Latter Rain

[marks]

Had God withheld vision from them? Not at all. But they had not sought it.

Yet in this Latter Rain idea, the Spirit is being withheld until such a time.

My purpose in discussing this topic is to focus on the fact that we don't need to wait for anything, rather, only what God determines in our lives for our benefit.

We have all we need for godly lives, overcoming sin and the flesh and the world, right now. We are instructed to put on the new man, and told that we are filled up - complete - in Christ.

So I want to counter the idea that we are waiting for something more to come that will actually enable us to live right. I say, we have all we need, we are rich in Christ, but be it to you according to your faith. If you don't believe, you won't walk in it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Could He have awakened the saint then? Absolutely. Did He? No, He withheld. Now, were there saints who walked in the light despite the darkness. I am sure there were. His promises never changed and those seeking Him with all their hearts found Him.

That's just it. He works in us individually in this time. He's given His children His Spirit, not holding back. He's given us everything we need.

All who seek Him will find Him, and He will give His Holy Spirit to all who ask.

In the coming days, as the return of Jesus approaches, God is going to see to it that every saint awakes.

Does this mean that your thinking is that God isn't desirous of His children being awake today? Does He not work in His children today? Does He just leave us to ourselves in this current time, asleep in the light, just letting us stew in our juices?

I would give a most hearty, NO, He does not. He continues His work in us always. Is He slack towards us? Withholding blessing He could otherwise be giving?

No.

He tells us, don't say, come back tomorrow, when you have it in your hand to give now! Why suppose God is somehow less that what He tells us to be?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Forgive me, I was not accusing you, that is a term from A.W. Tozer that describes a church of falling into textualism. I thought I had shared the link with you before about this, but here it is. It is short and well worth reading.

No Revival without Reformation - A.W. Tozer - Sermon Index

From the link:

The error of textualism is not doctrinal. It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly. Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions.

It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us.

This seems revealing.

"just because you know a doctrine doesn't mean it's true of you"

Yes, I'd agree, but what is the point of bringing this up?

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

So there's the first question . . . was Jesus indicting an entire congregation of born again children of God? Was Jesus indicting the messenger specifically?

Revelation 3:14-22
14) And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15) I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16) So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18) I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

These pronouns, thy works, thou art, spue thee, all of these pronouns are singular. So this certainly descriptive of this messenger. Which is why I don't think "angel" to be the best translation in this case, though this is the simplicity of the KJV translation I've come to appreciate so much.

Actually, Marks, this interpretation has merit, and I have to admit I've never seen it before. I think you are essentially correct here, but with a few qualifications. For starters, the messengers in all these churches would have been the readers, and thus the leaders of the churches in each area. As such, how these leaders were conducting themselves would have permeated through the entire congregation, since congregations naturally allow in their own lives what their leaders allow in theirs. And keep in mind that the exhortation to each messenger ends with, "Let him who has an ear hear what the Spirit is saying unto the churches," so this further confirms the point. We do the same today. Our churches and their conduct normally mirror and reflect the conduct of their leaders.

But I must say, it's excellent work : ) You received this through your own study, or picked it up from someone else somewhere?

Gonna pause, and digest this for a bit (my usual pattern when I learn something new).

Thanks for the post!

 

[David H.]

The way you use this towards me comes across as an attempt to marginalize me because of my hermaneutic. I think such labeling is counterproductive. I could pick out labels for you, and where does that get us?

What's is the problem with following the text of the Bible??

Much love!

This is a problem many fundamentalists must come to terms with, myself included. It is called self reflection and being honest about ones own flaws. It is not that the text of the bible is the problem, but the teachings of men that dictate the meaning of the text, and close the word of God from divine revelation.

We must daily be willing to be self reflective and see how we can be seduced by the world and by false teachings. In 40+ years as a Christian you see how this operates in your life how the teachings of men seduce us away from the Truth, and we have to refocus on Christ and the cross. read Ephesians 4:14-16.

God Bless

 

[marks]

If this were true, why would Paul pray that we be sanctified wholly, body, soul and spirit? Our core being, our new nature is totally pure at regeneration. The sanctification process is the growing of that newness outward towards the surface which is evidenced by spiritual fruit. And that process happens as we grab hold of the promises of God and bathe ourselves in the Word, seeking by every means possible to grow up into Him in all things.

God is not satisfied at us being pure babes in Christ. He wants us mature, able to lead others into maturity, that we might have our senses honed to know good and evil. He wants our mindset to be as Paul's was, that we too might deeply desire to apprehend that for which we are apprehended.

Sanctification is a process, but it is not growing from darkness to light. Rather, it is growing from glory to glory, from light to greater light.

blessings,

Gids

I would describe what you call the process of sanctification to be what the Bible calls renewing the mind.

But aside from some vocabulary, I agree.

You ask, if we already have all we need, why does Paul pray for our santification? While we have all we need - clearly taught in Scripture - we don't recognize it, we aren't practiced in it, and God will spend the rest of our lives making His glory ours, out of glory, into glory.

We have all we need, but be it to you according to your faith. If you don't believe it, you won't walk in it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

This is a problem many fundamentalists must come to terms with, myself included. It is called self reflection and being honest about ones own flaws. It is not that the text of the bible is the problem, but the teachings of men that dictate the meaning of the text, and close the word of God from divine revelation.

Well, count on me to be looking to the specific wording of the text of Scripture to receive revelation from God. So I'm still not sure where this has a place in this conversation.

Naturally we need to be honest with ourselves.

Still seems like a red herring to me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

And keep in mind that the exhortation to each messenger ends with, "Let him who has an ear hear what the Spirit is saying unto the churches," so this further confirms the point. We do the same today. Our churches and their conduct normally mirror and reflect the conduct of their leaders.

Yes, I agree.

It's like so much of the Bible, addressed to a certain audience, but with immeasurable benefit to all.

I think this makes for another place we can see this:

Revelation 2:20
20) Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The messenger to the church is allowing a false prophet to teach in the church.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Brother, I mean no harm but you are bending plain interpretations of these verses o fit your doctrine, rather than visa versa. The pronouns are singular simply because the noun referred to.... the church.... is singular. We do not say "the church are.....". We say "the church is".

Church and messenger are different words used in different ways. But then again, Hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

I think what I'm doing here is following the text of Scripture, and conforming my ideas to that, instead of applying my ideas to Scripture, then declaring, Well, while it's WRITTEN as singular, WE KNOW that can't be right, it's plural!

No, it's not.

Far better to cry out to God for the secret to gaining victory over sin, or their lukewarmness, admitting their state and hungering to be freed from it, than to use a lot of religious twistings to escape God's desire for repentance.

And following the text of Scripture IS NOT some alternative to actually going to God for freedom over sin, it's how we come to know God, and knowing God renews our minds, and renewing our minds leads us from our sins.

To the man in the red hat . . . to the messenger of the church . . .

Much love!

 

[marks]

will we go into a long Soteriological explanation as to why our continued disobedience is ok?

Is that what you think is happening here???

 

[David H.]

This seems revealing.

"just because you know a doctrine doesn't mean it's true of you"

Yes, I'd agree, but what is the point of bringing this up?

Much love!

Because understanding this is the antidote to complacency and the doctrines that build complacency. Doctrines taught such as eternal security, which I agree is true, must be arrived at and experienced by every believer and cannot be taught as doctrine, but we must come to the full assurance of the faith by travelling through the wilderness of doubt, working out our faith with fear and trembling. So for example here you say we have the fulness of Christ that we need nothing, Though in essence this is true, a new believer must lay aside their own strength and will to discover the truth of this, that they must empty themselves of themself before Christ can manifest in his fulness, and you cannot deny them the experience of coming to the point of weakness where the all sufficiency of Christ takes over and they find their rest in him. Do You understand?

This is what I mean by faith is a journey. Yes, we are instantly sanctified by the blood of Christ, but we are continually being worked upon in the process of progressive sanctification, and are a work in progress, a work in the hands of the Potter who molds us to his liking.

 

[marks]

If we are walking in willful disobedience, should we not be found on our faces seeking the power found in grace to teach us the HOW of walking in full obedience, rather than offering offensive religious excuses as to our behavior?

Seriously?

Again . . . is that really what you think I'm doing?

How did we come to this?

 

[David H.]

Church and messenger are different words used in different ways. But then again, Hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

I think what I'm doing here is following the text of Scripture, and conforming my ideas to that, instead of applying my ideas to Scripture, then declaring, Well, while it's WRITTEN as singular, WE KNOW that can't be right, it's plural!

No, it's not.

If you read all the letters they are all addressed to the messengers, who then impart the promises to the church. To strictly say this only applies to the messenger is to deny the church to open the door to Christ and the ability receive the rewards associated with the letters. You have to take the negative along with the positive and apply it to all within that church. That is how I view them. Remember, all of revelation is directed to the church. See Revelation 1:4.

 

[marks]

Doctrines taught such as eternal security, which I agree is true, must be arrived at and experienced by every believer and cannot be taught as doctrine, but we must come to the full assurance of the faith by travelling through the wilderness of doubt, working out our faith with fear and trembling.

What does that mean?

I learned about our assurance in our rebirth from the text. I read the Bible, and it taught me about this. God taught me using His Word. You seem to have some limits in your ideas of how God might work in others.

So for example here you say we have the fulness of Christ that we need nothing, Though in essence this is true,

In essence? Again, what does that mean? Well, yes it's true, but . . .

It is true. Plain and simple. And learning that truth, relying on that truth, this is the faith that brings us to walking in the Spirit.

While some have path like yours, I don't think everyone does. One size life does not fit all. I think God is as individual with us as we are individuals ourselves.

I do agree with you that we live our lives growing in faith and knowledge of God, and this brings more of the newness of life into our experience of life.

But going back to the OP, I think this has more to do with our growing in our Christian lives then in God withholding the fulness of His Spirit.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If you read all the letters they are all addressed to the messengers, who then impart the promises to the church. To strictly say this only applies to the messenger is to deny the church to open the door to Christ and the ability receive the rewards associated with the letters. You have to take the negative along with the positive and apply it to all within that church. That is how I view them. Remember, all of revelation is directed to the church. See Revelation 1:4.

Maybe read again what I wrote.

He who has an ear . . .clearly we all benefit.

But if it is that you want to build a doctrine on the idea that when God used singular He meant plural, well, I don't do that sort of thing myself if I can avoid it.

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes, I agree.

It's like so much of the Bible, addressed to a certain audience, but with immeasurable benefit to all.

I think this makes for another place we can see this:

Revelation 2:20
20) Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The messenger to the church is allowing a false prophet to teach in the church.

Much love!

Yes, and also to the leader in Sardis: You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. (Revelation 3:4).

Obviously the letter is not written directly to the congregation, or he would not have switched to third person plural to talk about those who had not defiled their garments. The leader himself was being addressed concerning them.

Again, where did you get this? Your own study or someone else?

 

[marks]

Yes, and also to the leader in Sardis: You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. (Revelation 3:4).

Obviously the letter is not written directly to the congregation, or he would not have switched to third person plural to talk about those who had not defiled their garments. The leader himself was being addressed concerning them.

Again, where did you get this? Your own study or someone else?

Yes, that's a good point!

It was a long time ago. I think it was when I was studying "aggelos", but maybe I heard something that pointed me in the direction, I don't remember. Maybe it was Pastor Chuck.

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes, that's a good point!

It was a long time ago. I think it was when I was studying "aggelos", but maybe I heard something that pointed me in the direction, I don't remember. Maybe it was Pastor Chuck.

Much love!

Whoever it is from, this is what I often refer to as "revelation," and even if you originally heard it from someplace else, the fact that you've had the wherewithal to receive it is very good, and I'm proud of you. Not that I'm "the judge" in such matters, but it's rare you'll see anyone present genuinely insightful interpretations that go against the grain (You'll see a bunch of quack stuff, but rarely something that's good).

Looking at it now, I don't know how we've accepted the common reading for so long. Since when has the Lord ever addressed an angel when talking to a church? LoL.

Anyway, again, this is wonderful. I have received a number of things like this - readings that no one sees, and supported by the original, because they're so used to the common translation and/or interpretation. Maybe we can have some good discussions on those down the road. I really don't teach much yet, but will a lot more in the future.

God bless, and thanks again : )

 

[Gideons300]

Seriously?

Again . . . is that really what you think I'm doing?

How did we come to this?

You seem like a good and earnest brother in the Lord. Thus thiswas not directed at you. With tht said however, I pray you can see many have been taught that they need not flee willful sin, that lukewarmness cannot be describing them, because God is going to finish the work He He has begun in them.

If that were the case, there is no need for correction, for chastisement, for rebuke, for instruction in righteousness, for exhortation, for it is all going to work out in the end so why sweat it?

If what you are espousing is true for others, the church is doing just fine. Everyone is doing great. They are all just moving at the speed God is working with them. Yet Paul labored night and dqy in prayer for those he led to Christ till Christ be formed in them. He praised and encouraged them whwn it was called for, and rebuked them and told them he stood in doubt of them when they walked in contentment without hunger for growing up into Him in all things.

You are blessed with a spirit that is not content with disobedience, but what you are sharing can easily lead others into thinking they have no obligation to seek God with all that is within them. We are not our own. We cannot say He is our savior without also letting Him be our Lord. And in the days to come, it is this exact point, this choosing whom we will serve..... us.... or Him..... tis valley of decision, that will be required of every single person who confesses Christ.

blessings,

Gids

 

[David H.]

In essence? Again, what does that mean? Well, yes it's true, but . . .

It is true. Plain and simple. And learning that truth, relying on that truth, this is the faith that brings us to walking in the Spirit.

While some have path like yours, I don't think everyone does. One size life does not fit all. I think God is as individual with us as we are individuals ourselves.

I do agree with you that we live our lives growing in faith and knowledge of God, and this brings more of the newness of life into our experience of life.

But going back to the OP, I think this has more to do with our growing in our Christian lives then in God withholding the fulness of His Spirit.

Much love!

When you are born again, are you a mature believer, or do you mature as a believer over time? That is to say, have you not grown since you first believed? I think you would answer yes. The Problem is not that Christ does not give the fulness, but that we are unable to bear the fulness and must arrive at these things on our journey. I think you would agree with this. Our faith grows over time, and by the same token our faith can stop growing when complacency takes root. There are certain doctrines that cause complacency, and many of them seem logical and true, but lead to lack of growth in the believer.

It is this growth in the believer that leads each of us to fulfill the great commission, which in turn leads us to hasten His coming as Matthew 24:14 is fulfilled in us.