SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Sermons | About

Featured Audio Sermon
Knowing And Finding The Will of God by Jim Cymbala


Login

Nickname

Password


Main Menu
· Home
· About Us
· Audio Sermons
    by Speaker
    by Topic
    by Scripture
    by Podcast
· Text Sermons
    Christian Books
    Online Bibles
· Video Sermons
· Vintage Images
· Discussion Forum
· Help Support
· Contact Us


Share SI with others - Add a website link or image banner on your website or blog.

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Grow In Holiness

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
Brother you will have to speak more clearly before I can understand you. I asked you why you support a forum where a heretic is quoted. Accusing a member of heresy is very serious and I question how either you or Paul are qualified to throw it around when neither of you know much about the doctrine I believe in, which you repeatedly show rather than finding out just what I believe by asking questions. Not very loving is it?



I don't recall Mr West calling you a heretic Brenda. I did however and therefore must support that if you are saying that I was false to do so.

You have said that the words "I'm not sure I believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus did not have a solid body" were added. Does that mean that you recognise the quote as a whole? It is part of a greater post in which the poster shares some personal details about their walk including a successful walk for 18 months without sinning. It is a post made in defence of entire sanctification on a site where it was being slammed as heretical by the site owner. The post was made on 28/11/2005.

 2013/7/14 16:41
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1322


 Re:

Okay last post from me on this thread..


What God has once made holy is thereafter always holy – there can be no degrees in the state of absolute holiness....

Our moral growth is not a growth into holiness out of a state of comparative unholiness, as holiness is effected by a supernatural act of God...

That is why I say there is no growth in Holiness.


_________________

 2013/7/14 16:48Profile
krautfrau
Member



Joined: 2008/12/20
Posts: 971
UK

 Re:

amrkelly

Please give a link for the quote stated. The rest was written by me but "I'm not sure I believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus did not have a solid body" was not written by me, it has been added. I have held to the Apostles Creed since I came to Christ 40 years ago. Jesus came in the flesh and I have never used the term 'solid body'.

 2013/7/15 0:50Profile









 Re:

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/cults/Entire%20Sanctification/Responses%20to%20Entire%20Sanctification.htm#Brenda_Jackson_11-28-05

 2013/7/15 1:42
krautfrau
Member



Joined: 2008/12/20
Posts: 971
UK

 Re:

Thanks Andrew I have written to the author of the site to ask him to remove the post.

How on earth could anyone think that the statement I am supposed to make is genuine that I agree with the writers anti- christian rants.

What also stands out is that after the author made a comment, the apparent answer from me was not a reply to the question, it looks like a continuation of what I had written before the question. The comments by the author look like they have been inserted in something he has picked up from somewhere else, and inserted a false statement to back up his own anti- Christian beliefs. I do not remember ever writing on that site and don't see why I would do that as the author is obviously not a believer.

 2013/7/15 2:04Profile









 Re:

Given that there is an outstanding matter of my having posted this link and the attendant words with a clear statement about gnosticism, clearly I cannot leave the matter there as though saying that a brother or sister is heretical was a trivial matter. I want you to know that I spent the whole of the night searching the internet in order to establish materially that this post was in fact from yourself including all of its parts. It has taken me no less than 10 straight hours. Of course at the back of my mind was always the possibility that this may not have been you at all so whilst I was concerned about my own ability to discern accurately I was equally concerned that I had in fact misrepresented yourself and thereby falsely accused you of heresy. I have reread all the posts which I have made directly to yourself over the past few months here on SI and am satisfied that I have in fact drawn attention to several spiritual realities and their attendant doctrines precisely because many of the things you have shared yourself raise serious concerns.

Please can I assure you Brenda that I personally don't make judgements amounting to condemnation about people and rarely come to the conviction that they may not be born again. I am not doing this here either. It has happened before that I have had such a conviction and clearly in that circumstance I must be obedient to the Holy Spirit and look into the matter for the sake of that individual as well as the Lord's sake. In this instance my conviction is other than this. As Mr. West said in his posts, the heretical doctrine of sinless perfection is easily recognised by any mature believer with a good knowledge of Scripture. No particular discernment is required it is more a matter of intuition of the spirit of the individual rather then an express leading of the Holy Spirit.

It is in fact the case that 15 months ago I received an e-mail from Greg Gordon reminding me that I was not a moderator and advising me that "speaking" directly to another member, whilst appropriate on occasions would be unhealthy if that were done too often. How much more then would it be "unhealthy" to press a person directly on so grave a matter if that were to prove troubling for them or else led to an unnatural influence in a ministry and drew attention away from the centrality of the ministry itself to a man who has no part in it? You can see the difficulty which spiritual realities present when they cannot be persisted in. I did say that you would not be able to press me so as to change my mind and this is so. I accept that you have shared previously issues with your memory and so I am not at all surprised that you cannot remember two random posts made nearly eight years ago. However the content of these two posts corresponds to your membership of other sites relating to conservative Quakerism, a relationship which has lasted some ten years and can scarcely be out with your memory.

I will finish by simply saying that the conservative doctrine of sanctification is a doctrine of demons. It is a doctrine which carries a number of dreadful realities when it occupies the heart and mind of a man. The first is that it denies the finished work of the cross and its principle benefit [eternal life by faith through grace] so as to make of a man a mere clay jar which can be at once filled and thence saved, or else emptied and thence perishing. Its other effect is that it includes a belief in sinless perfection to the one filled up. It amounts to the very clay itself being transformed into another nature, even as Christ was transformed through death and resurrection, denying at once a physical reality and by reason of knowledge [gnosis] claiming to be a spiritual man, even as Christ became a life giving spirit [spiritual man].

There is another variant to the doctrine of conservative sanctification which is that sanctification is eternal. This heretical doctrine does not mean what it ought to mean but has to do with all of the above threads of meaning but with an attended benefit. The one believing this latter doctrine is assured of their eternal position if they indeed are able to continue in its delusion, and thus they are at once delivered from the constant pain of dealing with their sin. The vessel now no longer empties and fills as unto life or else eternal death, but can abide in its knowledge [gnosis] and find some peace.

So when I shared previously that you have woven a garment with a few golden threads and you desire others to put it on this is precisely what I intended to say. This can be read as my explanation which you previously asked for.


To quote yourself Brenda:

Entire Sanctification by Brenda Jackson CQIM


"Fox made it clear that he was not talking about being sanctified as a ‘position’ nor that the blood of Jesus hides our sins and God does not see them. He said that all unrighteousness in actions is sin, but further, that the ‘holy men’ pleaded for holiness in HEART and life, and conversation here’ (Journal) He was in agreement with the Apostle John in his first letter, who said in 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you, he that doth righteousness IS righteous, even as He is righteous. There is no imputed righteousness, the doctrine over which the Puritans refuted Fox. It is an imparted righteousness.


It is real practical holiness in thought and action which the ‘preacher of righteousness’ (Apocalypse of the Word, Douglas Gwyn 25) as Fox called himself and testified of himself :-“As He is so are we IN THIS PRESENT WORLD, and that the saints are made the righteousness of God, that the saints are ONE in the Father and the Son, that we shall be like Him, that all teaching which is given forth by Christ is to bring the saints to perfection even to the stature and fullness of Christ, this the scripture doth witness and this I DO WITNESS TO BE FULFILLED” (Journal 135) This message, as he went about preaching, produced a violent reaction:- “The world swelled and made a great noise like great raging of the sea. Priests and professors, magistrates and people were all like a sea when I came to proclaim the Day of the Lord amongst them and to preach repentance to them” (Journal 33)


The ‘Day of the Lord’ is the message in 1John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth because (v5) God is light and in Him is no darkness at all and that (2:6) he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked and (3:6) Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him neither known Him. “Hating the light, you hate Christ” (Journal 135) This put paid to the error on the subject of sanctification, that we are in Christ if we are hoping for sanctification at some time in the future, or as some think, we will gradually sin less and less until one minute we have no control over our thoughts or we have reduced down to having just one sinful thought occurring, and then, lo and behold, the sinful thought will occur no more. Actually no one has ever testified to it happening like this. At 60 70 and 80 years of age, believers, even Conservative Quakers, are still waiting. There should be witnesses that tell you about the day that the gradual became the complete, and they should be testifying in books (at least to refute such as myself!) The only books that are written are by those who say that the gradual view is error and not scriptural and that entire sanctification is an entering in to a state where sin is removed.


Unfortunately in these dark days, we only find these books written in the past. Some claim to be entirely sanctified but it is easily to be seen that they are using the term in a different way. They say that they are positionally so or their idea of sinlessness is a very loose one and anyone can see very soon that they are in fact still sinners. Fox and John are both clear, if we sin then we are not in the light and the Day of Judgment is near. It comes when we are presented with this message and we must make a decision in the same way that men and women had to make that decision when Fox brought them the message. Will we accept it as the truth and know that God has spoken? If we do not then we have chosen our path and it is the path of darkness, without knowing the cleansing of Christ inwardly. Fox believed that there was only one Day of the Lord."

http://www.christianquaker.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:entire-sanctf&catid=34:articles-cg&Itemid=82

 2013/7/15 7:06
krautfrau
Member



Joined: 2008/12/20
Posts: 971
UK

 Re:

I am not denying having written that article for a Quaker site, it is the other link containing a statement form me that Jesus did not come in the flesh.

 2013/7/15 10:23Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Thanks Andrew I have written to the author of the site to ask him to remove the post.

How on earth could anyone think that the statement I am supposed to make is genuine that I agree with the writers anti- christian rants.

What also stands out is that after the author made a comment, the apparent answer from me was not a reply to the question, it looks like a continuation of what I had written before the question. The comments by the author look like they have been inserted in something he has picked up from somewhere else, and inserted a false statement to back up his own anti- Christian beliefs. I do not remember ever writing on that site and don't see why I would do that as the author is obviously not a believer. Brenda



To address this specific post Brenda is very simply. Whether to believe that you made this post or not would be a matter of knowing what you have or else do believe with regard to the physical resurrection of the Lord from the dead. That is the best indicator as to whether or not your thinking was or else has continued in the gnostic path. Given that this post contains some clear statements and ideas with regard to the posters personal thoughts (experience) of early life (childhood) means that there is a basis for considering these things in other places on the internet. Of course this is to go the investigative route (which I have done as elaborated in the last post I made). However this is not very satisfactory as it would do no more that draw physical connections which in any event could be misleading of themselves. As to the claim that the website owner of the anti-christian site you inadvertently posted into……your initial question was not answered, although you suggested an e-mail might be desirable. In any event the "Round Two" comment takes the precise same format as every other post in the site. So either the site owner deliberately alters everyones posts just to blacken their character or he has followed the same formula for every single user. It is possible as you say that he has added the specific comment about physical resurrection. That too must be something of an irrelevance because whilst it would be the most visible statement giving rise to a gnostic heresy, your participation in other sites provides a basis for understanding why you would at least be thinking about what is meant by the scripture "raised a spiritual man" with regard to the Lord's body.

As you already understand your on-line activities and participation with Conservative Friends (Quakers) preceded by just over 18 months this post which you say is a fake. That particular site didn't really get off the ground because from its inception one member came to understand that this group were advocating a complex argument as to what physical resurrection actually means. The objector was a Mr Cummings. He sought to challenge the doctrine but eventual gave up. In response to his concerns another member of the Conservative Friends based in Scotland wrote a rebuttal intended to put to bed the claim that this group was essentially a cult and that the doctrine which made it so was gnostic heresy based on the spiritual resurrection of Christ from the dead. This all took place just three months before you joined the site [10:11/2002] and so by the time you joined [9/01/2003] the battle was over. From that point in time onwards there were no more than a handful of other posts interspersed over the years.

Your joining came with a question which had to do with your understanding of sanctification or holiness teaching, particularly the contrast between Wesley and Fox. The brother you asked wouldn't answer your question and after that there are no more posts. The reality is that the members were worn down by the preceding infighting and the fact that their own statement of rebuttal to the Conservative Friends Doctrine of Resurrection demonstrated an extraordinary subtly of turn in its answer, both seeming to empahtically state the truth and then simultaneously denying it. In short is is a really good occult piece of literature. To the one who reads it and is sincerely trying to understand its meaning it would be just perfect as a snare and a trap. To the one who seeks to contend with it it would be like contending with the Devil himself in its cleverness. Mr West alluded to this same spirit when he spoke of George Fox's refusal to bend to all authorities church and state.

This is the post which kicked off the row:

Quote:
Dear Themis,

I got the report on Quaker beliefs from the the group you say is telling
lies about the True Quaker faith.

They are right about Quakers. Even most Orthodox Friends do not believe
in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

I say this after leaving the Society of Friends after associating with
them freom 1977 to 1996. During that time I was a pastor in FUM Friends
churches, and attended a unprogrammed meeting for a while.
My wife and I even had a Friends house meeting from 1984 to 1994. Most
Friends would not come , except for a few, because we were "two
Christ-centered". Then we started to seek an association with Ohio Yearly
Meeting of Friends, and finally found out that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE
BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS. That was the final straw, because
Scripture-the Bible, says that if Christ is not risen we are still in our
sins.

Quakers are not Christians, though a very few are Christians in spite of
classical Friends' beliefs.

I do not believe George Fox was a true Christian. Over and over he said
he had no sin, and the First Letter of John says that "if we say we have
no sin, we are liars and the truth is not in us." This means that George
Fox was a liar an did not know the truth, therefore he was nor saved and
was not a Christian. He was more like a new age guru.
I used to think that liberal Quakerism was an abberation, but in reality
they are the norm for clasical Quaker belief. People who are Christians
and want to see Primitive Quakerism as Christian, read a Christian veneer
over the Quaker writings. Fox was not what he claimed to be, rather he
was a liar and fraud, and an antichrist.


Peace in the real Jesus,

Gary Cummings



Any way Brenda it is clear to me that you came to Quakerism via difficulties regarding how your belief on entire sanctification was received in your previous "protestant" experience; a leaving which was largely predicated on the doctrine and meaning of baptism. In such a circumstance to then add a new "faith" which was so perfect to you that you stated that you believed George Fox to be the most authentic saint after the early apostolic church must have been a real blessing for you to have discovered his writing in the "Journal". I do not agree with everything Mr Cummings has said in his first shot across the bough, I very much doubt that things were that simple in the 1700's, but having read the rebuttal produced by the Conservative Friends in Scotland I see that regardless as to what George Fox did or did not in reality believe, his refusal to bend the knee just once to the Anglican Church and use the words "Christ was raised from the dead physically" would have spared all the present opportunity for gnostic thinking which informs so much of what Quakerism has become in its orthodoxy. Today it is without doubt a basis for serious heresy and has lent itself to a myriad of complex and sophisticated occult theosophical and gnostic thinking.

This is not intended Brenda as a little chat. Nor is it an intellectual exercise. I have been a little surprised at the ease with which you have continued to press sinless perfection in the other thread as though these posts of mine were something of a tea and biscuits affair. Still the Lord knows.

 2013/7/15 15:11
krautfrau
Member



Joined: 2008/12/20
Posts: 971
UK

 Re:

Paul

You asked me if I could show you someone else with the same doctrine, and I have found someone. He is Edward Burrough who wrote a most explicit statement of belief concerning holiness and the early Quakers in 1657.

"We believe that the saints upon the earth may receive forgiveness of sins and may be perfectly freed from the body of sin and death, and in Christ may be perfect and without sin and may have victory over all temptations by faith in Jesus Christ. And we believe every saint called of God, ought to press after perfection,and to overcome the devil and all his temptations....and we believe they that faithfully wait for it shall obtain it, and be presented without sin in the image of the Father and such walks not after the flesh but after the Spirit and are in covenant with God and their sins are blotted out and remembered no more."

 2013/7/15 16:00Profile
krautfrau
Member



Joined: 2008/12/20
Posts: 971
UK

 Re:

amrkelly

I did not join that site. The owner has cut and pasted (and added to) a post from another forum. I did not know his beliefs apart from him saying that those who teach entire sanctification should mean that it is about complete sinlessness and offered to discuss it further to see where he was coming from but he did not respond.


Jesus rose from the dead physically.

 2013/7/15 16:02Profile





©2002-2014 SermonIndex.net Audio Sermons | Google+
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival. | Privacy Policy