Position or anointing?

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

It is interesting to note that Saul and all of Israel were afraid of the giant, Goliath. He was allowed to stand, established in the battle-field , unchallenged. This was not the first time the Israelites were afraid of giants. When the spies were sent in to spy out the land by Moses, the report of ten out of the twelve spies was one of fear, fear of the giants. What is the difference between those who are powerless over giants and those who would run towards them? In Saul and David's case, we see that one had the position and the other had the anointing. What would you have in this life brothers and sisters? Now the one with the position is initially pleased with the outcome of the fight between David and Goliath.

Was he pleased because the arrogant mouth of the enemy who blasphemed our God was shut? Or was he pleased that his own self-serving purposes had been achieved? Now we see that one has a distressing spirit. Saul had already proved that he was a law unto himself and now had to walk this world himself, without God. Yet, when he heard the people praising David above him, pride and envy and hatred began to build in his heart. When David began to worship God and come into His presence, it merely highlighted to Saul what he did not have and with spear in hand, he said in his heart " I will pin David to the wall!” ‘Now Saul was afraid of David because the Lord was with him but had departed from Saul.” (1 Sam 18:12)

There is a difference between the religious man and the man of God. One has position and the other has anointing. What would you have in this life brothers and sisters? These two entities have existed side by side since Cain and Abel. One has an acceptable sacrifice, a broken and a contrite heart, the other has his works. The fire of God falls on one and not the other. Whether it is Cain and Abel, or Saul and David or Jesus and the Pharisees or the martyrs and the Catholic church, there is one thing for sure in these cases, one had the position in this life and the other had the anointing. What would you have in this life brothers and sisters? This state of affairs has and will exist until the Lord returns.

The one with the position will persecute the one with the anointing. In fact, we are moving into times where we will see this " Saul spirit," arise to unseen heights. And directly proportional to the anointing is the level of the persecution. Yet be of good cheer brothers and sisters, for "The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (Psalm 34:17-19)

M

makrothumia Oct 17, 2014

Let's not forget that David (the anointed) showed great respect towards a fallen leader because he was still "the Lord's anointed."

I think this is a fact sadly overlooked by many. May the Lord give us the same heart David had towards the "Sauls" we encounter. David could see both the true condition of the fallen leader and not lose sight that God Himself had put him in the position he was in.

makrothumia

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

God indeed strives long and hard with the fallen leaders, even although He warned against having one in the first place. Yet the people would be ruled by a man so they could just be like other nations. And of course this led to the defeat of the people. And in the end, the leader was godless and died on the battlefield. Jesus, on the other hand, was unabashed when it came to His criticisms of the Pharisess and held His harshest words for them, not the Romans. Even when He made a whip and drove the money changers out of the Temple, the religious leaders were not concerned at what they had turned the house of God into, but more concerned about their authority being challenged. Thier pride in their leadership had blinded them to the Word and the will of God.............bro Frankn

M

makrothumia Oct 17, 2014

Dear Frank,

One of the differences between Jesus and us is that HE was in no need of mercy. You and I on the other hand "at one time were foolish, disobedient, living in malice and envy, deceived and being deceived, hating and being hated of one another....".

With this in mind, all of our criticism of "fallen" or "disobedient" men needs to be done in the light of the same mercy and kindness, that appeared to us when the love of God for mankind appeared.

This is why we are to demonstrate " true meekness towards all men" - even the "deceived" and "disobedient".

Jesus could judge the Pharisees in a way the none of the rest of us can. He was never like them. But we were!

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

HI bro, Did Paul talk about false leaders having come down from Jerusalem to spy out their liberty? Just wondering brother, what has any of this to do with the OP? Do you see something specific in that post that you object to? Perhaps you disagree with the premise of the post or some other part of it. I would be glad to answer any question about what I actually wrote. If not, and you want to talk about leadership, perhaps you could write a post about that specifically because that is not what my post addresses......bro Frank

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

this...

God indeed strives long and hard with the fallen leaders, even although He warned against having one in the first place. Yet the people would be ruled by a man so they could just be like other nations. And of course this led to the defeat of the people. And in the end, the leader was godless and died on the battlefield.

that's the bite! Israel was in the Unique Position of having Yahweh as King, yet instead they turned to a MAN to be their king, because that's the way the "nations" did it.

the nations also did something that angers God above all else, they worshiped idols...and that is EXACTLY what is done today in the "modern church"...the "pastor" is "worshipped" AS WELL as the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit....its just "rome-lite"...."Protestantism" did away with a "pope", and just replaced that man of perdition, with a pastor, and high church "liturgy", "creeds"..."what we believes", endless theological "-ism's" and "-ists"...OR they "nationalize" church, make it in a sin soaked , limp , wayward hybrid of nationalist fervor married to a form of religion, that morphs like a beast into a cruel dark institution. History is the witness to that, blood soaked and backslidden.

I never knew about that dear woman Hutchison, and Dyer(?) until you told me, bro Frank...I read that,and it literally SICKENED me...maybe you can expound on that terrible bit of church history.

for a full year and half I have been just grief stricken about this Most Holy SIMPLE Faith....I feel , God forbid, someday dark hearted prideful men will form "the church of America"....when that day comes? oh God help us.

Lord bless you my dear brother, neil

O

Oracio Oct 17, 2014

I agree that the anointing of the Holy Spirit is much more important than any position in a church. My concern would be with Christians thinking one must absolutely choose between one or other. Let's also remember that David himself went on to have a "position" as king of Israel which was from the Lord Himself. Many anointed saints throughout church history have had "positions" of leadership from the Lord, including for example martyrs like Polycarp of Smyrna who was discipled under John the apostle. One could argue that the roles mentioned in Ephesians 4:11(apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) as well as deacons are "positions" of servant/leadership in the Church. Simply because one has a position of leadership or authority in a church does not mean they operate with a "spirit of Saul" as opposed to operating with the heart of David.

O

Oracio Oct 17, 2014

the nations also did something that angers God above all else, they worshiped idols...and that is EXACTLY what is done today in the "modern church"...the "pastor" is "worshipped" AS WELL as the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit....its just "rome-lite"...."Protestantism" did away with a "pope", and just replaced that man of perdition, with a pastor, and high church "liturgy", "creeds"..."what we believes", endless theological "-ism's" and "-ists"...OR they "nationalize" church, make it in a sin soaked , limp , wayward hybrid of nationalist fervor married to a form of religion, that morphs like a beast into a cruel dark institution. History is the witness to that, blood soaked and backslidden.

Here we go again with the anti-traditional church agenda....sigh

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

Here we go again with the anti-traditional church agenda....sigh

terrible isn't it?...poor Oracio, having to bear with my evil mind, and my evil "agenda". sigh. i'm sorry, I must just have the spirit of apostasy all up in me, too bad it isn't the "good ole days", when "church councils" could avail themselves of the stake, and nice dry pile of oak branches, right?

I got it now...that's the "framing" word, if anyone has a countervailing view, label and stake 'em as having "agenda".

This forum doesn't feel like the place where one can unburden themselves and exercise a modicum of freedom.

O

Oracio Oct 17, 2014

Neil, you don't see anyone who's part of a traditional church here saying the house church or "out of church" movement is completely apostate or heretical or completely watered down or what not.

Even though I disagree with the stance of "no strong leadership" prevalent within the house church movement I don't consider that to be cause for harsh opposition toward that movement as a whole or toward that way of thinking regarding church practice.

But I don't think it's fair for you to come on here and say that all pastors within traditional churches are idols that are worshipped or that all traditional Protestant churches are "rome-lite", etc. etc.

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

you're right, i'm wrong, you win.

i'm done.

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

Oracio,

Is it possible to dialogue without starting some kind of disagreement. It used to be called " hijacking a thread." How about some insightful points about the post rather than try and pit people against each other. It seemed like you did that pretty well enough on the thread about denominations. This thread is about an ancient struggle, battle if you like. I myself will just leave the OP as the piece that it is. Perhaps you can just argue with yourself? And they say I have an agenda? :) Sheesh...........bro Frank

T

twayneb Oct 17, 2014

Position in the Kingdom of God is not possible outside of anointing. In Eph. 4, we find that each man is anointed or graced with the power of God to supply as God has designed. The problem comes when carnal man begins to view position in the Kingdom in a carnal way. God does not anoint men for the purpose of filling position, but for the purpose of growing His body.

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

Hi bro Travis, I think you said it just about as well as it could be said. I think your key words were " position in the Kingdom of God," or one could have said position in the Body of Christ. Indeed, it is about growing and edifying the Body and not growing men's kingdoms...........bro Frank

O

Oracio Oct 17, 2014

Frank, it was your posts in this thread that influenced Neil to reply the way he did, because the underlying message behind them is the same. It is a message that opposes all organized or established churches and pastors of those churches and says they all have a "spirit of Saul". Again, I have not seen this type of harsh attack against the house church movement here.

Regarding hijacking a thread, simply because someone comes on a thread and disagrees or challenges a post does not mean they are hijacking it. This is a forum that is open to discussion even if there is disagreement.

sermonindex Oct 17, 2014

Okay brother, I am not prepared to argue with you. Perhaps you can tell us where in the OP that " it opposes all organized or established pastors of those churches and says they all have a spirit of Saul." You can either quote and prove your words to be true, or this is simply an accusation with no ground. I await your quote from the OP.......bro Frank

I

InTheLight Oct 18, 2014

One of the differences between Jesus and us is that HE was in no need of mercy. You and I on the other hand "at one time were foolish, disobedient, living in malice and envy, deceived and being deceived, hating and being hated of one another....".
With this in mind, all of our criticism of "fallen" or "disobedient" men needs to be done in the light of the same mercy and kindness, that appeared to us when the love of God for mankind appeared.
This is why we are to demonstrate " true meekness towards all men" - even the "deceived" and "disobedient".
Jesus could judge the Pharisees in a way the none of the rest of us can. He was never like them. But we were!

I was struck by this comment and would like to add some thoughts from John Newton to expand upon it and bring balance;

"The Christian, especially he who is advanced and established in the life of faith, has a fervent zeal for God, for the honor of His name, His law, and His Gospel. The honest warmth which he feels, when such a law is broken, when such a Gospel is despised, and when the great and glorious name of the Lord his God is profaned; would, by the occasion of his infirmities, often degenerate into anger or contempt, towards those who oppose themselves, if he was under the influence of zeal alone. But his zeal is blended with benevolence and humility; it is softened by a consciousness of his own frailty and fallibility. He is aware that his knowledge is very limited in itself, and very faint in its efficacy; that his attainments are weak and few, compared with his deficiencies; that his gratitude is very disproportionate to his obligations, and his obedience unspeakably short of conformity to his prescribed rule; that he has nothing but what he has received, and has received nothing””but what, in a greater or less degree, he has misapplied and misimproved. He is therefore a debtor to the mercy of God, and lives upon his multiplied forgiveness.

He makes the gracious conduct of the Lord towards himself, a pattern for his own conduct towards his fellow-creatures. He cannot boast, nor is he forward to censure. He considers himself, lest he also be tempted (Galatians 6:1); and thus he learns tenderness and compassion to others, and to bear patiently with those mistakes, prejudices, and errors in them, which once belonged to his own character; and from which, as yet, he is but imperfectly freed. But then, the same considerations, which inspire him with meekness and gentleness, towards those who oppose the truth, strengthen his regard for the truth itself, and his conviction of its importance. For the sake of peace, which he loves and cultivates, he accommodates himself, as far as he lawfully can””to the weakness and misapprehensions of those who mean well; though he is thereby exposed to the censure of bigots of all parties, who deem him flexible and wavering, like a reed shaken with the wind.

But there are other points, nearly connected with the honor of God, and essential to the life of faith, which are the foundations of his hope, and the sources of his joy. For his firm attachment to these, he is content to be treated as a bigot himself. For here, he is immovable as an iron pillar, nor can either the fear, or the favor of man””prevail on him to give place, no not for an hour! (Galatians 2:5). Here his judgment is fixed; and he expresses it, in simple and unequivocal language, so as not to leave, either friends or enemies, in suspense, concerning the side which he has chosen, or the cause which is nearest to his heart.

The minister who possesses a candor, thus enlightened, and thus qualified, will neither degrade himself to be the instrument, nor aspire to the head, of a party. He will not servilely tread in the paths prescribed him by men, however respectable. He will not multiply contentions, in defense, either of the shibboleths of others, or of any hobby-horse of his own, under the pretense that he is pleading for the cause of God, and truth. His attention will not be restrained to the interest of any detached denomination of Christians””but extended to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity."

O

Oracio Oct 18, 2014

Okay brother, I am not prepared to argue with you. Perhaps you can tell us where in the OP that " it opposes all organized or established pastors of those churches and says they all have a spirit of Saul." You can either quote and prove your words to be true, or this is simply an accusation with no ground. I await your quote from the OP.......bro Frank

Bro, I will also ask you, do you agree with Neil's post about all traditional church pastors being idols that everyone in traditional churches worship(like a pope), or that all Protestant organized churches are Rome-lite? Again, that post was an affirmation of your posts on this thread; your posts were not as blatant but the implication still seemed clear as has been the case in discussing this topic of church structure.

sermonindex Oct 18, 2014

So no quote from me Oracio, just an accusation , that about sums it up. I have written extensively for the last 7 years and you are free to look Oracio, it is all online, your accusations are simply unfounded. I have been sharing simple, overarching truth and have been deliberately non specific because it is not up to me what you do with truth. If I have spoken something that is not true, then let us have a quote. If you unable to quote anything, then you are simply an accuser Oracio. We are straightly told not to bear false witness against our neighbors...........bro Frank

O

Oracio Oct 18, 2014

Frank, I am not deliberately falsely accusing you of anything here. As one who considered himself part of the house church movement for some time I'm very familiar with the "Saul spirit", "ruler over the people", argument. Neil is very familiar with that argument and uses it as well and that's why he posted what he posted as an affirmation to your OP and other post. There have been others on this forum who are no longer here who often would also use that same argument on this forum. You've made it clear that you oppose the current "institutional church system" as a dead system in which God is not trying to do a big move anymore in these last days. You've made it clear that you believe God is calling His remnant to come out of the "established church system". You've discussed this with brother Greg and the two of you have disagreed on it. I don't think it should be that necessary for me to have to go back and pull all those past quotes? I don't think you're being that honest here by saying I'm falsely accusing you, as if I have no reason for posting what I posted concerning your views on this issue of church structure.