mainstream Protestant denominations according to your posts on PCU.

The fact is, that the thing of which you speak twenty three years ago is in truth the same in meaning which numbers of saints experience out of the same circumstances which proves to be your own suffering. The following quote will clarify its meaning well enough.

Nothing good seemed to have happened in my life, and so I was really cut up about the house falling through. I had reached a crisis point. I told God how I felt about Him and spent a few days in absolute agony of mind. Then eventually I saw that He had bought me at a great price and I had to decide whether I would accept everything He provided for me with gratitude.

I saw that I had been walking in the flesh and brought about many things because of this. I had not been living the crucified life and this crisis showed me my faults. I was struck down in deep repentance, into the dust begging forgiveness and mercy. 

In an instant, He did a major work in my soul and delivered me from the battle that had raged inside. I had reckoned myself dead and He raised me up to a new and beautiful world where His presence which had been missing a great deal of time was there with me.

In three days I could barely sleep, because of His presence. He flooded me with love and taught me more in those three days than I had learned in 17 years previously of Bible study and listening to sermons.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peacechurchesunited/message/169

Recently you shared that you have been a believer for 40 years. The PCU link above speaks of thirty years and was written in 2003 and the last post to me speaks of twenty three years as well as the last quote from here on SI speaks of 17 years. All of these dates are in agreement and so the crisis which informed this revelation of yours which you call entire sanctification is described more fully in that post. I have to tell you Brenda that there is nothing in that account of yours which is not common to many believers both in terms of the life experiences and the mercy and goodness of God in delivering you from their great harm. In saying this I am speaking from the place of having experienced all bar one of those things you mention.

In view of this I ask you to give a formal account of this tripartite teaching which is missing from the church for the last 400 years. If it is true then let it be said plainly. If it amounts to a personal deliverance then why press it as something difficult to know?

This is the link from which most of these quotations are taken. Just one posts in many posts over the past four months.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=49099&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0

Andrew

Your post is actually helpful to me as I have strove over the years to be consistent as far as possible (there will always be verses that will not fit in with mine or anyone else's theology). My understanding has not stood still, in accordance with any party line but I have depended on Christ alone to be my teacher.

Two things I have searched to understand, is what exactly salvation means, and when it occurs as I found many verses which seemed to place it later rather than sooner, at the beginning of our walk. As stated, my view now is that salvation is brought about by baptism of the Spirit 1Peter 3:21 and that baptism of the Spirit is by the HOLY Spirit, where we are united with God and have His nature imparted to us.

For a time I struggled with Paul's letters to the Corinthians where he calls them sanctified yet they sinned, seriously sinned. This does not fit into the Keswickian shape of things and the two stage theology.

My understanding stated as clearly as possible, is that we go through the same process as the disciples, if we do not grieve the Holy Spirit through unbelief that is, and that we are firstly followers of Christ, struggling with the flesh, then are breathed upon by the HS John 20:22 which I consider as sanctification or Illumination as the old Via Triplex has it, and then baptism of the Spirit or Entire Sanctification. Then we are saved in the fullest meaning of the word.

Many obviously do not reach this point, but I consider that at the point of death, we are given a final chance to get right with God, He being a gracious God and not wishing any be lost. Even the unsaved say their lives flash before them at the doors of death. However, we must then spend eternity in regret of wasted time and loss of rewards if we have been grieving the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that the Via Triplex has not been taught for 400 years, as quite a few around Azusa times, believed in three stages though there was a lot of disagreement over what they were. I have not studied it in depth as my time has also been taken up with my struggle with disabling health issues, for which there is no satisfactory medical help, so have had to become my own physician, researching biochemistry and genetics especially to heal lifelong depression due to said genes which has been achieved, enabling me to avoid the disabling long term effects of medications. Walking in the Spirit also removes depression symptoms.

Christ has throughout been the rock of my salvation. I have however, had great struggles retaining the ES state, and don't yet know why so I will not be put in the position where I have to keep giving an updated account and explanation of my present standing, I am not promoting myself to the formal position of a teacher - I have no web site nor write books though I did attempt at one time to show Quakers what Fox was actually teaching. Now, I merely defend the doctrine unless the Lord changes that and promotes me to being a teacher with a clear ministry in some part of the body. I desire nothing but His will, holiness preachers are under great attack and I do not welcome that nor flee from it.

You say that many believers go through the same things and yes they do, as there are similarities in each stage. But each one is a deeper revelation of the same things we already know and a deeper deliverance. It is all about knowing Christ and what he achieved at Calvery, in deeper and deeper ways in accordance to our submission to Him in obedience.

"These comment of yours Krautfrau are sufficiently clear to draw some disturbing conclusions. The chief of which is that you view walking from conscious sin as a “mere” state, in which there is no assurance. This assurance may mean assurance of salvation altogether and point to a psychological mind of concern derived from a doctrine which necessitates sinless perfection to be true and it may also mean that your comprehension of sinless perfection as a necessary condition to salvation is maintained by a witness without which you have no peace. Either way it speaks of a dilemma. This dilemma is ordinarily worked out by a believer understanding that Christ is our sanctification in His own body crucified for sin and that the Father is both just and righteous to forgive us our sins if we confess our sins."

We can look at Job, to see that trials come to the righteous, whereby they are assailed with the dark night and lose their assurance even though they are not conscious of sin.

"Again you seem to be unaware of what you said earlier, namely, “The last time holiness doctrine was believed in the church, that is the true version, was during the Hebridean revivals.” This saying of yours points both to something which is true and something which is false."

I am referring to the so called revivals in Pentecostal circles which are merely revivals of Pentecostal doctrines and nothing to do with holiness.

"The fact that many do not, is simply because it is not taught that it is a normal thing to know the Father and Christ through obedience. For any man or woman who has such a revelation of the Father and Christ it ought to lead to a desire to make it a thing to be laid hold off as a matter of normalcy and not exceptionally. At any moment any child of God regardless as to their own condition of faithfulness could know the Father and Christ in such a way as to change them completely and radically alter their walk."

I agree entirely with this. If I have missed anything please let me know. Your challenges are being of great use to me.

Sree wrote : "The Church with Jesus as leader itself was not perfect on this earth. There was a thief and betrayer in their behalf. Don't you think Jesus did not know it? Why did he not put him out of his Church to keep it perfect? Do you think Judas did not make effort to influence other disciples? what if some other believer comes to the Church and sees Judas steeling and leaves the Church? Was Jesus not concerned? In short he did not care about those in search of perfect Church. Let those who get offended get offended by what they see, that was his attitude."

I don't see the church as a physical entity. It is a gathering in spirit of the saints over the ages, and there will always be those who gather in His name who are apathetic, uncommitted and even of evil intentions. They are left to their own ends. There cannot be a perfect gathering but the church as the body of Christ is to be perfect as He is perfect.

This who do reach perfection usually have no choice but to attend gatherings that have the mixture, and even when denominations are set up when the perfected ones are outed from their denominations, very quickly within one generation, they become a mixture too. So I agree that it is impossible to search for a 'perfect' church though we should find one which hungers and thirsts for righteousness.