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

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Christian Mysticism vs. The Holy Spirit

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Another commonly held misconception about the early Quakers is that they sat in silence at Meeting. That is a later development of those who practice new age comtemplation.

What they did was to wait on the Lord for inspiration to speak and often there was quite a bit of talking or quoting of scripture, modified by elders. They also left the ending of Metting up to the Spirit not the clock.

 2016/4/17 7:02
narrowpath
Member



Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1010
Germany NRW

 Re:

<This is based on texts of that period, so most likely takes hours to verify, but someone like you narrowpath should do it, in our all interest. Then you can come back and ask me that question again.>

I thought you had done all the research before you quoted this.

So you are in essence claiming your right to besmirch servants of God by taking 2 minutes to cut and paste and regurgitate someone's "research" work and expect others to spend hours of work to disprove your statement.

Even if I did prove you wrong, would you be willing to change your mind?

Read if you will: Leben des Grafen Ludwig von Zinzendorf by K.A.Varnhagen von Ense, it is written in ancient German if you do not mind ,it is available on Google. Zinzendorf was influential not only on Wesley and Müller, but countless others that did great exploits for God. The Moravians showed some of the purest manifestations of the Kingdom of God and their impact on Christian movements is enormous. Of course, they made mistakes and their are the odd aberrations by some of them, which you find in every movement of God.

Some -not all- of these discernment ministries are self-appointed sheriffs, and theological snipers who have no accountability. Even if what they say it 99% right, their 1% poison can still kill a sheep.

I normally do not get into arguments for no reason, but if it comes to circulating things that are not true about brothers dead or alive, I take a stand.

We ought to be careful with these statements, this is no small thing, you can murder people with your tongue or keyboard.

Yes, I too came out of much hyper charismatic error, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.



 2016/4/17 9:37Profile









 Re:

This link gives the conversation between Wesley and Zinzendorf which led to their fall out:

http://www.churchofthebeyond.com/index.php/history/grays-walk-in/

Quote:
Z. Cur Religionem tuam mutasti?
Z. Why have you changed your religion?

W. Nescio me Religionem meam mutasse. Cur id sentis? Quis hoc tibi retulit?
W. I am not aware that I have changed my religion. Why do you think so? Who has told you this?

Z. Plane tu. Id ex epistola tua ad nos video. Ibi, Religione, quam apud nos professus es, relicta, novam profiteris.
Z. Plainly, yourself. I see it from your letter to us. In that, having abandoned the religion which you professed among us, you profess a new one.

The letter referred to by the Count was written August 8, preceding. It was as follows, excepting two or three paragraphs, which I [sic] have omitted as less material[.]

W. Qui sic? Non intelligo.
W. How so? I do not understand you.

Z. Imo, istic dicis, “Vere Christianos non esse miseros peccatores.” Falsissimum. Optimi hominum ad mortem usque miserabilissimi sunt peccatores. Siqui aliud dicunt, vel penitus impostores sunt, vel diabolic seducti. Nostros fratres meliora docentes impugnasti. Et pacem volentibus, earn denegasti.
Z. Yea, you say there that true Christians are not miserable sinners. This is most false. The best of men are most miserable sinners, even unto death. If any say otherwise, they are either wholly impostors, or diabolically led astray. Our brethren, teachers of better things, you have opposed: and have refused peace to them dcsiring it.

W. Nondilm intelligo quid velia.
W. I do not yet understand what you mean.

Z. Ego, cum ex Georgia ad me scripsisti, te dilexi plurimum. Turn corde simplicem te agnovi. Iterum scripsisti. Agnovi corde simplicem, spil turbatis ideis. Ad nos venisti. Ideae turn tum magis turbatae erant et confusae. In Angliam redlisti. Aliquandiu post, audivi fratres nostros lecum pugnare. Spangenbergium misi ad pacem inter vos conciliandam. Scripsit mihi, “Fratres tibi injuriam intulisse.” Rescripsi, ne pergerent, sea et veniam a te peterent. Spangenberg scripsit iterum, “Eos petlisse; sed te gloriari de iis, pacem nolle.” Jam adveniens, idem audio.
Z. When you wrote to me from Georgia, I loved you very much. I perceived that you were then simple in heart. You wrote again: I saw that you were still simple in heart, but disordered in your ideas. You came among us: your ideas were then still more disordered and confused. You returned to England. Some time after, I heard that our brethren were contending with you. I sent Spangenberg to effect a reconciliation between you. He wrote to me, that the Brethren had injured you. I wrote back, that they should not only not presist, but even ask your pardon. Spangenberg wrote again, that they had asked it: but that you, boasting of these things, were unwilling to be at peace. Now, being come, I hear the same.

W. Res in eo cardine minimi vertitur. Fratres tui (verum hoc) me malfe traclarunt. Postea veniam petlerunt. Respondi, ” Id supervacaneum; me nunquam iis succensuisse: Sed vereri, 1. Ne fulsa docerent. 2. Ne pravfe viverent.”
Ista unica cst, et fuit, inter nos quaestio.
W. The matter by no means turns on that point. Your Brethren (it is so far true) did treat me ill. Afterward, they asked my pardon. I answered, that that was superfluous; that I had never been angry with them: but was afraid, 1. That there was error in their doctrine. 2. That there was sin (allowed) in their practice. This was then, and is at this day, the only question between them and me.

Z. Apertius loquaris.
Z. Speak more plainly.

W. Veritus sum, ne falsa docerent, 1. De fine fidei nostra! (in hac vita) scil. Christian perfectione. 2. De mediis gratiae, sic ab Ecclesia nostra dietis.
W. I feared that there was error in their doctrine,—1. Concerning the end of our faith in this life, to wit, Christian perfection. 2. Concerning the means of grace, so called by our Church.
Z. Nullam inhaerentem perfectionem in hac viia agnosco. Est hie error errorum. Eum per totum orbem igne et gladio persequor, conculco, ad internecionem do. Christus est sola Perfeclio nostra. Qui perfectionem inhaerentem sequitur, Christum denegat.
Z. I acknowledge no inherent perfection in this life. This is the error of errors. I pursue it through the world with fire and sword—I trample it under foot—I exterminate it. Christ is our only perfection. Whoever follows after inherent perfection, denies Christ

W. Ego vert credo, Spiritum Christi operari perfectionem in verfe Chris tianis.
W. But I believe, that the Spirit of Christ works perfection in true Christians.

Z. Nullimodd. Omnis nostra perfectio est in Christo. Omnis Christiana perfectio est, fides in sanguine Christi. Est tola Christiana perfectio, imputata, non inhaerens. Perfect! sumus in Christo, in nobismet nunquam perfecti.
Z. Not at all. All our perfection is in Christ. All Christian perfection is, faith in the blood of Christ. The whole of Christian perfection is imputed, not inherent. We are perfect in Christ;—in ourselves, never.

W. Pugnamus,opinor,deverbis. Nonneomnisverecredenssanctusest?
W. We contend, I think, about words. Is not every true believer holy?

Z. Maximo. Sed sanctus in Christo, non in se.
Z. Certainly. But he is holy in Christ, not in himself.

W. Sed, nonne sancte vivit?
W. But does he not live holily?

Z. Ima, sancte in omnibus vivit .
Z. Yes, he lives holily in all things.

W. Nonne, ct cor sanctum habet?
W. Has he not also a holy heart?

Z. Certissime.
Z. Most certainly.

W. Nonne, ex consequent!, sanctus est in i«?
W. Is he not, consequently, holy in himself?

Z. Non, noii. In rimsto tantum. Non sanctus in ii. Nullam omnino habet sanctitatem in «e.
Z. No, no. In Christ only. He is not holy in himself. In himself he has no holiness at all.

W. Nonne habet in corde suo amorem Dei et proximi, quin et totam imaginem Dei?
W. Has he not the love of God and his neighbor in his heart? Yea, even the whole image of God?

Z. Habet. Sed haec sum sanctitas legalis, non Evangelica. Sauctitas Evangelica est fides.
Z. He has. But these constitute legal, not evangelical holiness; Evangelical holiness is,—faith.

W. Omnind lis est de verbis. Concedis, credentis cor totum ease sanctum et vitam totam: Eum amare Deum toto corde, eique servire totis viribus. Nihil ultri peto. Nil aliud volo per Perfectio vel Sanctitas Christiana.
W. The dispute is altogether about words. You grant that the whole heart and the whole life of a believer, are holy: that he love God with all his heart, and serves him with all his strength. I ask nothing more. I mean nothing else by Christian perfection or holiness.

Z. Sed hsEC non est sanctitas ejus. Non magls sanctus est, si magls amat, neque miiuis sanctus, si minus amat.
Z. But toil is not his holiness. He is not more holy, if he loves more; nor less holy, if he loves less.

W. Quid? Nonne credens, dum crescit in amcre, crescit pariter in sanctitate?
W. What? Does not a believer, while he increases in love, increase equally in holiness?

Z. Nequaquam. Eo momento quo justificatur, sanctificntur penitiks. Exin, neque magls sanctus est, neque minus sanctus, ad mortem usque.
Z. By no means. The moment he is justified, he is sanctified wholly. From that time, even unto death, he is neither more nor less holy.

W. Nonne igitur Pater in Christo sanctior est Infante recens nato?
W. Is not then a father in Christ more holy than a new-born-babe [in Christ]?

Z. Non. Sanctificatio totalis ac Justificatio in eodem sunt instanti; et neutra recipit magls aut minus.
Z. No. Entire sanctification and justification are in the same instant; and neither is increased or diminished.

W. Nonne verb credens crescit indies amore Dei? Num perfectus est amore simulac justificatur?
W. But does not a believer grow daily in the love of God? Is he perfect in love as soon as he is justified?

Z. Est. Non unquam crescit in amore Dei. Totaliter amat eo momento, sicut totaliter sanctificatur.
Z. He is. He never increases in the love of God. He loves entirely in that moment, as he is entirely sanctified.

W. Quid itaquevult Apostolus Paulus, per, “Renovamur ee die in diem?”
W. What then does the apostle Paul mean by, “We are renewed day by day?”
Z. Dicam. Plumbum si in aurum mutetur, est aurum primo die, et secundo, et tertio. Et sic renovatur de die in diem. Sed nunquam est magls aurum, quam primo die.
Z. I will tell you. Lead, if it be changed into gold, is gold the first day, and the second, and the third. And so it is renewed day by day. But it is never more gold than on the first day.

W. Putavi, crescendum esse in gratia!
W. I thought we ought to grow in grace!

Z. Certe. Sed non in sanctitate. Simulac justificatur quis, Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus habitant in ipsius corde. Et cor ejus eo momento seque purum est ac unquam erit. In fans in Christo tam purus corde est quam Pater in Christo. Nulla est discrepantia.
Z. Certainly. But not in holiness. As soon as any one is justified, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, dwell in his heart: and in that moment his heart is as pure as it ever will be. A babe in Christ is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference.

W. Nonne justificati erant Apostoli ante Christi mortem?
W. Were not the Apostles justified before the death of Christ?

Z. Erant.
Z. They were.

W. Nonne vrrfi sancliores erant post diem Pentecostes, quam ante Christi mortem? •
W. But were they not more holy after the day of Pentecost, than before the death of Christ?

Z. Neutiquam.
Z. Not in the least .

W. Nonne eo die impleti sunt Spiritu Sancto?
W. Were they not on that day filled with the Holy Ghost?

Z. Eraui. Sed istud donum Spiritus, sanctitatem ipuorum non respexit. Fuit donum miraculorum tantum.
Z. They were. But that gift of the Spirit had no reference to their holiness. It was the gift of miracles only.

W. Fortasse te non capio. Nonne nos ipsos abnegantes, magls maglsque mundo morimur, ac Deo vivimus?
W. Perhaps I do not understand you. Do we not, while we deny ourselves, more and more die to the world and live to God?

Z. Abnegationem omnem respuimus, conculcamus. Facimus credentes omne quod volumus et nihil ultra. Mortificationem omnem ridemus. Nulla purificatio praecedit perfectum amorem.
Z. We spurn all [self] denial: we trample it under foot. Being believers, we do whatever we will, and nothing more. We ridicule all mortification. No purification precedes perfect love.

W. Quae dixiati, Deo adjuvantc, perpendam.
W. What you have said, God assisting me, I will thoroughly consider.



It was over the finer points of the doctrine of entire sanctification.

 2016/4/17 11:04









 Re:

Brenda,

Thank you for posting that very interesting conversation between Wesley and Zinzendorf.

 2016/4/17 11:44









 Re:

You are most welcome J :)

 2016/4/17 13:39
a-servant
Member



Joined: 2008/5/3
Posts: 435


 Re:

"Some -not all- of these discernment ministries are self-appointed sheriffs, and theological snipers who have no accountability."

So you didn't even look at:

Examining Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760)
http://deceptionbytes.com/examining-count-nikolaus-ludwig-von-zinzendorf-1700-1760/


The above author did nothing except quote all of these people:


Broomhall, Susan and Jacqueline Van Gent. “Side Wounds, Sex, and Savages.” Governing Masculinities in the Early Modern Period: Regulating Selves and Others. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. 194. Print.

Fogelman, Aaron Spencer. Jesus is Female: Moravians and Radical Religion in Early America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Print.

Frey, Andreas. A True and Authentic Account of Andrew Frey: Containing the Occasion of him Coming Among the Hernhuters or Moravians. London: J. Robinson in Ludgate-Street, M. Keith in Grace-Church-Street, M. Cook at the Royal Exchange, and J. Jolliff in St. James’s-Street, 1753. Print.

Hamilton, John Taylor. A History of the Church Known as the Moravian Church, or, the Unitas Fratrum, or, the Unity of the Brethren, During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Bethlehem: Times Publishing Company, 1900. Print.

Lachman, Gary. “Esoteric Revolution.” Politics and the Occult: The Left, the Right, and the Radically Unseen. 1st ed. Wheaton: Quest Books, 2008. 53-71. Print.

Lavington, George. The Moravians Compared and Detected. London: J&P Knapton. 1755. Print.

Mack, Phyllis. Heart Religion in the British Enlightenment: Gender and Emotion in Early Methodism. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 44-45. Print.

O’Neill, Tim. “The Erotic Freemasonry of Count Nicholas Von Zinzendorf.” Secret and Suppressed: Banned Ideas and Hidden History. Ed. Jim Keith. Venice: Feral House Books, 1993. 103-108. Print.

Perkins, Robert L. International Kierkegaard Commentary: Practice in Christianity. 20. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2004. 221-222. Print.

Peucker, Paul. “”Inspired by Flames of Love”: Homosexuality, Mysticism, and Moravian Brothers around 1750.” Journal of the History of Sexuality. 15.1 (2006): 30-64. Print.

Schuchard, Marsha Keith. Why Mrs. Blake Cried: William Blake and the Erotic Imagination. New York: Random House, 2006. Print

Rimius, Henry. A Candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Herrnhuters, Commonly Call’d Moravians, or, Unitas Fratrum; with a Short Account of their Doctrines, Drawn from Their own Writings. London: A. Linde, 1753. Print

—. The History of the Moravians: From their First Settlement at Herrnhaag in the County of Büdingen, down to the Present Time, with a View Chiefly to Their Political Intrigues. London: Royal Exchange, 1754. Print.

Wesley, John. Queries Humbly Proposed to the Right Reverend and Right Honorable Count Zinzendorf. London: Royal Exchange, 1755. Print.


Are all of them self-appointed sheriffs, and theological snipers?

 2016/4/17 17:10Profile









 Re:

Just picked this guys book that was given as a reference

O’Neill, Tim. “The Erotic Freemasonry of Count Nicholas Von Zinzendorf.” Secret and Suppressed: Banned Ideas and Hidden History. Ed. Jim Keith. Venice: Feral House Books, 1993. 103-108. Print.

Here is some of this crackpots book that is cited as a reference for Zinzendorf.
Not a credible source. Are the rest of the citations as idiotic and nonsensical as this one?


THE EROTIC FREEMASONRY OF COUNT NICHOLAS VON ZINZENDORF

Tim O’Neill writes:

Throughout the history of Western occultism, there has been a constant and intriguing tendency toward heterodox sexual suppression, ranging all the way from the wandering Gnostics of the Second Century, EC, with their prostitute “Sophias” and “Shekinahs” to the orgiastic self-mutilation of the Eighteenth Century Russian Skoptsi. From the psychological and mystical viewpoints alike, it is clear that asceticism and libertinism are simply the two opposing poles in a larger archetypal constellation, based upon the experience of ecstacy.

The legend of John the Baptist, holy man extraordinaire and his perversely and insistently erotic relationship with his seductive decapitator, Salome, is one of the most powerful examples in the Western Tradition, of this complex relationship between sadism, sexuality, asceticism and mysticism.

 2016/4/17 19:07









 Re:

"Yes, I too came out of much hyper charismatic error, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Same here brother, and if forced to make a choice, now that I have been on both sides of the matter at different times in my life, I would rather be in bed with a flaky charismatic who is full of flaws but who never judges anybody...than a grumbling, fault finding, puffed up Calvinist who never does anything for God but stand on the sidelines accusing others. The latter knows nothing of the love or mercy of God for others.

We truly must come "to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge..."

I had always read that as knowing the love of Christ which is beyond understanding but it actually means the love of Christ IS GREATER than knowledge!!!

All this knowledge that grumbling fault finders pride themselves in only serves to puff them up and give themselves a sense of importance and superiority over others. They have nothing of the love of God in them. The love of God is so mighty, so important that it not only surpasses knowledge in importance but also even FAITH!!!

"For these three shall remain, faith, hope and love, but the GREATEST of these is love" !!!

 2016/4/17 20:42
a-servant
Member



Joined: 2008/5/3
Posts: 435


 Re:

"RE: Not a credible source. Are the rest of the citations as idiotic and nonsensical as this one?"

Would have to check them all to answer that, I only know Wesley that asked:

"Were ever such words put together from the foundation of the world?"

I cannot put here to what he reponded to, it's possibly the most absurd statement I have ever read

according to Wesleys letters these things have never been resolved because the Herrnhuters simply never answered his queries regarding that.

 2016/4/17 20:49Profile
a-servant
Member



Joined: 2008/5/3
Posts: 435


 Re:

"Yes, I too came out of much hyper charismatic error, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I was into mysticism before I became a Christian - that prevented me to ever be impressed with charismatism, it is absolutely the same principles.

The last church I quit was a charismatic one, all was well until the main preacher tried to explain to us what faith is, and mostly used hall-of-fame world class declared satanists of pop culture and tech inovation to illustrate his point that "they achieved their goal because they believed they can do it". It became clear that this preacher had absolutely no clue of what he was talking about.

 2016/4/17 21:04Profile





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