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.

ginnyrose wrote : "Check out e-Sword and search for the word "church". It is also a physical entity. Read all those entries where the scripture mentions church. It consists of people, literal breathing people capable of decision making.

Frau, when you spiritualize scripture where its literal meaning is obvious you are opening yourself up to deception because it means that only a few who understand riddles are capable of understanding it. Jesus was truth and he spoke truth and expected people to understand it as such.. When he used parables he did provide an explanation.

Now, if one were to interpret your posts as you interpret the WORD one would have to conclude you do not mean what you say!"

Are you saying that every single person who attends their local gathering are in Christ, saved, and living in obedience? Obviously not. A church is not a group of people but the body of Christ, and only God knows who is His and who is not.

On the contrary, I only spiritualise where it is necessary, and where others spiritualise, I do not, like where the scripture says that our old nature is destroyed if we are in Christ. I believe that it is really dead (or held in a death position) and therefore we do not sin. And where it says that if we are in Christ we are a new creation, and not a person who has just 'got religion' like many people of the world's religions who strive to obey a moral framework. Where is the difference between them and believers of Christ? They are often much more moral and clean living than many believers.

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.

Well Brenda I have given the matter sufficient space to decide which part to press further with regard to your teachings. Given that this is helpful to you I can only groan realising that this means nothing good at all. Nevertheless I have a pure conscience in it as my motive is towards you and not against you, seeing something which has not been discussed and probably cannot be discussed on a public forum, yet must be discussed for all that. In the end I am bound to press the doctrines in an illusion of their inceptive paradigm, as well as their visibility through philosophical expressions, rather than whether they are true or false in their substance and form. If that doesn't mean anything right at the offset it will by the finish.

In August 2011 you wrote

I am from a family involved in the occult so I know about these things. There is only one freedom and that is freedom from any ground of the enemy and that means all sin. 2011/8/11 9:20 Krautfrau

You may have read my repeated comments about the occult here on SI and the belief I hold to that the occult is not what most people imagine it to be. Namely that is has nothing to do with what many people generally believe it to mean. When we speak of the occult what are we actually speaking off? Is it witchcraft, sorcery, divination, necromancy, fortunetelling? Are we speaking of that which is of ourselves or are we speaking of that which is given to us? Are we speaking about spirits of men or angels? Or are we speaking of the natural man? What is the object of occult knowledge? In what is it grounded and in what substance of mens souls does it take root. Is it all lies? Or is it all truth? What is the occult? Where does the knowledge which lies at the heart of the occult come from? What kind of knowledge is occult knowledge? Does occult knowledge lose its benefit if it is brought into the open?

Was Moses an occultist when he threw down his staff in the presence of the Egyptian sorcerers? Was the Levitical priesthood practising divination when the High Priest made use of the Urim and Thummim? Why was Samuel the prophet refused an answer by that means of questioning God for guidance? Was Elisha practising magic when he threw a stick into the river Jordan and thereby the iron axe head floated to the surface? Consider this passage of Scripture and its implications.

“And there arose a fierce gale of wind, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling up. Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? How is it that you have no faith?” They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” Mark 37:41

I won’t try to answer any of these questions directly as that would simply take far too long and most probably serve no fruitful purpose. Instead I will quote something I wrote some time ago and simply ask you to compare my words with your own words.

Your Words

“

And when we are walking rightly, all creation recognises our authority for example the animal kingdom and the weather, evidences of which are given in the testimonies of those Wesley interviewed and which he looked for as evidence.” 2012/7/15 0:03

My Words

“................[it] happens when those who are born again, and therefore have every good reason to know the reality of God, give themselves to a process of spiritual delusion which presses the individual into an occult way of thinking and in doing so gives rise to natural sorcery, denying the true power of God in favour of self interest. .................I would say that those who love the Lord Jesus and have fallen into an attitude of commanding the elements in the name of the Lord had better examine themselves very throughly to comprehend if they are truly in the spirit or whether they are yet in the realm of the soul. Witchcraft and sorcery are in the first instance a fruit of the flesh. They are a natural outworking of sin and death and represent, in evidence, the separation which exists between men and God because of sin. Having been reconciled to God through Christ Jesus we ought not to go back to the flesh with its independent inclinations. More important even than this, we must examine the doctrines we have believed and received which inform our thinking and which may have more to do with the prince of the power of the air, than with truth and righteousness.”
https://blog.ichabod.eu/sorcerers/

In July last year a member of SI wrote the following

"Your beliefs (sinless perfection) are very strange to me, you come in here talking about them constantly, backing them up with very strange interpretations of scripture"

To which you replied

It sounds strange because of the breaking of the seal of scripture which occurs when one is delivered from all fleshly understanding of it and seeing it through spiritual eyes. 2012/7/15 0:03

I myself have said to you even in my last post that I perceive you to have a gnostic mind. In the past I have also said similar things and others have sought to define gnosticism without really understanding what gnosticism is. In the process the question has been lost. Now I ask it of you again Brenda. The “breaking of the seal of Scripture” is a gnostic expression. Believing that the very creation submits to one who is walking perfectly is a mystical as well as an occult practise.

We are not speaking of whether it is possible to command the elements or to know the submission of the creature, these things are real enough. They occur in all parts of the world including the religions of the world. The issue is whether entering into a state of sinless perfection automatically produces such an outcome without exercising ones will to that end. There is also the question of whether you have personally known such a state of experience. I know that you have claimed this to be the case and you have said that John Wesley “tested” this claim in others as a proof of entire sanctification. Also in the last posts you made to myself, you said that you essentially reject the whole pentecostal revivals of the 20th Century because they were "merely revivals of Pentecostal doctrines and nothing to do with holiness." You have also said that these revivals were essentially a false spirit and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. All in all Brenda you have a number of strong threads of understanding and experience which have created a mind which amounts to a snare for your feet.

To quote you fully in this regard for a balance:

“I care not whether I see miracles or don`t, but I know that I am not walking in the power of God when they do not occur and I mean seeing the work of the Holy Spirit convicting men of sin through our words, which is what we should all be seeing. This takes place when one is walking rightly without hardly saying a word due to His presence being there. And when we are walking rightly, all creation recognises our authority for example the animal kingdom and the weather, evidences of which are given in the testimonies of those Wesley interviewed and which he looked for as evidence. And then comes the persecution which also occurs even if we say nothing, the spirit of Satan comes against us even in strangers.”

This balance shows that you at least assert that you have no need for miraculous events in your life as a compulsion. It would therefore casually preclude any notion of “power” as a motive for your beliefs or a basis for drawing into those beliefs. This would fit with my own conscience towards you in which conscience I would tend to believe another thing. The sole reason for this presentation in the form expressed is to draw from your own claims that you are from an occult family. There are many reasons why men and women become interested in the occult but it is less likely to be because of ones own family activities in the occult. It is much more generally due to abuse and hardship through childhood and the resultant activity of unclean spirits.

Finally in my last posts I said that you have taught your doctrines over the past ten years. Although I conceded to your measure of 23 years and demonstrated from your posts how this date corresponds to other dates you have given. What I did not do was precisely show how I came to that time frame of 10 years. The following quotation of yours was posted in answer to a member on SI offering a link to this site http://www.epm.org/blog/2010/Jun/30/sinless-perfectionism-are-we-capable and an article on sinless perfection.

.......thanks for the link but I have no need of understanding the opposite view though this one was typical in getting it wrong - sinless perfection does not say that a Christian cannot sin when he is perfected. He can easily fall into sin again. That aside, I did not believe myself that it was possible for most of my time as a believer. Over 30 years in fact I would have agreed with you and as I lived in a place where the holiness movement never hit, I knew nothing of it. Then Christ entirely sanctified me so it is impossible for me to be swayed by people who say it is not possible because it has not happened to them or to people who misinterpret scripture like Romans 7 once again because they have not had light on it. I”m sorry for you, so very sorry. 2012/7/14 15:17 Krautfrau

In this answer you explain that for thirty years you would have agreed with the author. Well as you have been a believer for just a little over 40 years then this would explain my 10 year reference. As I have said before Brenda I support presentations of Holiness Teaching if that means walking without conscious sin in seasons of obedience. But if it means sinless perfection and the very strong position in which the believer not only becomes as Adam was before the fall, and more especially as Christ was Himself in the flesh, then we have a serious problem. My best guess is that this will either lead to a nervous breakdown, anger and eventual apostasy or else gnosticism and mysticism. From your own testimonies you have experienced very nearly all three of these things yourself. In extreme circumstances it will lead to a wilful rebellion and a return to an occult mind and the open and more fully informed practise of sorcery. In the latter case this would inevitably mean the death of the believer as the Lord would take them for their own sake.

I hope you understand Brenda that I am not writing self righteously. I am writing from the position of having every good reason to lay hold of mysticism and a mind to believe that knowledge itself leads to life (gnosticism). My own beginning in the Lord was just about as supernatural as one could experience yet in all of that dealing of the Father (with a man who was utterly rooted in the occult world of rebellion and self interest through knowledge and sorcery) the Spirit clearly warned me not to take my stand on revelation and visions. At the time I couldn’t understand why. Today I see that it is necessary not to take a stand or place confidence in revelation of God, no matter how marvellous the experience, or visions, no matter how uplifting the experience, but to always have ones trust completely and fully in Christ Himself. To make an object of the benefit of Christ within, is gnosticism. To seek for Christ within subjectively yet with knowledge as the objective stimulus, is mysticism. It is to walk by knowledge and not by continued faith through obedience and accepting the reality of what is possible in this life so long as we have this body of sin and death as our tent.

Once again Brenda all of these quotations are taken from just one post.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=45669&forum=35&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0

I do have one question if you are minded to answer it Brenda.

When you speak of the Via Triplex are you speaking of the triplex via philosophic or are you using the term as a grammatical conduit?

Andrew

I am sorry to disappoint you in your quest to expose me as a false teacher as I am not a teacher, I merely wish to share my understanding gained over a long period of following Christ and discuss opposing theologies like most here.

The Lord has never promoted me to be a teacher, and even if He did, which I doubt if only for the fact that I would have to retire due to ill health. My understanding has grown over the years, and I have had a few about turns meanwhile, for example against Calvinism. Moreover, I would not consider myself as a teacher unless I was established in perfection, which up until the present time, I have failed. Also I feel that there is much that I need to learn.

On the occult, a few family members were interested in consulting fortune tellers and they persuaded me to do so on two occasions, but once I came to Christ, I knew that it was wrong and repented, and since then I have not had any dealings or interest in that sort of thing. One relative claimed that they experienced a feeling of chilling when a family member died, but that was the extent of their involvement. No dancing naked in the woods. My knowledge of the occult has come through reading books by believers who warn others about involvement.

The “breaking of the seal of Scripture” is a gnostic expression.

It is scripture, Revelation chapter 6.

Believing that the very creation submits to one who is walking perfectly is a mystical as well as an occult practise.

You will have to take that up with Wesley. It was he who stated that he took that as evidence. Adam too had authority over creation. I have not been able to find again where he said it and will have to ask some authority on his teachings to show me. I did not take too much notice of it when I found it as I do not have much interest in the effects of walking in the Spirit so much as seeking to know Jesus at deeper levels.

That aside, I did not believe myself that it was possible for most of my time as a believer. Over 30 years in fact I would have agreed with you and as I lived in a place where the holiness movement never hit, I knew nothing of it.krautfrau

I meant to say during a period of 30 years, much of that time I would have agreed with you. At that time I sometimes was not clear when I was referring to sanctification as opposed to entire sanctification.

Let's have the word mysticism defined correctly. It means union with God. Obviously there is a non Christian understanding of it and non Christian practise. Of course they are uniting with the god of this world and not the Biblical Triune God but the idea comes through the real meaning of the word. Christian mysticism is not gnostic, it states that union with God is through the work of the Holy Spirit in giving a man a clean heart and renewed spirit and not through knowledge. Knowledge comes to a man when he obeys Christ. If he obeys the light he has, he will be given more light. Gnosticism refuses the necessity of obedience.

On the Via Triplex, Fox explains how he came into knowledge of it here in his Journal

"Now I was come up in spirit through the flaming sword, into the paradise of God. All things were new; and all the creation gave unto me another smell than before, beyond what words can utter. I knew nothing but pureness, and innocency, and righteousness; being renewed into the image of God by Christ Jesus, to the state of Adam, which he was in before he fell. The creation was opened to me; and it was showed me how all things had their names given them according to their nature and virtue.

I was at a stand in my mind whether I should practise physic for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and virtues of things were so opened to me by the Lord. *But I was immediately taken up in spirit to see into another or more steadfast state than Adam's innocency, even into a state in Christ Jesus that should never fall. And the Lord showed me that such as were faithful to Him, in the power and light of Christ, should come up into that state in which Adam was before he fell; in which the admirable works of the creation, and the virtues thereof, may be known, through the openings of that divine Word of wisdom and power by which they were made.*"

You have at least prompted me to continue in my studies on the subject of Via Triplex, much of which is not from the Christian side of mysticism. For the rest of your writings, I might have found one or two things useful, like the just mentioned prompting, but now I find your obsession and nit-picking to be too much of an energy drain and time wasting exercise particularly when you are not discussing my *faulty* understanding of scripture, as you see it. I believe that you have been cautioned previously about this on SI towards another member.

Far from your prophecy of me being " lead to a nervous breakdown, anger and eventual apostasy or else gnosticism and mysticism" I am growing stronger daily in the Lord and finding more and more reason to praise and worship Him and thank Him for His merciful grace towards me.

The nervous breakdown, anger and apostacy, are on the contrary, often the result of an illuminated one, who has been mistakenly taught that he is perfected without reaching that state.

You do not submit to someone because they are a so-called "Leader".

Two things need to be defined: Submission and Leader

And only the Lord can confirm these in your heart. No man can.

The Holy Spirit will define to you through the Word and His voice what is proper for you to do concerning men and He will confirm in your heart who has been sent by the Lord.

Unless the Holy Spirit confirms these things in your heart, do not submit to anyone but the Lord (the True Leader).

There is nothing noble about putting yourself under men just because they occupy a so-called position of "spiritual authority".

Much spiritual abuse comes from those who feel compelled by men's teachings to submit to themselves or other men.

Religious men will prop up the ministry of other religious men. It keeps the "machine" going.

Study the 5-fold "false ministry" of the 5 Shepherds (Kings) of Makkedah.

Jos_10:16 But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah.

Hi Colin

You have a few misconceptions there. Shakers were nothing to do with Quakers. They were antinomian for a start.

By the time of Wesley, Quakerism had become in disarray, and they were more concerned to wear the right hat which would be a very costly one, rather than to live by their preaching of simple living. Wesley corrected them on this one and he was right to do so. A number of Wesleyans had read Barclays Apology and had gone over to Quakerism which annoyed Wesley though he wrote a tract to say that Quakers were Christians. He greatly disagreed on the sacraments though or rather the lack of them. Today Quakerism is dead and was dying during the great revivals, such as things go.

They were already preaching holiness long before the holiness movement, but were no longer doing so in the main, and many indeed did join in with some of the shenanigans that Pentecostalism brought in.

Strom writes about the excesses in Pentecostalism and charismaticism but does not strike at the root.

Here is a quote about St John of the Cross who was a master of the Via Triplex :

"At the beginning of the prologue of The Ascent of Mount Carmel St John writes: "The dark night, through which the soul passes on its way to the divine light of the perfect union of the love of God, so far as it is possible in this life, requires for its explanation greater experience and light of knowledge than I possess. For so great are the trials, and so profound the darkness, spiritual as well as corporal, through which souls must pass if they will attain to perfection, that no human learning can explain them, nor experience describe them. He only who has passed through them can know them." The branch which God trims or prunes is not only a living but a conscious branch. To know the nature of this pruning, which is similar to that of a tree, one must have experienced it. Each one must carry his cross, and only after having borne it with love does he know clearly what the cross is.

Not without suffering indeed, is complete victory obtained over egoism, sensuality, laziness, impatience, jealousy, envy, injustice in judgment, self-love, foolish pretensions, and also self-seeking in piety, the immoderate desire of consolations, intellectual and spiritual pride, all that is opposed to the spirit of faith and to confidence in God, that a man may succeed in loving the Lord perfectly, with his whole heart, with his whole soul, with all his strength, and with all his mind, and his neighbor (enemies included) as himself.(14) Great firmness, patience, and longanimity are also needed to persevere in charity, whatever may happen, when the words of the Apostle are verified: "And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (15)

We should not, therefore, be surprised that, when St. John of the Cross describes the road which leads most surely and most rapidly to the full perfection of Christian life, he declares that a soul could not reach it without undergoing the passive purification of the senses, which, in his opinion, marks the entrance into the illuminative way, and the passive purification of the spirit, which is at the threshold of the unitive way (if one understands the unitive way not in a diminished form, but according to its full normal development in the servants of God whom the Church proposes as models).

To show that the active purification which we impose on our
selves does not suffice, St. John writes: "For, after all the efforts of the soul, it cannot by any exertion of its own actively purify itself so as to be in the slightest degree fit for the divine union of perfection in the love of God, if God Himself does not take it into His own hands, and purify it in the fire, dark to the soul, in the way I am going to explain." (16) This statement shows clearly the necessity of
the cross, which is affirmed by the Gospel and by all Christian spirituality. We use here, and do so throughout this work, deliberately simple but entirely traditional terms, in order to avoid all exaggeration.

The same master says: "Souls begin to enter the dark (passive) night when God is drawing them out of the state of beginners, which is that of those who meditate on the spiritual road, and is leading them into that of proficients, the state of contemplatives, that, having passed through it, they may arrive at the state of the perfect, which is that of the divine union with God." (17)

First of all, the soul is weaned from sensible consolations, which are useful for a time but become an obstacle when sought for themselves. Whence the necessity of the passive purification of the senses, which places the soul in sensible aridity and leads it to a spiritual life that is much more freed from the senses, the imagination, and reasoning. At this point the soul receives, through the gifts of the Holy Ghost, an intuitive knowledge which, despite a painful obscurity, initiates the soul profoundly into the things of God. At times this knowledge makes us penetrate them more deeply in an instant than would meditation over a period of months and years. To resist temptations against chastity or patience -temptations which present themselves rather frequently in this night of the senses there are required at times heroic acts of chastity and patience, which are, however, extremely fruitful.

In the night of the senses there is a striking light and shade. The sensible appetites are cast into obscurity and dryness by the disappearance of sensible graces on which the soul dwelt with an egoistical complacency. But in the midst of this obscurity, the higher faculties begin to be illumined by the light of life, which goes beyond reasoned meditation and leads to a loving and prolonged gaze upon God during prayer.

After treating of this purification, St. John of the Cross says: "The soul began to set out on the way of the spirit, the way of beginners and proficients, which is also called the illuminative way, or the way of infused contemplation." (18) This text is among the most important in all the writings of St. John of the Cross. Farther on we shall consider it again, and see its meaning and import more clearly.

But even after this purification, that the soul may be freed from the defects of proficients, from the subtle pride which subsists in them, another purification, that of the spirit, is needed.(19) This purification is found in far more advanced souls which ardently desire goodness, but which have too strong a desire that good be done by them or in their way. They must be purified from every human attachment to their judgment, to their excessively personal manner of seeing, willing, acting, from every human attachment to the good works to which they devote themselves. This purification, if
well borne in the midst of temptations against the three theological virtues, will increase tenfold their faith, their confidence in God, and their love of God and neighbor."

http://www.christianperfection.info/tta22.php#bk1

It's a Catholic source but they also have truth mixed with error and true saints in the past (who were persecuted by them).

My own view is that Wesley was attempting to reform Protestantism, but wanting to keep the framework. As is the way of reformations, it was only partial. He had not attained the stage of Unity so could not preach it like Fox did. He did meet a few who were in Union and he had some disagreements with them.

Far from your prophecy of me being " lead to a nervous breakdown, anger and eventual apostasy or else gnosticism and mysticism" I am growing stronger daily in the Lord and finding more and more reason to praise and worship Him and thank Him for His merciful grace towards me.

There was no prophecy Brenda. My words were plain enough. I spoke about the things you have said or inferred of yourself and did not say that I believed them of you or that they were true of yourself. I simply insinuated that what generally happens to people who press the impossible yet believing that it is possible is mental ill health, discouragement amounting to apostasy by reason of anger with God; otherwise it presses them into gnosticism and mysticism. Its a lose your mind or lose your mind scenario.

On the Via Triplex, Fox explains how he came into knowledge of it here in his Journal

I have read this passage from Mr Fox’s journal before. I leave others to make of it what they will. It could however be cast down as the ravings of a mad man were it not that it attends to precisely the centrality of the true meaning of what represents occult mystery (Ecclesiastes 7:24).

I don’t see much wrong with what Fox has shared from the point of view of his intentions and interpretation of a reality which an individual truly walking in the light could know by faith in the Spirit, and earnestly desire in the outworking of their ministry to others. This was George Fox, I believe, in kindness to the man, who clearly cannot be fathomed from a book. Your interpretation is a mystical one because it is an attempt to establish a doctrine which you believe in some way is related to the Via Triplex. I can understand why you may see things this way with George Fox and what you believe to be a three stage salvation model. It is in reality linked to George Fox in the precise way it is linked to Wesley, as with many others who assert that salvation is a two stage process of justification and then sanctification. The term via triplex in this sense brings in a confusion because it seems to be asserting a three way process of salvation if we apply the term in that way we will have missed its real meaning. Hence why I asked if you were using the term as a grammatical conduit rather than in its philosophical meaning. The term in reality of its origins is gnostic and only lends itself to mysticism in the sense that it is scarcely attainable in both inward (revelatory) and outward (experiential) reality. To the faithful this necessitates by reason of sincerity an aesthetic approach and so we have numerous examples of those men and women who sought to wrestle this reality into a presentational form through their writings. Guyon, a Kempis, Aquinas and others including Wesley out of its philosophical origins.

See http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/culture/philos/coulter.html for a simple and attainable understanding of what is meant by via triplex when used in christian literature. The following link is much more academic but broadens the meaning into its wider philosophical meaning as well as its Catholic and Reformed usage. http://www.academia.edu/2060689/Resolutio_secundum_rem_the_Dionysian_triplex_via_and_Thomistic_Philosophical_Theology

The term via triplex is connected with George Fox theoretically in the same sense which it is used of Thomas Aquinas in the above article. Not only this but as I see it at any rate Fox only asserts two parts to his “mystical” experience and they both refer to back to the very fabric of this world in their outworking. The third part would in your doctrine be justification and that is absent from the mystery. It is presumed on your part that Fox was already justified when he had this experience of His because this is the Holiness Teaching as presented by John Wesley. The second is sanctification (regeneration) and the third is entire sanctification (consequential and experiential perfection). I agree that rationally if the Holiness Doctrine is believed then Fox must have been asserting a third element in describing the fullest meaning of salvation. This however is the grammatical conduit I spoke of and has no relationship to the historical and philosophical Catholic and other usage of the term Triplex Via.

I am not surprised that you have struggled with this doctrine. You are trying to assert something which has never existed as a true biblical understanding and can only be made as an abstraction or an amalgam of a philosophical paradigm now called pseudo Dionysian due to recent research which has proven that the original writings do not come from the so named companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 7:34). These writings are apocryphal in any event, but more to the point they are philosophical and attend to a dialectic dualism which itself come from pre-Nicene gnostic heresies which found their expression in the writing of Mani a Babylonian prophet and led to the gnostic heresies of North Africa thence by reason of Augustine into the church Catholic and proper. This is why the only believers who express this doctrine are found largely in the Roman Catholic Church. It is also why some evangelical brethren have gotten into trouble when they assert this conceptual paradigm as mysticism.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplex_Via

You tell me that the true meaning of mysticism is union with God, but I reject that completely. Union with God was always the intention from the very beginning or else why did God offer Adam who was already a living soul, the Tree of Life as well? This opportunity was lost through sin and death, and in His mercy God removed Adam and Eve from the garden and access specifically from the Tree of Life so that they would not thus be eternally in sin and death. Given that it is possible therefore for Adam and Eve to live forever in a state of sin and death (separation from God) and the thing which would have made this possible was the very life of God as represented in the Tree of Life, it must be clear that mysticism is not union with God, but the state of affairs which results from separation from God. Mysticism is the consequence of separation and not the remedy of it. Christ Himself is the remedy of this separation which produces mysticism (that of knowing God exists but always drawing further and further to Him through knowledge) yet never accomplishing it. In revealing Christ this mystery is defeated and anyone can in an instant know Him by faith. Colossians 1:19-28 sets out clearly that in Christ the mystery of the Gentile having a part in the Church Catholic is the very core of Paul’s ministry. As you are a Gentile yourself if there is any revelation to be had it is in this regard and not some tripartite theology of salvation.

As for the time line of your experiences being some 23 years ago then more recently 10 years ago I pointed to the latter in the thread which was locked courtesy of Colin Murray who came to your defence. This is the reference you make when you say I have been warned. Whether I was warned as you say I cannot tell. If you believe that I was then press the matter Brenda perhaps the moderators will throw me off the site.

Lastly I have no interest in exposing anyone on the internet per se. Regardless as to whether they see themselves as a teacher or not. Nor do I doubt your earnestness in seeking to understand salvation. In any event as you have clearly ceased to be amused I will desists in any further disclosures. If you do have a teachable spirit as the thread was intended to illuminate then there is sufficient in this post to put to bed your theory or at least grasp that it is misinformed by Catholic mysticism, gnosticism and philosophy. What it is not is biblical truth.

Andrew

I spoke about the things you have said or inferred of yourself and did not say that I believed them of you or that they were true of yourself. I simply insinuated that what generally happens to people who press the impossible yet believing that it is possible is mental ill health, discouragement amounting to apostasy by reason of anger with God; otherwise it presses them into gnosticism and mysticism. Its a lose your mind or lose your mind scenario.

Indeed, many people have come to sticky ends after exposure to holiness doctrine or rather the false or incomplete sort. There is no danger of it happening to me however, as I have already had a number of experiences of the reality of it. I know it is true but I have trouble staying with it for more than 18 months, but I can rest in the Lord, not knowing the reason as He knows my heart and my longings for Him. Going through the dark night of the spirit is another matter however. I do not struggle with the doctrine, I believe it 100% but the perils on the mountain climb have been a great struggle. I am convinced though, that I will be established one day.

I do appreciate that you have knowledge of the harm that has come from holiness doctrines and maybe you may have been harmed yourself, or disappointed. To me it seems logical that Satan will be very active in these circles and error will be rife.

Thank you for the Via Triplex links. I have agreed that there is a counterfeit pathway of philosophical ponderings which leads to another god, and it sounds similar but is not.

"The interpretation of the symbols corresponds to a three stage ascent of the soul; the purgation of the materiality of symbols, illumination of the significance of the symbols and perfection by an abandonment of the significance in ascent to the next hierarchy. Each stage is related to the epistemological structure so that purgation is the removal of ignorance, illumination is the reception of new knowledge, and perfection is the abandonment of present knowledge for something higher (CH 3; EH 5, 6; Complete Works 153-55, 233-49). These three stages are repeated throughout each hierarchy as one continues to ascend."

This interpretation is indeed gnosticism.

I think it is clear that George Fox was a believer before he 'came up through the flaming sword'. Many Quakers disagree with me. So be it.

Union with God was always the intention from the very beginning or else why did God offer Adam who was already a living soul, the Tree of Life as well?

Adam was created innocent and had to develop to spiritual maturity by denying the flesh and only feeding from the tree of life. He failed. So he was not united with God being made perfect, the aim of the exercise.

In revealing Christ this mystery is defeated and anyone can in an instant know Him by faith. Colossians 1:19-28 sets out clearly that in Christ the mystery of the Gentile having a part in the Church Catholic is the very core of Paul’s ministry. As you are a Gentile yourself if there is any revelation to be had it is in this regard and not some tripartite theology of salvation.

We come to Christ and are given power to *become* the sons of God and are urged to go on to perfection and not fall back into works of the flesh and therefore fail to enter into His rest. We can see the process as I have said previously in the progress of the disciples prior to Pentecost.

I was not referring to the incident on the locked thread or indeed Colin. There had been an earlier case of you being corrected for 'nit picking' with someone else but I have no time to find it - perhaps someone else will be so kind to remember. It feels very nearly like stalking to have you go through every single thing I have said in the past in order to trip me up. So what does it prove? I have made mistakes and have grown in my understanding. Is that unusual?

You have failed to demonstrate that my beliefs are gnostic. You have merely shown your lack of understanding that there are counterfeits of spiritual progress.

The Protestant side of the church has preached the least on the full union with Christ, meaning sinless perfection. Fox and the early Quakers broke all links with them through this. Catholics have had individuals who were in union and they were persecuted and had their writings destroyed by the popes. The Orthodox Church has the strongest tradition of it.

This mystery of annihilation is found in many religions throughout history, from the Shamanism Sufism, Hinduism.

Yes, but death to self is not a scriptural concept - there it is deny self and death to the old nature. There is a big difference. Buddhists practise it by using their will power and certain exercises to diminish all desire and 'soul action'. The world got the idea from observing believers, the Bible and later, Christian writers, obviously seeing that they have something that 'works' and copy it but they miss out the action of the cross or trust and faith in the living God alone. Of course Satan makes it seem even more attractive to keep them from the truth.

The Christian dark night includes conviction of sin, and any testimony on the second blessing, especially during revival where things get speeded up and the power of God is mightily present in a vicinity, will be about agonies of the soul where the person through the work of the Holy Spirit will see just how weak and disloyal they have been towards Christ. Non Christian's dark night of course, cannot have this conviction of sin and deep repentance. In non revival times, the time can be quite protracted. I came to a crisis in circumstances and faith before the second blessing or illumination which indeed it was - where my chains fell off and my heart was free, seeing that sanctification is by faith.

The big difference in the Christian dark night, is that it comes from outside, not from within a man. It is the Holy Spirit working on the man not the man changing himself by his actions (or lack of them). Everything in the spiritual realm is counterfeited by the enemy.

The Shakers splintered from a Quaker community in Manchester, England (Gidley and Bowles 1990). James Wardley, its preacher, had absorbed the teachings of the millennial French Prophets and his community began to evolve around 1746 (Melton 1992). The members were known as the Shaking Quakers and were viewed as radical for their communion with the spirits of the dead and impassioned shaking that would occur at their services (Horgan, 1982; Robinson 1975).

The Shakers were present at the Asuza Street Revival and the Cane Ridge Revival, the Shakers had visions, personal prophecy, they spoke in other tongues and they had "holy" laughter, spiritual drunkenness.

Obviously Quakerism attracted many people who would be drifting around the many non conformist groups that were gathering at the time, and who would then leave, not finding what they were looking for. Any with 'charismatic' tendencies would not find a home there as Fox did not speak in tongues, nor support manifestations. I don't see anything in the early writings to support it. They were called Quakers I think because they taught fear of God or utter obedience. By 1746 moreover, the flush of revival had gone and the later generations were increasingly 'gradual sanctification' ers with the emphasis on dress code and very legalistic. It was only at the beginning that the power of God was with them. The Quakers very soon had a very good reputation for their love, honesty and fairness so I guess many people flocked to them, Christians and non alike as they still do, being of a 'religionless' bent meaning no rules and regulations, but left when they did not like the emphasis being on submission to Christ.

It is still a bugbear, with many unsaved, especially in England being drawn by the original principles of peace testimony and egalitarianism.

Brother

I was at a stand in my mind whether I should practise physic for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and virtues of things were so opened to me by the Lord. Fox

Fox was talking about practising medicine to help mankind seeing as his mind had been opened up in such a way that that he had gained much wisdom. In order to understand writings from this period, you need to look words and phrases up to avoid misunderstandings.

It is easy to misunderstand those who have been perfected, especially if they were in a different time period. God expands the mind greatly at this point and gives an insight into scripture that one did not have previously even for someone like me who received mercury poisoning at a very young age with the resulting effects on the brain, and missed a great deal of schooling due to sickness.

I also noticed john of the cross was influenced by the pagan writings of thses same pagan men

Can we have a reference for where you read this please?

brothergary

No-one has said that practising medicine is a gift of the Spirit. I don't even know whether Fox was serious when he said what he said. The wisdom one gains is not about spiritual gifts, it is to do with a general increase in wisdom in all matters.

When man is in a dysfunctional state ie his soul and spirit cannot work independently because his old man is dragging him down, his intellect cannot function as God intended. When the heart is made pure in entire sanctification, the mind is freed to function normally and the man will notice an increase in his reasoning powers and instinctive wisdom. Its not all about being sin free. The effect of it is beyond words. It is like being able to see through a once murky window.

There are some mediaeval mystical writings that are Christian though of course some of it coming from non Christian sources. The holiness tradition stretches right back and has always been the belief of the few, and has been persecuted by the many. The road is narrow that leads to life. Have you actually read the writings of St John yourself or are just repeating what you have read? His writings are deeply spiritual and have been a great help to me to keep me on track during the 'dark nights'.

There are some mediaeval mystical writings that are Christian though of course some of it coming from non Christian sources. The holiness tradition stretches right back and has always been the belief of the few, and has been persecuted by the many. The road is narrow that leads to life. Have you actually read the writings of St John yourself or are just repeating what you have read? His writings are deeply spiritual and have been a great help to me to keep me on track during the 'dark nights'.

The more you post krautfrau the more heretical your writing becomes. You say that you are not a teacher or trying to teach but everything you write would ordinarily have the effect of leading people astray. Just imagine what will happen when a troubled young man or woman reads about this mysterious perfection of yours. That it not only "leads to life" but that it supernaturally empowers the person to a higher state of reason; an effect which is "beyond words".

Its heresy krautfrau just as the aesthetic and mystical mutterings of the so called saints of old amount to falsehoods if in fact there words belie their stated beliefs. In such circumstances words have no meaning and men will follow a stall of words if by that means they can live a supernatural life. If these men and women who you say you follow, get as much from this deception as you have claimed to get, it is no wonder that they can put together a string of words which pleases the ear and the eye.

There are passive men and women who can be found throughout the whole earth and the many of them are yet perishing because they believe not Christ. Stop pressing mystical rubbish Krautfrau and show by means of the Scriptures that such a process as you have fallen into is in any part true. Stop spinning yarns about others and say what is proven truth from the Word of God. I have read this rubbish you press. I can read it better than you can and it is easily shown to be false. I have scarcely begun to lay waste to your heresies. You show time and again that you are ill informed and ignorant of that which you claim to understand. The truth is you base everything on experiences in your own soul and body and increasingly you are showing it. Before, it was sinless perfection, then it was master over creation and now it is a rejuvenated and a supernatural mind, uninhibited from the old man. When Paul sought to show you that your understanding of what the old man is, you threw it away preferring your own version of understanding. If that is the benefit of this supernatural mind then it has done you no good whatsoever.

You are a heretic and you clearly do not know the meaning of restraint. Well I haven't got to praying yet. That is the last resort but it is coming.

Here is a document which represents the best presentation ever produced on the full merit and meaning of the three ways (Triplex Via). It is unashamed, full of meaning, substantive in all of its parts and clearly defines why this heresy which you press is destructive and harmful. The man who put these lectures together over a 20 year period was the "master" of a priest who became John Paul II. It has all the information you could possibly need to pull the pieces into place in your thinking. It will either be your undoing completely or it will be your deliverance.

http://www.christianperfection.info/tta2.php#bk1

The writings on that site are in no way representative of my beliefs. They describe mans' attempts to be righteous through his own strength and are the teachings found in "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis and are not the gospel which is through faith in the Blood of Christ. Man cannot do anything to change his own spiritual condition.

The end result of their efforts is not entire sanctification for they say that a man must undergo purification all of his life.

The only thing of merit, it that the traditions of true Christian purity, have been allowed to continue, albeit in a grossly altered form, whereas since Luther, Protestantism has feared tradition and has cut herself loose from deeply spiritual writings in the quest of sola scriptura.