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

Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Kundalini Spirit & The Souls & Bodies of men!

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Thanks though I cannot access the original.

Colin I know you will say 'how can that be?' but you are missing the fact that those who are serving the flesh ie not walking in the Spirit or Spirit baptised, are under the curse of the flesh and therefore even meat for the enemy. And he is especially targeting those who can do most damage to him and your writings seem to me to be of that quality but as yet without power.

 2013/10/1 14:38









 Re:

Quote:
God’s emphasis in New Testament ministry is in bringing into play the human element in the word" Why is not the speaking in tongues forbidden? Because it is profitable to the one who speaks in tongues. Yet why is it useless in the ministry of the word? For the simple reason that there is no human understanding and no human element involved in tongues. To speak in tongues depends entirely upon the Holy Spirit, that is, the person speaks with his own spirit as God’s Spirit gives him words. But it is nothing more. To our thinking, tongues may be better than prophecy, for is it not better to speak in God’s own words or in the words of the Holy Spirit?



Paul is saying that speaking in tongues was even in the times of the early church, thought to be inferior, and that the true ministry consists of human understanding to what one says :

Quote:
We therefore declare that a minister of the word ministers with
Spirit-taught words. Not only does the Holy Spirit speak words of
wisdom with my lips; He teaches me how to speak. I am instructed
by the Holy Spirit; I have learned in the fiery furnace; I have the
word. Otherwise, all which is said is merely empty words. How basic
this is: that we need to learn in each dealing. Our words must be
burned into being through fire, else they shall be ineffective. We
cannot comfort those who are sorrowful. What is merely external is
futile. In order to be truly useful, we must be those who have been
dealt with by God.

p 197

Quote:
You can only make others know the body of Christ if you yourself
know what the body of Christ is and also have nurtured that
knowledge in your spirit. You are permitted to use the experience of
others only if you have that thing in your own spirit. If you are an
individualist, having no understanding nor possession of the reality
of the body of Christ, you should not use the experience of other
people. You yourself must be living in the body of Christ, and you
must have nurtured this experience in your spirit before you can
supply others with the words of reality. Otherwise, all that you say
will be mere theories and of no avail. You might consider your
speech as most logical and coherent, but you have not touched the
real thing. And those who hear you are also unable to touch reality.

p201

Nee was I believe a cessationist which is why Calvinists will read him and why Keswick used his writings. His opinion would be that tongue speaking ceased in 70AD and I agree that they faded early. In the above writings he is using the example of what Paul said to the Corinthians merely to show that tongues were even then not thought highly of, in favour of understanding and knowing through experience what one preaches. He does not promote the practise which is seen in charismatic circles any more than he would promote circumcision which continued in the early years. He writes no more about tongues as far as I am aware after reading many of his books.

Thank you to Andrew who sent the full book to me by email.

 2013/10/2 9:33









 Re:

Quote:
Paul is saying that speaking in tongues was even in the times of the early church, thought to be inferior, and that the true ministry consists of human understanding to what one says. Brenda



It is interesting that Paul concludes his address in 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen by saying “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner” (v 39-40).

This latter saying “in an orderly manner” has been interpreted in several ways but to me the singular meaning of it has to do with the proper use of gifts in the churches. Included in this is the instruction that no one should speak in tongues unless there is someone to give the interpretation as well. It must be clear that in saying this Paul is concerned by the possible effect speaking in tongues will have on the unbeliever and the ungifted man or woman in the meeting, as well as the fact that a tongue can have no meaning to anyone at all if there is in fact no interpretation. The saying draws out a reality in the actual meaning of the gift of tongues itself. If a tongue can be interpreted it is clear that the tongue itself as well as its meaning (interpretation) can be understood by many hearers by reason of the interpretation. There could be no interpretation if their was no true substance in the first place. Therefore the gift of tongues is in this reality a true gift, even as the interpretation is true meaning if it is a true gift of the Holy Spirit and not a pseudo manifestation. What makes these gifts true is the fact that they are given by the Holy Spirit. Their substance lies in this fact primarily. So that even when an interpretation is not given the individual who speaks in tongues is nevertheless benefitted by exercising the gift.

The chief thing however which is drawn from Paul’s teaching is that the gift of tongues by reason of the interpretation of tongues, places the gift itself in the prophetic. This is why Paul then goes on to say that the gift of prophecy is a better gift. The foundation for understanding this preference lays in the very fact that when one speaks in a tongue in the meeting and are not able to give the interpretation, only the speaker is benefitted. The gift of tongues alone is not prophetic towards others it is a speaking to God. When interpreted it is a speaking to men. Given the direction of this benefit and the purpose of Paul writing chapter fourteen, it is not difficult to see that speaking in tongues without interpretation amounts to a “childish” use of a gift. The meeting is not for self edification it is for the edification of everyone. The preference then is the gift of prophecy rather than tongues without an interpretation. In short “orderly” is a reference to tongues and then an interpretation of that tongue, and not just tongues.

As far as Nee is concerned the book which I quoted from is wholly to do with how light is translated from it’s reception in the spirit, into the mind and thence to the mouth. It is essentially the word of God is translated through the man or woman into a fruitful outcome for the sake of others. The gift of tongues as Nee realised of necessity does not pass through the mind on its way out of the mouth. Rather it comes directly through the spirit to the mouth. Even the interpretation does not come through the mind as we would imagine this to be, but is also a supernatural ability to give the interpretation by reason of a gift and not by reason of ones own understanding in the first instance. This is one of the chief points Nee is making I believe. That the gift of prophecy which is the better gift of 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen, is of necessity a gift which has its reception in the spirit, but also passes through the mind and then by that means through the mouth. It does not come straight from the spirit of the man or woman but reflects a more mature attitude in ministering to the whole body and not simply ones self. In essence the gift of prophecy is a gift which every one ought to seek but will only ever be utilised by the one who is motivated by a desire to bless others and build them up.

Further Nee was writing and teaching these things long after AD 70. He does not use a qualified form of speech in the things he expresses in this book. He is honest enough to leave the issue of cessation to the Holy Spirit and does not therefore condemn the gifts or despise them as some do.

I am only writing these things because having shown you that Nee does after all teach something important about the gift of tongues, (which thing you refuted flatly) you have found the means to place even this evidence in an unreasonable and presumed context.You yourself have developed an understanding of tongues based primarily on two things. The first is your first encounter with this gift and the fear you felt at that time. The second is a more structured theology which necessitates the rejection of the gift based on an inability to know what the purpose of the gift ws. This is and the book by Jessie Penn-Lewis (War on the Saints) makes substantial in your mind at least the historical certainty that speaking in tongues came into awareness and experience of the saints beginning in the mid 19th century, but especially during the revivals of the early 20th century as a pseudo baptism. It is a convenient tool for that purpose. The thing is Brenda I cannot see that you have actually understood what Jessie Penn-Lewis is really saying.

I doubt that Mrs Penn-Lewis was ever possessed herself and I believe from reading the full text version of the original publication that she took most of what she understood from others. The principle experience she has outside of testimonies which she received or else found in German as well as English publications were reports coming out of the welsh revival. Having then had the opportunity to take Evan Roberts into her home she furthered that understanding and firmed it up by reason of deep concerns which Evan himself had about some of the manifestations which occurred at times in or through the welsh revival. Evan himself was not unaffected by these manifestations and was largely powerless to deal with them, though he did speak against excesses on a number of occasions. It was his own conscience and a deep desire to glorify God that made him vulnerable to these difficulties and eventually led to problems for him, both with his manner of delivery towards the end of the revival, as well as experiencing excessive physical oppression leading to a loss of physical and mental well being by reason of his parasympathetic nervous system. This in the end diminished his intellectual and physical resources to such an extent that it led to a partial mental breakdown.

The story goes on and on Brenda and will not be understood unless the Holy Spirit Himself makes meaning of it. Even then it will not be worked out except by those who have reason to know what possession really means from experience. Mrs Penn-Lewis starts her presentation by speaking of demonic activity in the “periphery” of men and women and ends up speaking about demons taking possession of the very vocal chords of believers. She always applies parenthesis to the word “possession” when used about believers. She highlights the latency of the souls own powers, which to the one who believes this to be evidence of the activity of the Holy Spirit is deceiving, and then explains this as the outcome of mental passivity. This is achieved by mingling and confusing those things which are the true realities of demonic possession of unbelievers, such as the experience of occultist and then asserts a reference from a German pastor who was ministering to one particular woman who was said to be a believer and yet fully possessed from time to time to such an extent that she even blasphemed God with curses which an unbeliever would be hard to replicate. This account includes conversations as well as voluntary verbal projections from the mouth of this woman in a voice “not of her own”. To say that all of this is difficult to make sense of by your a believer with no knowledge of the occult or a direct experience of having been possessed and then delivered in their own experience of becoming a believer from having been an occultist. Clearly the term “possession” itself needs to be the focus when reading Mrs Penn-Lewis’s book. To take a popular understanding of the term would give rise to a significant basis for confusion.

And yet generally speaking the sum of Mrs Penn-Lewis’s belief, despite her use of evidence, is stated openly as not amounting to spiritual possession. Hence the use of the term “peripheral” in her assessment of these things. Nee in quoting her takes care to express his understanding from the point of view of agreeing with her assessment of the latency of the soul’s powers as a source of deception, yet not attributing to demon’s more power than they have. For Nee the emphasis is the heart of an individual desiring those things which are intended for the edification of the body for oneself rather than as a means to serve others. For many believers experience and personal gratification form the basis of vulnerability to deception. Nee speaks of having “wrong experiences”. Experience may mislead and thereby deceive the individual. “The Ministry of God’s Word” which I sent you is a competent and sound presentation of the need for maturity in the body and that by revelation or light given, worked out in the mind and by that means given to the body through ministry of the word. In this sense Nee includes all members in this calling and speaks of all members as needing to have such a mind. When he deals with the issue of deception, and especially self deception he treats it by a separate means and that has been published in the “Latent Power of the Soul”. What he does not do is to confuse the two things of demonic activity and true body ministry by intertwining those things of the unregenerate with those things of the regenerate. Nor does he confuse demonic activity with the soul itself in the way Mrs Penn-Lewis has managed to do. I said before that she has been mistreated on this point and now here I am saying it also. I suppose the difference for me is that having been possessed for years from childhood until my mid 20’s I can see the undoubted realities of much of what she has written about. Having been delivered by the Holy Spirit in the day I first believed, and further having been delivered of the root of its effect in my soul some seven days later, I can understand how Mrs Penn-Lewis makes the connection between “peripheral” demonic influence through the mind, leading to physical manifestations even to the point of personalities expressing themselves, and at the same time confirming that demons cannot posses the spirits of men. Demons cannot posses the spirits of any men, regenerate or unregenerate. They don’t have that power or authority. Only God has that power and authority to communicate with men’s spirits. Even so the subject is a difficult one to pin down.

The very reason why Mrs Penn-Lewis has suffered censure by some publishers is because she failed to make a true distinction between the spirit, as well as between souls of men behaving like demons and demons themselves. Men can behave like demons including true believers if they press falsehood and sin too far. Demons can “alight on the house” they cannot posses its inner parts. They can press the door bell and harass you until you open the door in fear. But they cannot take possession of your full intention to resist them. They can put their foot in the door, but they do not have authority to seize all the goods.They can deceive you into hurting yourself but they cannot destroy you. Only you yourself can determine to serve your own desires and persist into rebellion and anger towards God, then it may be possible to serve their purposes. Then they will make a nest on the porch and multiply their influence in your natural mind.

My original purpose in making the post about Andrew Strom’s video was to draw out this very point. If we attribute to demons more power than they really have and apply that to believers we will form the very basis of fear which physiologically speaking is the same mechanism of the physical body, namely the autonomic nervous system in particular, which Mrs Penn-Lewis highlighted when she quoted from Ernst Lohmann. Although I made the connection in my original post between the quotation in “War on the Saints” taken from a book by Ernst Lohmann and the Kundalini Spirit which Andrew Strom speaks off, I did this because there is in fact a link. The link is Jessie Penn-Lewis herself and what she believed. I will post on this later but I can say in simplicity that when Andrew Strom speaks of a “spirit of kundalini” being essentially another spirit which produces false manifestations attributed to the Holy Spirit, he is speaking from the perspective of a man who believes in the full benefit and reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So he is not asserting that these “false” manifestations are just symptomatic of a fuller deception in the way Mrs Penn-Lewis does.

When I looked into the origins of the Kundalini of Hinduism and its relationship through Yoga to the physical body, especially the part played by the autonomic nervous system, I was immediately reminded of this quote of Ernst Lohmann which Mrs Penn-Lewis placed so much importance on as a way of explaining how passivity could be achieved in believers and thereby the reception of demonic spirits. Clearly Mrs Penn-Lewis was primarily concerned about a false baptism of the Holy Spirit. In seeking to understand the correlation between the present deception sweeping the church and the concerns which Mrs Penn-Lewis expressed at the beginning of the popular pentecostal revivals of the early 20th century, I have found myself asking the question what the physical relationship is beyond a common and obvious belief by two parties that demons infiltrate the church and have a part to play in manifestations which are then attributed to the Holy Spirit. The obvious answer would be to simply say that the link is the spirits themselves. Yet I cannot accept that this is the full answer.

 2013/10/2 17:22









 Re:

Hello amrkelly,

Quote:
Demons cannot possess the spirits of any men, regenerate or unregenerate. They don’t have that power or authority. Only God has that power and authority to communicate with men’s spirits. Even so the subject is a difficult one to pin down.



I agree that Demons cannot possess the spirits of Christians since they have become one with the Spirit of Christ. I am not sure about unbelievers. Also, when Believers have strongholds in their lives by "giving place to the Enemy", do you think possibly that demons who actually desire a body can "nest" in a particular area of one's body oppressing their spirit and soul seeking to gain further entrance and control over their mind, will and emotions?

The reason I ask this is because of this parable.They seem to want a body. Do you think they just fly after Believers and strongholds are only mental or psychological weaknesses or do they seek to gain physical entrance and lodge in their body?

Luk 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
Luk 8:31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
Luk 8:32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

Just like God, Satan desires worship from us and just like God, Satan desires to inhabit us, too. Yet, with all of his counterfeits, his indwelling of man is also a counterfeit since he cannot dwell in our spirit (he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit) and be one with us (Christ in us and we in Him). He can only dwell in the body and oppress our spirit and soul.

Jessie-Penn Lewis has an interesting appendix on the counterfeits of Satan. Anyway, I believe their goal is to take up residence in a man, saved or unsaved. I won't argue and find your posts interesting.

Here is Jessie Penn-Lewis' "True Workings of God, and Counterfeits of Satan". Read number 3.
http://www.apostasynow.com/wots/TrueWorkings.html

And then, if you look at footnote 103, you will find this. Here is a link and an excerpt.
http://www.apostasynow.com/wots/Chap05-2.html#103
It is important clearly to recognize the distinction between the "obsession," or influence of the counterfeit presence; and the "possession," or access obtained, which follows the acceptance of the obsession, or influence from without.

The distinction and the characteristics may be briefly described as follows:--(1) Obsession: an influence from outside; a counterfeit presence of God as an influence upon the person, to which he opens himself in mind and body.

(2) Possession: the counterfeit of a person within (after obtaining a footing), generally as love.note 16 Absolute abandonment to this of the affections and will. Exquisite feelings in physical and soulish realm, with spirit untouched. The man thinks all is "spiritual," when it is really the sensuous life in a spiritual form.

The word obsession has been exaggerated in modern use, and symptoms, or manifestations truly belonging to possession, are frequently put down to it.

OBSESSION AND ITS CAUSE
"Obsession" means an evil spirit, or spirits, hovering around, and influencing a man with the object of obtaining a footing in him, and gaining possession, in however small a degree. If these influences are yielded to, it must result in possession, e.g., if an evil spirit counterfeits the presence of God, and comes upon the man as an influence only, it may be described as obsession; but when a footing is gained in him, it is "possession,"note 17 because the obsessing spirits have gained access, and possess the ground they hold, up to the extent of the ground given.

Also, and this is off-topic. I have been following yours and Brenda's posts about holiness and I came upon this chart. I did not know that Keswick is associated with Calvinism. Is this chart correct?
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/Holiness.htm

Blessings and thank you.

 2013/10/2 17:57









 Re:

Hello amrkelly,

Quote:
Demons cannot possess the spirits of any men, regenerate or unregenerate. They don’t have that power or authority. Only God has that power and authority to communicate with men’s spirits. Even so the subject is a difficult one to pin down.



I agree that Demons cannot possess the spirits of Christians since they have become one with the Spirit of Christ. I am not sure about unbelievers. Also, when Believers have strongholds in their lives by "giving place to the Enemy", do you think possibly that demons who actually desire a body can "nest" in a particular area of one's body oppressing their spirit and soul seeking to gain further entrance and control over their mind, will and emotions?

The reason I ask this is because of this parable.They seem to want a body. Do you think they just fly after Believers and strongholds are only mental or psychological weaknesses or do they seek to gain physical entrance and lodge in their body?

Luk 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
Luk 8:31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
Luk 8:32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

Just like God, Satan desires worship from us and just like God, Satan desires to inhabit us, too. Yet, with all of his counterfeits, his indwelling of man is also a counterfeit since he cannot dwell in our spirit (he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit) and be one with us (Christ in us and we in Him). He can only dwell in the body and oppress our spirit and soul.

Jessie-Penn Lewis has an interesting appendix on the counterfeits of Satan. Anyway, I believe their goal is to take up residence in a man, saved or unsaved. I won't argue and find your posts interesting.

Here is Jessie Penn-Lewis' "True Workings of God, and Counterfeits of Satan". Read number 3.
http://www.apostasynow.com/wots/TrueWorkings.html

And then, if you look at footnote 103, you will find this. Here is a link and an excerpt.
http://www.apostasynow.com/wots/Chap05-2.html#103
It is important clearly to recognize the distinction between the "obsession," or influence of the counterfeit presence; and the "possession," or access obtained, which follows the acceptance of the obsession, or influence from without.

The distinction and the characteristics may be briefly described as follows:--(1) Obsession: an influence from outside; a counterfeit presence of God as an influence upon the person, to which he opens himself in mind and body.

(2) Possession: the counterfeit of a person within (after obtaining a footing), generally as love.note 16 Absolute abandonment to this of the affections and will. Exquisite feelings in physical and soulish realm, with spirit untouched. The man thinks all is "spiritual," when it is really the sensuous life in a spiritual form.

The word obsession has been exaggerated in modern use, and symptoms, or manifestations truly belonging to possession, are frequently put down to it.

OBSESSION AND ITS CAUSE
"Obsession" means an evil spirit, or spirits, hovering around, and influencing a man with the object of obtaining a footing in him, and gaining possession, in however small a degree. If these influences are yielded to, it must result in possession, e.g., if an evil spirit counterfeits the presence of God, and comes upon the man as an influence only, it may be described as obsession; but when a footing is gained in him, it is "possession,"note 17 because the obsessing spirits have gained access, and possess the ground they hold, up to the extent of the ground given.

Also, and this is off-topic. I have been following yours and Brenda's posts about holiness and I came upon this chart. I did not know that Keswick is associated with Calvinism. Is this chart correct?
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/Holiness.htm

Blessings and thank you.

 2013/10/2 17:57
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1529
Scotland, UK

 Re:

Quote: Colin I know you will say 'how can that be?' but you are missing the fact that those who are serving the flesh ie not walking in the Spirit or Spirit baptised, are under the curse of the flesh and therefore even meat for the enemy. And he is especially targeting those who can do most damage to him and your writings seem to me to be of that quality but as yet without power.

Krautfrau – I appreciate your concern for me, but there is nothing in this world that you can say to convince me to stop praying in the spirit, it may not yield any benefit to my mind, but it does build me up and as soon as I start to pray in the Spirit God’s presence is there.

Quote: That the gift of prophecy which is the better gift of 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen, is of necessity a gift which has its reception in the spirit, but also passes through the mind and then by that means through the mouth. It does not come straight from the spirit of the man or woman but reflects a more mature attitude in ministering to the whole body and not simply one’s self.

Prophecy: when I was out on the street as a young Christian as part of team to start a church in a city. As I and my co-laborer approached a group of workmen, my co-laborer who was Finnish was struggling to get her point across to them so I went to step in. As I opened my mouth to speak it seemed like a flood of words started to come out of my mouth. The men just stood in front of me with totally bowled over by what I said to them. But I must admit it wasn’t me that was speaking to them and it just came out, it certainly didn’t go through my mind as I was just as bowled over as these men were and so was the Finnish co-laborer and we went off down the road praising God. My thoughts were where did that come from.

On relating this to an older brother he said that I had prophesied… I am not trying to cause a controversy just relating that my experience of words coming directly out of my mouth, speaking directly to a group of men life’s that I had no intention to say or could have known to say.

Edit:- These words were in English but maybe you guys South of Border would say it was tounges.. lol


_________________
Colin Murray

 2013/10/2 18:13Profile









 Re:

Quote:
The first is your first encounter with this gift and the fear you felt at that time. The second is a more structured theology which necessitates the rejection of the gift based on an inability to know what the purpose of the gift ws. This is and the book by Jessie Penn-Lewis (War on the Saints) makes substantial in your mind at least the historical certainty that speaking in tongues came into awareness and experience of the saints beginning in the mid 19th century, but especially during the revivals of the early 20th century as a pseudo baptism. It is a convenient tool for that purpose. The thing is Brenda I cannot see that you have actually understood what Jessie Penn-Lewis is really saying.



I did not feel fear when I first encountered tongue speaking. My initial impression from my spirit was that it was not of God, and I believe this is quite common. The trouble is, that after we receive an initial impression in our spirit, we go on to use our minds and if we are attending a church which condones it, we will interpret that first impression as being wrong, because, after all, these leaders and people we have just met are very loving and seem to be convinced of it, so therefore we must be wrong - its the devil trying to stop us. That is not how he works however. He works through our reasoning not our spiritual discernment.

I have been a believer for quite a while before I actually heard it, being in a Reformed Church. I had already decided that Calvinism was in error so was open to rethink my beliefs. I set about to do my own in depth scriptural study on the subject meanwhile praying about it.

My conclusion is that the practise is the result of the pseudo baptism of the Spirit and which is what the traditional holiness teachers believed. I came to my decision independently with no pressure to fit in anywhere.

I believe that the practise has occurred throughout church history but it only became mainline in the last 100 years or so. When the traditional holiness teachers were around, it was not so much an issue as it is today, as it was on the fringes of the church. This is why there was not a strong stand and teaching against it in their writings. If they did believe in it and practise it themselves, then there would have been teaching or at least mentions of it but there is none. In their day, it was a given that it was the practice of small groups who had gone off the rails, or had never been on them.

Watchman Nee did not do any teaching at all about the practise of tongue speaking in the church today. He speaks of it in reference to what was happening in the early church, where Paul had to exercise discipline over the matter, but that does not mean that he thought that it is for today. Paul did not ban it even though it was causing problems as he knew that 'tongues will cease' and left it to God to bring that about. His concern as you say was for order.

Nee was in agreement with Jessie Penn-Lewis over tongues, and the others involved with early Keswick and yes indeed the chart is correct and it has been Calvinist from the start. Traditional holiness teaching does not accept tongues but accepts the other gifts.

The purpose of it in the beginning was for a sign for the Jews that Babylon had been reversed, in the same way that physical healing, occurring at large was a sign that the Healer had come, as spoken of in the OT as the Healer of backslidden people of God. He would restore them. These signs faded as time went on. Today, very few people are healed.

My only interested in demonology would be if I was in ministry, and besides, it is not an issue once one has been Spirit baptised where demons must flee as they have no ground left when a man is freed from sin. If men sin then demons have ground and the greatest damage they do is to deceive.

If Jessie Penn-Lewis had her theology right, and had not got stuck halfway, not accepting eradication of sin, which unfortunately was the problem with Keswick, then I don't think that she would have got so obsessed with demons.


 2013/10/3 4:04









 Re:

Colin

If you received at one time, an experience which you interpreted as the baptism of the Spirit and which gave you expressions of speech which bypass your mind, and you wish to go by your experiences, rather than listen to those who did achieve what you are seeking, and at the same time, receive discernment of spirits which enabled them to know the true from the false baptism, and you still think that you have not been deceived, then there is nothing more that I can say. The fact that you will not even test what you have received by ceasing from it, repenting of the false baptism, and allowing God to guide you into receiving a pure heart, shows that you think you are beyond deception and therefore of an unteachable spirit. The testing would have cost you and lost you nothing. So be it. What a loss for the kingdom.

 2013/10/3 4:20
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1529
Scotland, UK

 Re:

Quote: The fact that you will not even test what you have received by ceasing from it, repenting of the false baptism, and allowing God to guide you into receiving a pure heart, shows that you think you are beyond deception and therefore of an unteachable spirit.

Brenda your idea of testing is requiring me to cease from it. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues 1 Cor 14:39. You see I am teachable God says through the bible speak in tongues and don’t let anyone forbid you from doing it.

Now the question has to asked since we are on the subject of testing is what spirit would forbid me to stop praying in tongues? But not only forbid me, but then promise that when I stopped that I would receive something else?

I am all for a second work of the Spirit and believe God will do it 100%, not because I read it in a book or because a man said to search for it, but because God’s Spirit led me in that direction. What I am finding is not so much that God can’t do it but rather it’s me, I haven’t fully yielded myself over to him and until I do then he is unable to work in me. What that means is that I have it all in me, but I am not yet fully yield over in submission.

If there is one thing I know about the Spirit that lives in me is that the Spirit is a Gentleman. He continues to work in me and move my heart towards the Lord through prodding and provoking, but he doesn’t just walk all over me. Yes he is asking for me to surrender but will never force me to surrender. He never uses threatening of coercive language, he has told me the truth in a very straight forward manner but there was always gentleness about him. It is that goodness that I see that will cause me to repent and turn to him fully, as it God’s goodness that leads to repentance, not coercive words of condemnation and suffering loss.


_________________
Colin Murray

 2013/10/3 8:33Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Evil spirit's counterfeit, as the occasion serves them, each Person of the Trinity, and can thus obtain access, and become in and with a man in manifestations given to the senses, in which the real spirit-sense may have no part. Jessie Penn-Lewis



The above statement even though it appears to speak of physical possession may not in fact speak of physical possession. I realise that this claim is difficult to reconcile with the overwhelming sense of the words, but "access" does not mean possession. One may find access to many things by reason of sight, hearing, physical as well as psychical projections and a multitude of other ways without every possessing anything. A man's very words spoken aloud give access to others minds and even affect others' minds. Yet as every sorcerer knows, words spoken of a certain kind, embolden and energise that mans own mind and body and not simply other men. Those who do prophecy in the context of say the NRA prophets are most likely exercising the same principle and I would say without doubt the men and the women who speak in this way do go beyond their own comprehension in the things which they "prophecy". In doing so the outworking is not only projected into the air where it is taken up by demonic spirits labouring in that power and authority, but it also shapes the man himself and makes of him a more wicked man. Sorcery and sorceric credentials are evidenced by hidden realities as well as visible realities. These are the deeds accomplished in time, but they are also the changed man who becomes physically caught up in the realisation of the power of sorceric speech. This produces the "blood rush" which is met with understanding, not by reason of certainty, but by reason of sympathetic familiarity with the body itself.

By such words one can provoke outcomes both emotional and physical, infer subtle meanings and even change minds, and yet never by one measure posses the man. I have understood the underlying reality of this for more than 25 years both from the position of the physiology of fear as the fountain of possession, as well as knowing the reality of practising sorcery and being possessed as an unbeliever without any proper sense of it. I don't want to go ahead of the Holy Spirit in seeking to explain this, yet I have a burden to do that very thing. Perhaps in the end I will find that I have said nothing more than Mrs Penn-Lewis has said herself or many others who have understanding of demonic realities yet without having experienced them in their own bodies and souls. The thing with Mrs Penn-Lewis which really makes me search to understand her true position is not because she may be misunderstood but because of her use of the Ernst Lohmann quotation. It is in that usage where I believe Mrs Penn-Lewis "embraced the physiology of fear" and not necessarily the true and substantive reality of the gifts of the Holy Spirit given today. I would say that even true prophecy can and does stumble into the realm of the soul itself and by that means the very body is affected by reason of cognitive sympathetic responses. When these responses are realised they become the evidence of what is believed true and spiritual discernment is lost. This is what Mrs Penn-Lewis cannot accept.

http://emotion.caltech.edu/dropbox/bi133/files/Critchley.pdf

The difference is of an incredible magnitude yet it is a difference of power. Is it the Holy Spirit working through the spirits of men made alive in Christ? Or is it the gifts of the Holy Spirit exercised foolishly and carnally, yet not being possession in so far as it is a man and not a demon. The man's words will always fall to the ground if they lack power and his intention is sound, even though he may speak the truth and exercise sound doctrine. This is because what is given is received in the mind and can do nothing in respect of spiritual growth. You cannot train men to exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit as though an academy would prove it.


I am not concerned about whether demons can counterfeit spiritual realities nor even to disprove what has been said about Mrs Penn-Lewis, nor am I concerned about the agreement to censor her books. To be honest the excesses and doctrines in many churches can be so gross and the deceptions so grave that it seems almost at odds with necessity to press any point that appears to contradict such a good work as War on the Saints. On the other hand I truly wonder if Jessie Penn-Lewis has not been misunderstood in some very profound way. At the moment I cannot see that she has taught that demons actually posses believers in the overwhelming sense which has been attributed to her book. Perhaps it is just vanity on my part because in considering your second link it is undoubtably true that she is asserting a definite physical possession.

Quote:
"Obsession" means an evil spirit, or spirits, hovering around, and influencing a man with the object of obtaining a footing in him, and gaining possession, in however small a degree. If these influences are yielded to, it must result in possession, e.g., if an evil spirit counterfeits the presence of God, and comes upon the man as an influence only, it may be described as obsession; but when a footing is gained in him, it is "possession,"note 17 because the obsessing spirits have gained access, and possess the ground they hold, up to the extent of the ground given. Jessie Penn-Lewis




I want to be very careful with what I say. I could give numbers of reasons why I ought to believe that saints can be possessed, yet I do not believe it in my spirit. As for the physical body itself well that is the very heart of the matter, but it is not as we imagine it to be. It is not the arm or the leg or the hand or the blind eye, it is the central nervous system, the somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system. Of these it is the autonomic nervous system with its sympathetic and parasympathetic division which has to do with those responses of the body which are said to be subconscious. These autonomic responses participate in self consciousness through behaviour pathology and it is this behavioural pathology which the man can discern and agree with or else deny. Until this behavioural layer is outworked there is no possibility of any kind of volitive participation which could have moral or spiritual consequences. If this were not so we would indeed be in the very grip of possession and with no possibility of resistance because it would be achieved by a means subconscious and out of our will. This is why at that time of writing based on late 19th century these processes whilst they were anatomically recognised, they were not understood very well. Even today the relationship between the peripheral nerves of the skin and muscles is better understood than are the autonomic nerves which interplay with consciousness. Volitive actions based on sensory interpretations can be a basis for demonic efforts to influence a man through the air. The "wind on the skin" example by Mrs Penn-Lewis is one such example. There are also internal physiological and pathological sensations as well which are felt in the body and are interpreted with the conscious mind to mean "something" good or ill; dependant on the accompanying attack on the mind.

If you experience a wind moving across your neck or face or hand for example how will you interpret it? If you are taught that these are evidences of God's presence (or inexplicably "think" that it is) then you may well believe them to be the evidence of ~God's presence. The relationship between the volition and reception of believing that this experience was evidence of God's presence is not of itself sufficient to give a basis for a demonic agents to do anything, even when the physical stimulus was produced by a secondary agent (demon). After all what is deception biblically? It is not party tricks of the devil! It is doctrinal deception which harms. What then if this "trick" has been produced through the power of the air which is in the dominion of Satan? Will this automatically mean that you will give ground to Satan and thence to possession? It simply is not true that this alone will form the basis for possession.

The difference between mental anguish and ordinary fear, is the difference between the ordinary "fight or flight" mechanism of the adrenal medulla (Gland function) which is directly connected to the sympathetic trunk of the autonomous nervous system. It also produces peristalsis of the bowel. This is the "pit of the stomach" reference of Ernst Lohmann quoted by Jessie Penn-Lewis. This is why although the quote was an attempt to describe the central nervous system and at least one underlying pathological outworking, the essence of the quote is a description of the physiology and psychology of fear. At least that is what it says to me. In any case all this being outside the will or volition of the individual puts it in the realm of what Mrs Penn-Lewis calls passivity. It is not somnambulistic passivity (hypnosis) in reality but physical passivity induced by body chemistry attendant to an external stimulus which whether it is believed to be the evidence of God or not, the stimulus produces anxiety or mild fear. How that plays out in the conscious mind will determine how severe the effect is and what your behaviour will turn out to be. It is worth noting that the adrenal medulla has no parasympathetic link to the autonomic nervous system. Once triggered the only thing that will stop further release of adrenaline and dopamine is either a loss of consciousness or else a conscious acceptance of the stimulus as "no longer a threat". In short the fear passes. This is the thing which Mrs Penn-Lewis is describing I believe and it is not a basis for possession. Even though relief from fear or anxiety is a good thing, the dopamine which is produced in a smaller measure than is adrenaline, has a kick in the tail, in so much as this is the hormone which produces physical well being. All of this activity is in the blood stream.

Demonic ariel activity can produce consequences by reason of self consciousness and the physiology of the body itself, (interacting with the physical world, including phonological and physiognomic stimuli), and serves as a rod for the conduit of the soul itself-producing outcomes which seem miraculous. Yet never so much as a hairs touch of flesh on flesh is necessary. It can be completely of words, it can be a look and it can be in silence, in darkness and almost robbed of all stimuli. All that is required is knowledge and a foundation laid from the dawn of time. In short this is what is called witchcraft. It is the same in meaning in Galatians 5:20 where the word for sorcery or witchcraft is φαρμακεία (pharmakia) from which we derive the word pharmacy and chemistry. It is also worth noting the singular reality of Galatians 5:20 as well. This is not a sorcery of demons being described, it is a fruit of the flesh. It speaks of the upside of the processes I have described above being turned to the benefit of the individual by means of self induction and control of ones own chemistry. Some attempt this through aesthetic practises and others induce it through drug abuse especially with opiates. The former is typical of Yogic practises and the latter is typical of sorcery. In reality they both amount to the same reality of physiology.

One would have to ask in this arrangement how it is possible to turn this "blood chemistry" to ones advantage? For the Yogic it is essentially in stimulating through breathing and posture (Chakras) or ganglionic junctions of the central nervous system and the autonomic nervous system. For the sorcerer it is in utterances which of themselves by reason of the ear and the eye and the will, produce sympathetic chemical benefits which attend to the very neurology of the brain itself and thence into a "blood rush" by which the bodies own chemistry is pressed around the whole body and produces a demonic man. Think of the times you have seen videos of so-called prophets of God who are clearly stimulated in visibility of their boastings and by their mouths drive themselves and others to reckless abandonment and often blasphemy of God. By this means do these same men curse others and either by release of their own supernatural abilities of their souls or else by cooperation of demons do waste others even unto death.

Do demons desire to posses by physical means? Absolutely they do. I agree that many of these spirits crave a physical body in remembrance of their own bodies now destroyed. Others however do labour in the air and they are willing and able by reason of a paradigm of deception attending to their own ambitions, press on against the certainty of their eventual torment and eternal part in the lake of fire.

These are looking for the man who will not yield himself up to a physical possession ordinarily. The truly terrible and shocking reality is that the most wicked men are often those who have known the truth in their upbringing. This was especially true at the time Mrs Penn-Lewis was born. It is especially true of British, American and European middle class men and women. Their grounding in the Christian Faith made certain their rebellion by reason of disobedience to the gospel itself of such men Aleister Crowley is a good example.

Religion makes for the very worst kind of man when he has the means to explore his rebellion. He goes to the East and brings the philosophies of devils home in his bag. He can become such a demonic man that he can give the demons a run for their money and lay hold of them in a torment of words by which they will either succeed in killing him or he will control them by Satan requiring it for his especial purposes. In the end it will be found to have been permitted by the Father in order to fill up the sins of men and complete the rounds of wickedness. Such is the scale of what lies at the back of real deception and not simply ignorance or error. It certainly cannot be as simple a matter as passivity. It takes a real determination of wickedness to be fruitful to the evil one in anything other than a passing way. I still have not worked out precisely why I believe that demons cannot truly influence the majority of believers beyond psycho-physiological induction. But I do not believe it.

To embrace false doctrines is not the same as being possessed. It is the same as being deceived. On the other hand the false prophet, the beast and Satan, all of whom are not deceived at all, are seen to be in possession of demonic spirits which they use for their own purposes. That ought to tell us something about Satan which we have not considered. Where does his strength and tenacity lie? Not in his ruined frame that is for sure! He is not driven by his own body. He is driven by his ambition. The principle effect of unclean spirits as seen in the New Testament was evidenced by physical and mental illness. Yet Satan, the false prophet and the man of sin all have this power in their own mouths. They control the demons and the demons do not control them.

Consider that when Satan tempted Christ the sum of it was a promise of the whole treasure and dominion of the kingdoms of the earth. The requirement was to accept Satan as God. How is it possible for Satan to speak to the One Whom he saw and comprehended in the day he was created a covering cherub? The demons knew that Christ was the Son of Man. The Lord's very presence tormented them and filled them with dread fear. Yet Satan their prince sought for the man, Christ Jesus to be his instrument. If he had laid hold of Christ he would have in that hour achieved his ambitions. In having the Christ, he would have had the power of the Father in his hands. When believers do a similar thing and serve Satan ignorantly they give the power of the kingdom itself to his purposes without which he could not achieve his ambitions. Yet he needs men of renowned and not just any man. He needs apostate men who have the power and the life of God and Christ working in them but have made ruin of it through sin and rebellion. These men are the men who are coming and their ambitions and determinations will not necessitate the activity of demons in the way this is ordinarily understood.

And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. Revelation 16:13-14

As for the original post and the video by Andrew Strom, my concern, if that is the right word, is not in the validity of recognising the substance of deception which is sweeping the churches in the West, and in other parts as well, but it is in the specific presentation that this is a direct evidence of kundalini "type" spirits invading the church. If we take it as true that the church is not the thing which is visible, but is ever composed of those who have truly believed and been born again of the Spirit of God, we would have to say that it is reasonable to make more use of Scripture and recognise that these spirits are not sweeping into the church, they are sweeping into the dominion and influence of the kingdom of heaven itself. It is an invasion of the the dominion of the kingdom. If they are counterfeiting the things of the Holy Spirit it is because they must do in order to be unseen. Who is their resource in all of this? It is the tares and the hirelings who lead them. It is the world, it is a field and it is like unto the kingdom of heaven, which kingdom do men seek to take by violence. It is a veil which separates the kingdom of men and Satan and the Kingdom of Heaven and Christ and those who are in Him. It is only necessary for the veil to be removed and the Kingdom will come into visibility, even by Christ Himself coming into visibility. Those who seek to take the Kingdom by violence do so precisely because the kingdom of heaven is near by. It is within those who truly believe yet its power is the outworking and its visibility. It is this ambition which Satan has. He cannot create a world of his own. He must labour in this world and by the means of true knowledge slowly and persistently deceive men and women into accepting his rule and dominion over their lives. Who is better placed to assist in this endeavour than the one who has known the truth but rejected it.


Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. John 6:70-71

Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me Psalm 41"9


After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” John 13:27


Long before Satan entered into Judas he was already called a devil. Judas is before time called "My close friend." Is it likely that Jesus became the friend of a devil? Jesus became the friend of a man born of a woman. How was he able to become "a devil" before he is possessed by Satan? I have no doubt that some would say that it was because he was possessed by demons. If this is true at what point was he so possessed? Was it whilst he was casting our demons by the power of the name of Jesus? If so then Satan's kingdom is divided after all. Is it really likely that Judas was possessed before the morsel of bread which was given him, dipped in the wine? It is only after the morsel that Judas is in finality lost. Only after he is lost can Satan posses him. In finality Jesus speaks to the Father “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:12




 2013/10/3 17:45





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy