Do they claim to be a ‘Christ’?

Bull commented:

The Church hasn’t replaced Israel, but been grafted in to Israel. (Romans 11 a reflection and extension of Jesus calling himself the vine, and we being the branches)
We have been grafted in under the New Covenant. The Church is NOT the new Israel. There is now one new man in Christ Jesus.

I want to restate that. There is One New Man in the Anointed Jesus.

I have come to realise that since Christ means Anointed One, Messiah etc then let us examine the call to resist running when someone says “Here is the Christ” or “There He is!”.

When considering some of the rather boastful language coming into the mainstream from the extremities of the Pentecostal movement … I have to wonder at our understanding of scripture.

If I write it this way “Here is the one with the special(tm) anointing” or “There is the one with Healing Mantle of Branham” (sounds like D&D to me)

Isn’t this the kind of thing we have been explicitly warned about in scripture?

In other words, claiming a special anointing is the same thing as claiming a “Messiahship” or to be a “Christ” (an Anointed One).

I have only just realised that myself, in writing this post.

We’ve allowed some words to be transliterated in our Bibles instead of Translated.

So … people who claim a special anointing effectively means people claiming to be a “Christ”.

You may have heard it here first!

– Bull, from this comment.
So – is this the case or not? Are the claims people make to have a special anointing:

  • just a kind of church jargon;
  • true and quite OK to advertise, or;
  • effectively a claim to be a ‘Christ’?
  • What kind of responses from us are helpful to the church around us when these claims affect our own church circles?

    ******************
    RavingPente


    73 thoughts on “Do they claim to be a ‘Christ’?

    1. The issue of how the anointing operates is fascinating.

      The story if Elijah’s relationship with Elisha clearly illustrates the transference of anointing. The School of the Prophets set up by Elijah also speak of this, but through a difference method of impartation.

      Samuel’s School of Prophets even had an effect on Saul and his messengers.

      Jesus was anointed of the Holy Spirit to carry out is earthly ministry. He left glory and humbled himself as a man. The anointing was released to him without measure by the Father. He released this anointing to his disciples and sent them out, first the twelve, then seventy, with anointing to heal the sick, drive our demons and minister the Word in power. This then was delegated to all believers, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

      Those who are born again are baptised into the Body of Christ – the Body of the Anointed One.

      John reminds us that all believers have the anointing.

    2. Quite a funny typo!

      So, what about the special anointings that Bull is referring to?

      I don’t think there is any doubt that we all have the Holy Spirit, who can help us or gift us in different ways.

    3. I think it is quite appropriate to convert the word ‘anointing’ to ‘magic’. Most of the time, these so-called anointings are seen as some power and exalt the person more than they exalt Jesus.

      Often you here ministers say, “You can feel the anointing here this evening”. There is no acknowledgment of GOD.

      It should be said “You can feel the presence of God here this evening”.

      Anointings are more sought after and often removes or dis-associates the names of Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, etc from the gathering. This is dangerous.

      It’s simony and borders on witch-craft. We are focusing on the power of God not the ‘Power Of God’.

      Facelift, I believe John was talking about an action of the Holy Spirit at our conversion – to look back on so that we can remain steadfast in Salvation, Truth, Righteousness, Faith, Peace and Communion of God. This will keep us in the truth and teach us how to remain in the truth and lead us into new things with God – not tricked by those saying we need certain ‘anointings’ to do God’s work.

      This is why I think in Revelations Jesus tells his church to return to their first love – because at this first encounter, we know who God is personally to us in our lives.

      John describes the anointing as an ‘it’ in some translations. An ‘it’ is not part of the God-head. But an unction or action from the God head to bring us into relationship with Him can be seen as an ‘it’.

      We are anointed to do Christ’s work beside him – we were anointed into the New Priesthood – being both of royalty and priestly offices in right-standing with God. We are of that order in Hebrews 7 – king’s of righteousness. Holding onto what the Spirit did at our conversion, (bringing us into these giftings, offices, relationships and authorities beside Christ), we can look back at this event and IT’s significance in our lives. Now we can stand firmly in truth so that we do not fall into decpetion by false teachers.

      Think of a king knighting us into the next rank closer in office to him. Think of Jesus’ Spirit anointing us to the position anointing us to the same position as Christ. Many teachers today convince the saints that they need to work their way to this position in God. They simply need to look back and be reminded that they are already in that position of authority – if this is where the faith of a believer is situated – what else can those so-called teachers teach those that know who they are in Christ?

    4. The word ‘anointing’ has two slightly different meanings which are both used in the church.

      One is the idea of being appointed or crowned in a certain position by God.

      The other is the idea of the Power or Presence of God in someones life or in a meeting.

      I think in Pentecostal churches these two meanings are often confused, so that the idea is given that if you feel the power or presence of God around a certain leader then he or she has been specially appointed by God.

    5. Bull,
      ‘The Church hasn’t replaced Israel, but been grafted in to Israel. ‘

      It is the Gentiles who have been grafted in, whilst Israel was rejected. And the tree is the Olive Tree, not the Vine.

      In fact, the Church is of Christ. It is his Body. It is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female. The middle partition which separated Israel from the Nations is broken down. That partition was the Mosaic Law. It separated Jew from Greek. But it is fulfilled and done away with, being rendered superfluous.

      So the way is made for Israel to come back in, through Christ.

      Then the anointing is of Christ. The words ‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ’ both mean Anointed One. If we are in Christ we are anointed with his anointing. That anointing is outworked through the Holy Spirit, who is the One who anointed Jesus.

      Saying a meeting is ‘anointed’ is not less than saying God’s Presence fills the room. If the meeting is specifically to bring glory to, then where else would the anointing come from, and who else would it be attributed to?

      Why would you say the anointing can be also called magic? Is God a magician now? The difference between the anointing and magic is reality and slight of hand.

      When person says the anointing was similar to when another person did outstanding things in God, they are making a comparison, true, but this is no different to saying that peter walked through the pace and the mere presence of his shadow brought healing. Of course this is truly attributable t the anointing of the Holy Spirit, but it declares that God is using ordinary people, and his anointing is upon them.

      s&p,
      ‘I believe John was talking about an action of the Holy Spirit at our conversion – to look back on so that we can remain steadfast in Salvation’

      We don’t need an anointing for this. We have Christ in our lives, and his Spirit. We are sealed with the Spirit. We remember all and live all through faith.

      The anointing is an grace given ability given to ordinary believers to speak words or perform works which give glory to God. It testifies of Christ in our lives. It is God’s empowerment, through the Holy Spirit, to be witnesses that Christ yet lives, by practical demonstrations of his life in us.

    6. No, Bull, you didn’t use the word ‘magic’.

      Specks&planks did.

      He also called it simony which borders on witch-craft.

      Now, if it’s simony, it’s not the anointing, because you can’t buy the Holy Ghost, or the anointing. It’s imparted. It’s graced.

      It can’t ‘border’ on witch-craft. It’s either witch-craft or it isn’t. If it isn’t witch-craft, and it’s the anointing, then it should be acknowledged as such.

      If it’s witch-craft it should be denounced. But it should be explained why.

      It can’t be magic if it’s the anointing. They are not the same. One is a counterfeit of the other. If it is real it should be acknowledged as such.

    7. Hmmm, this is a tricky subject, partly because of the semantics involved. Wazza is correct:

      The word ‘anointing’ has two slightly different meanings which are both used in the church.

      One is the idea of being appointed or crowned in a certain position by God.

      The other is the idea of the Power or Presence of God in someones life or in a meeting.

      I think in Pentecostal churches these two meanings are often confused, so that the idea is given that if you feel the power or presence of God around a certain leader then he or she has been specially appointed by God.

      So if we all have the power and presence of God in our lives, and his power and presence are also with us when we gather – two or three or more – then why do we need to go to special meetings, with particular ministers, or ‘miss out’?

      I couldn’t ever quite get this, although there was a time when I enjoyed going to lots of that kind of meeting. I always felt that if God wanted to do a particular thing in my life, whether it was healing or some kind of transformation, that he could do it wherever I was, and was not limited by whether I turned up at a meeting or not, or even went to the front of a meeting or not.

      In fact, didn’t Jesus commend the faith of the Centurion who asked him for a miracle to heal his servant, who was miles away at the time? Being amongst others who share our faith, or being in a certain place, might assist our faith at times, but it cannot legitimately be held up as being necessary for God to do a certain work in our lives.

      So, if a meeting has a speaker with a particular ministry, and people want to go, fine. But lets not tell them that if they don’t go they will miss out. That is not scriptural, and effectively limits their faith, rather than encouraging them to recognise that God is everywhere they are, and is unlimited in where He can work.

      I don’t actually think these people are holding themselves up as a type of Christ. But with some of them there is not much difference. They are advertised with the celebrity that we would probably give the early apostles were they to turn up on our doorsteps today, and do you think those original apostles would have wanted that kind of adulation and celebrity? No, based on what was written by and about them, they would have always rejected it and pointed to Christ. They weren’t into cults of personality.

      So maybe currently special speakers with much advertised special anointings aren’t claiming to be Christ, but are not discouraging cults of personality to develop around them. And some are milking it, revving up their campaigns accordingly. They may say they come to preach Christ, but the lead up is all about them. How can that be healthy, or resemble the model we see in scripture?

      S&P was not saying that the ‘anointing’ was magic, either. What he called ‘simony’ was the choice to focus on miracles and power, rather than Christ. It is difficult not to describe that focus as simony, since we have the example in the NT. What matters is what we desire and seek, and what we encourage others to desire and seek.

      If people seek miracles and power, they may well find them, but they won’t find Jesus or a relationship with God unless that is what they are seeking. If miracles spring from a search for a relationship with God, and Christ is discovered, then great. But if there is a focus on miracles and power, as the main game and the end, then Christ will be forgotten, and people will not be saved. Jesus healed people – not all of them were saved. His message has to be heard, not just a demonstration of power.

    8. I totally believe in the work of the Spirit and the Power Of God. But watch out for THIS ‘Power of God’:

      Act 8:9-20
      Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great;
      and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.”

      And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts.
      But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

      Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

      Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

      For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

      Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

      But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.

      “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”

      But Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

      Let’s say then FaceLift, that the idea of the anointing was a referene to the Spirit. Simon believed the gospel and was baptised believing Jesus Christ as Lord. But his actions revealed allot of himself, “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity”. While he offered money to buy the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, so-called ministers instead make an exchange so that people may receive the Anointing for a price – either money, commitment and labour for their ministry. Simony!

      People would react quite differently if you replaced the word anointing with the word ‘Spirit’ in normal church conversation. All of a sudden it wouldn’t sound so gospel centered.

      Michelle: “Hey hun! I’m involved with Pastor Frink at the moment! He is so great!”
      Tammy: “He is soooo anointed!”
      Michelle: “I say! He carries the anointing so strongly! I’m so blessed to be under him to receive it!”
      Tammy: “It’s good to be serving ministers like Frink! When we serve them, the anointing just rubs off them onto us!
      Michelle: “Oh I know! Pastor Mackaila just received a double portion of Frink’s anointing the other day because she is so recognised for being there for him. She was slain in the Spirit after our Signs and Wonders classes in the church foyer by Frink! Everyone laughed when she went down.”
      Tammy: “Yeah! So many students now want to minister under Frink now!”

      Now with the above, (an average conversation one might hear thrown around the church scene), replace the word ‘anointing’ with the ‘Holy Spirit’. It doesn’t sound gospel centered at all!

      Jesus PROVED He was The Great Power Of God. John’s gospel testifies of this as well as His testimony of Jesus in Revelation.

    9. Looking at how churches are influenced by the NAR, churches like C3 and Hillsong have a general exchange that takes place for someone to get an ‘anointing’ if they serve the ministry, give money, offer assistance, go to an event, go to bible college etc. It is the act of simony – buying the power of the Holy Spirit and using ‘it’ (the ‘it’ being the Spirit seen only as a power) for one’s fame and name’s sake.

      Look how Matthew Ford, John Crowder and Todd Bentley are doing it. The gospel says – Christ is enough, these teachers will have us believe Christ is not and we need an anointing on our finances, an anointing of healing, an anointing to move in God’s power, an anointing to raise the dead, a fresh anointing to see God anew…

      So how can we get this so-called anointing? You listen to Simon and do as he says!

      If Simon promotes his books, you buy his books. If Simon advertises his bible colleges, ministries and his conferences and his ‘move of God’, you go to his bible colleges, serve in his ministries, be dedicated in church attendance, pledge allegiance to Simon’s movement (move of God), so that God can make you greater through this so called deal. (If I do this, I will get this much from God.)

      This is my problem with the ‘anointing’ doctrine. I would openly discourage people from using the word ‘anointing’ because of it’s association with another person or place – the glory being only seen on that person and place.

      For example, “the more you serve in the ‘house of God’, the more of Him You’ll receive – but ONLY if you serve in the ‘house'”. In this example (because the anointing is believed to present in the building always), the place is more exalted than God because the emphasis is that one has to be in the place to receive MORE of God.

      Replace the building place with a person or ministry – same deal. It’s a doctrine of demons if you think about it – putting our faith into fallen things so we may receive MORE of God as long as we honour that thing that gives us more of God.

      All of a sudden God is far away and we think we need to commit more time to the minister, movement or building so we may receive more of the anointing and more of God… So dangerous!

      If Paul never talked about the ‘anointing’, I don’t know why the church should either. It was hardly talked about. If we do talk about the anointing, lets talk about Him with a capital ‘A’.

    10. Going back to the point of this thread:

      I think the correct way this verse should be interpreted should be like this:

      Matthew 24:5
      For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘Jesus is the Anointed One, ‘ and will deceive many.

      not…

      Matthew 24:5
      For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, ‘ and will deceive many.

      I say this is the correct way, because I’ve heard it in the realm of scholars and decent bible teachers.

    11. Getting off topic a little.

      What does it mean to be Jewish after the resurrection of Jesus and establishment of his church?

    12. “All of a sudden God is far away and we think we need to commit more time to the minister, movement or building so we may receive more of the anointing and more of God… So dangerous!” – S&P

      Exactly. That is exactly how it used to come across to me. It is pretty much taught like that.

    13. My poor cynical friend! Now we have the ‘anointing’ gospel! You really should stay away from places which upset you so much. Simon the ex-sorcerer, in fact, being a new believer, was over zealous and blind to truth, but the Apostles pointed out his folly in o uncertain terms, and he repented, which is exactly what I advised earlier in regard to students who see the anointing on every piano stool. We take it from this example, since this story is highlighted, that Simon was the exception, and not the rule.

      But, now, all of a sudden, according to your philosophy of deadly cultism, C3 leaders are ‘Simons’ (not a reference to Simon McIntyre, I trust), and their students are totally warped by their simony! A quantum leap of assertion, forsooth!

      I happen to believe that, when studied and ministered correctly, the prosperity message is healthy, as is the anointing teaching, and that, rather than be afraid of the controversy surrounding such and similar doctrines, we should press on and teach what the Word says regardless of critics, ignoring those who warp what is actually being said by those who understand what the Word teaches on these things.

      Our teaching and preaching should never be influenced one way or another by what detractors think or say. We speak the truth with boldness. If God is for us, who can be against us?

      We join with the Apostles who were told to stop preaching in the name of Jesus and say with them, “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against His Christ.’”

      “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”

      “Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”

      I fear your scepticism leaves you so far from being helpful to the students of the Bible you criticise, that you couldn’t be of any assistance to them even if you wanted to be.

    14. s&p,
      ‘I think the correct way this verse should be interpreted should be like this:

      Matthew 24:5
      For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘Jesus is the Anointed One, ‘ and will deceive many.

      not…

      Matthew 24:5
      For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, ‘ and will deceive many.’

      The Greek is ‘ego eimi christos’ ‘I am the Christ’. It is as translated, and, being a transcript of Jesus’ actual words, should be taken literally.

      Reliable translations and commentaries give the same meaning. What you are doing is interpreting scripture to fit your argument, and confirm your doctrine, which is poor exegesis.

      It has a been a fact throughout history, starting from the very beginning of the New Testament, that many have claimed to be the Messiah, and demanded that people follow.

      Jesus is clearly warning of false Christs, not anything to do with claims of a peculiar anointing.

      Ironically, it was said that Simon magus was such a person, claiming, before his conversion, to be the Christ. and leading many into the desert (Clarke)

      ‘Many shall come in my name-First, false Christs, next, false prophets, #Mt 24:11|. At length, both together, #Mt 24:24|. And indeed never did so many impostors appear in the world as a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem; undoubtedly because that was the time wherein the Jews in general expected the Messiah.’ (Wesley)

      Matthew 24 is a reference to the suffering of Israel, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and a glimpse of the end times, and signs of Jesus’ second coming, but with the Jewish people as the focus, so we should see it in context, and not apply every aspect of it to the Church, unless it is clearly indicated. It is a common error to attribute more of Matthew 24 to the Church than is accurate.

    15. Did someone mention the prosperity message?

      Not on this thread please!

      That’s been done to death already. No. Focus on the thread topic.

      Do people, who claim a “special” anointing, effectively become false ‘Christs’ or false ‘Anointed Ones’?

      I think this is a separate issue from the prosperity Gospel, and in fact is much more subtle and more dangerous. Self-delusion can come from a false idea.

      “Ye shall be as Gods.”

      Shalom

    16. so now we come to it.

      “What will be the signs of your coming, and the end of the age?”

      So, you take the warnings of a great falling away, the love off most will grow cold and then the Gospel will be preached to all the Nations as already having happened?

      So you are largely preterist then FL?

      But, for 300 years, the church did not conclude that Matthew 24 was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem.

      No. They were premillenialist. Jesus was talking about the end of the age … not 70AD.

      most prophecy had an immediate application and a more extensive ultimate application.

      for example, The abomination of desolation, from Daniel was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. But this is merely a foreshadowing of the final Anti-Christ. The person who promotes himself as God (instead of Jesus – ‘Anti’ meaning ‘instead of’).

      Antiochus IV Epiphanes, claimed to be a God and demanded that the Jewish people worship him. He put a statue of Zeus in the Temple and filled it with Temple Prostitutes and sacrificed pigs on the Altar.

      Needless to say, this was not a popular move and led to an independent state for a short time.

      We all know enough to know that there will be a future Anti-Christ who will be far worse.

      So, there is a future fulfillment of Matt24 to come.

      Shalom

    17. Bull,
      ‘So you are largely preterist then FL?’

      Not at all! How do you arrive at that?

      I said Matthew 24 is also a ‘glimpse of the end times, and signs of Jesus’ second coming’.

      But it is recognised as being from a Jewish standpoint. Often it is attributed incorrectly to the Church.

      Matthew 24
      32* ¶ “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near.
      33 “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near–at the doors!
      34* “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”

    18. but this was taken to mean that Jesus would return in their lifetimes … until they realised that is not what generation meant.

    19. It is a parallel prophecy, Bull, which has meaning for more than one time – the immediate and the distant. Many of the things prophesied took place in the hearers’ lifetimes, including the destruction of Jerusalem.

      Anyway, the ill use of the word ‘anointing’ in some Christian circles shouldn’t stop us from applying it correctly.

      I used the word ‘prosperity’ earlier, not to bring up the subject, but to illustrate a point, because a similar thing happened to it, so that a genuinely fruitful understanding of God’s will to prosper his servants has been corrupted by two things: wrong exegesis, followed by overly critical analysis of the offending exegesis, to the extent that, now, the word has all but been blitzed out of Christian vocabulary, for fear of misunderstanding, and, with it, the sound understanding of genuine good teaching on prosperity.

      Now, it seems, s&p is proposing the the word ‘anointing’ should similarly be affected.

    20. Well, if these terms weren’t so misused, there would be no debate re using another word.

      As for ‘overly critical analysis’ – if everyone stays silent, the misuse just continues to become more extreme, until the words in question have entirely new, unchallenged meanings.

      Now I think that Bull has just touched on the issue that is behind a lot of the disturbance people feel over the way these ‘special anointings’ are attached to people.

      Bull said:

      “Do people, who claim a “special” anointing, effectively become false ‘Christs’ or false ‘Anointed Ones’?

      “Ye shall be as Gods.”

      We hold the apostle Paul in very high esteem, yet he is not God. He had an ‘anointing’ – in the sense of a calling empowered by the Holy Spirit – to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

      He was ultra clear that he did not look for personal glory, and attributed all to Christ. When he was looked after by the churches, it gave him joy, and he was thankful. At the same time, he didn’t insist that certain types of provision be made for him before he would visit an area as we see many of the well known speakers ensuring today. Also, he didn’t call for people to come for healing, but to come and hear about Christ. Miracles would happen, but they weren’t the main game.

      This is completely different to many of the prominent speakers we see today, who insist that certain provisions be made, or that a certain size of meeting be expected, since a love offering will be taken and size helps then. Plus, what is advertised is their miracle ministry – they have a ‘special anointing’ for some type of miracle. Strangely, these miracles are associated with offerings.

      None of these things would have been approved by Paul. They have lost their way.

    21. “Ye shall be as Gods”.

      So people aren’t necessarily saying they are God. More that they are ‘as God’ – that they have a power to do something that is God-like. Miracles, for example.

      It is a very dangerous path to walk when the power becomes the main game. We have Lucifer’s example to warn us.

    22. ‘Ye shall be as gods’ refers to the knowledge of good and evil.

      Jesus said believers would be gods, quoting the Psalm. How do you reconcile this? Of course, ‘elohim’ also means ‘judges’, but who do we judge? Paul says we will judge angels.

      Paul also said his followers should be imitators and followers of him and his ministry, even as he was a follower of Christ, encouraged people to be covetous, meaning zealous, for spiritual gifts, and especially prophecy, without losing their love, encouraged them all to speak in tongues, but let them know he spoke in tongues more than any of them, declared that his speech wasn’t in persuasive words or human wisdom, but in a demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that the hearers faith would not be in human wisdom, but in the power of God.

      Sounds like a Pentecostal!
      ••••••••••••••••

      RP,
      ‘Well, if these terms weren’t so misused, there would be no debate re using another word.’

      I won’t be using another word. ‘Prosperity’ is a wonderful, positive, enlightening, liberating word, with great depth and meaning, as is ‘anointing’, which is a beautiful and powerful word of great substance.

      The words in the Word are perfectly clear. What is wrong is the demonisation of terms.

      As far as I know no one has a problem with using the word ‘anointed’. Anyone who reads their Bible has a perfectly good understanding of what God means by this term.

      Anyone who reads their Bible has no problem with saying ‘prosperity’, and not feeling ashamed. Only those who do not understand what God is saying, or are afraid of controversy, will let the word slip away as if it is anathema.

    23. When the claims of special anointings are made i.e. the Hinn’s, the Bentleys, the whosesoevers, they are liars.

      “The impression left by some televangelists is that they possess an exceptional anointing above and beyond that commonly possessed by the Christian masses. They give the impression that an anointing is available from God through them. In a sense, these well-known ministers have appointed themselves as distributors of the Holy Spirit’s anointing. Either by the contact of their hand with an individual’s forehead, or by a forceful exhaling of air from their lungs (thereby simulating Spirit and wind), these anointed ones slay individuals or entire audiences in the Spirit. On stage in crowded auditoriums, these “anointed” evangelists also heal persons by a touch of their hand as they command demons to take flight. They are “the anointed,” God’s power brokers, channels by and through whom the power of the Holy Spirit is released into the lives of thousands.”

      Deceived or liars.

      The anointing abides in, is common to, and therefore belongs to all true believers. This anointing enables the Christian believer to discern truth from error, and this anointing abides in us……..

      1 John 2:19-21

      “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

      BUT YOU HAVE AN ANOINTING FROM THE HOLY ONE, AND ALL OF YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.”

    24. Teddy,
      I’m guessing your quote is from Larry DeBruyn. He’s not a happy camper is he? He is a cessationist. You’re not, according to you! He doesn’t believe, even in his statement of beliefs, in the ‘Spirit-gifts’ as part of a believer’s mandate. So you would hardly expect him to speak well of any anointing outside of his pet discernment theology.

      As wazza2 says, and I agree, there is more than one outworking of the anointing.

      The anointing of God is not easily defined. In part it is the outworking of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

      One of the functions of the anointing is to discern truth, but Jesus was anointed in his earthly ministry, and did more than discern truth. He also healed people and drove out demons, and this he attributed to the anointing given him of the Holy Spirit, and to the Holy Spirit himself.

      He empowered his Apostles, and then 70 disciples to do the same things in ministry. This was an impartation of the anointing to carry out the same works. This is what he said of the anointing:

      “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”

      So the anointing empowers a person to:

      1. Preach the Gospel to the poor
      2. Heal the broken hearted
      3. Proclaim liberty to the captives
      4. Proclaim recovery of sight to the blind
      5. Set at liberty those who are oppressed
      6. Proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord

      When John the baptist asked for evidence that he was indeed the Messiah, the Anointed, he gave the following as proof:

      1. The blind see
      2. The lame walk
      3. The lepers are cleansed
      4. The deaf hear
      5. The dead are raised up
      6. The poor have the Gospel preached to them

      Now we are the Body of the Messiah. he has empowered us to bear witness that he is the Messiah.

      He said believers would do the same things he did, and even greater things, as evidence that he had gone to be with the Father, and that he had sent the Holy Spirit as an outpouring to all flesh, and that all would prophesy. The evidence of this was that all spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave utterance. There were mighty healings and deliverance ion the name of Jesus throughout the Book of Acts, after Jesus ascended to the Father. People were even healed and delivered through coming into contact with cloths and the shadow of the Apostle.

      Limiting the anointing to discernment is taking away from the depth of the Holy Spirit in Church life.

      I think, perhaps, the word ‘anointing’ is used where ‘grace’, or ‘faith’ should be, sometimes. People are graced,and have a measure of faith for that grace, rather than anointed, although it is still part of the anointing of all believers. People do have a measure both faith and grace for certain calls on their lives. This is all within the anointing that is on the Anointed One, and, therefore, his anointed flock.

    25. Faithlift, that was Larry Debruyn, cessationist or not, he speaks biblically and correctly – and I enjoy reading him too. I’m pretty sure his theology isn’t from Rhema aka Hagin theology is it?

      Cessationism is a position not a doctrine in and of itself.

      Got a decent theology degree or am I correct in my assumption?

    26. And having mentioned Hagin, how many false prophesies is required for a person to be a false prophet?

    27. For what it’s worth, Ps Larry Debruyn is often a guest on a pentecostal radio programme, because of his sound doctrine and stand against false prophets, false anointings etc etc.

      So, Faithlift, you give the impression that you have a “superior Biblical knowledge”, where was your training for ministry?

      I can tell you, having been at C3 college for a few years, even they stayed away from the extreme Hagin theology. (Don’t know what they do now, maybe Specks does)

      Are you focusing on the the “subjective” revelation rather than the “objective” written word of the Bible – it seems you do and that’s definately Rhema.
      Does your “spoken” word have more authority than the “written” word?

    28. Hmm, the choice of word ‘Rhema’ as their name does indicate their emphasis, you would think.

    29. Well, if he’s a cessationist, he may speak well on some subjects, as McArthur does, but he can’t be accurate in all, especially the mandate of the Church. He removes a key element of our call and equipping.

      If the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit have ended, there is no scripture to support it. If they have not, it is a deception to leave people in the dark about it.

      ‘Does your “spoken” word have more authority than the “written” word?’

      Of course not. I don’t know where that came from.

      I’m not sure Hagin says that, and yes, Hagin is not flavour of the month at C3, as I’ve said many times. You’re the first to actually agree on that.

      I was trained at Rhema. I grew up under the Wesleyan influence, and Wesley is still one of my heroes in the faith. But I have many influences, including diverse ministries such as Jack Hayford, John Stott, Yonghi Cho and John Pawson. I was mentored by Phil Baker, one of Australia’s great thinkers and innovators. My main commentaries on the Word are classics, such as Clarke, Wesley, Barnes, Robinson, and Gill. I am a fan of Hislop, although with some reservations. I am currently reading books by Viola, Barna, Hybels and J. John. I don’t agree with everything any man says. I don’t disagree with everything either. But most of my reading time is spent in the Bible, and predominantly the New Testament, although I seriously reference the Old.

      My theology is of the Word, not man.

      I wouldn’t know what the difference between so called ‘subjective and ‘objective’ words are. I could probably work out what you’re saying if I gave enough time to it. But I really don’t know the doctrine of it. That’s all I’ll say on me. Since you asked.

      The Word is what it says. We either believe it or we don’t. We obey and follow it, or we don’t. We are diligent to present ourselves approved of God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.

      But if we say something has ended when it is clear from scripture that hasn’t, and God has placed it in the Church for a reason, and then claim to be teachers, then we will be the blind leading the blind, and we will be accountable for our error.

      I don’t really care how articulate a preacher is, or who puts him or her on their TV or radio program, if they dismiss the truth and criticise those who do not dismiss that truth, they are sorely in error, and need to repent. If they think the anointing is only for discernment then they need to spend some more time in the Bible, and less on cutting down other believers.

      The anointing is important to our witness. A correct understanding is essential for all teachers.

    30. Off topic, I have developed quite an interest in testimonies of former Rhema proponents….I’ve posted Junker Jorge’s testimony and here’s another –

      http://www.freewebs.com/robbino/faithfree.htm

      Faithlift has mentioned aquaintances on a previous post – I guarantee you will find Rhema grads among them. What shocks me most is their defense of Kenneth Copeland – someone who PP would never have back in C3, as he once did at Brookvale. These Rhema grad churches are happy to send their pastors off to attend Copeland conferences (when they were in Australia not that long ago)

    31. The problem with “gifts” today in the church is the misuse of them. If churches follow the guidelines set down in the Bible for the operating of such, all the “flakiness” would stop.

      And J. Johns is a winner – like him a lot.

    32. J. John is a speaker at Presence this year. He is having a huge influence on C3. Rightly so!

    33. Everyone seems to agree that David Pawson is a good teacher!

      You mentioned Viola, FL. I read his books a while back. What did you think of them?

    34. I am still reading Dallas Willard. Last 1/3 of the book to go. I have never taken so long to read one book, but its because I’m reading it in snippets, such as for 10 mins in a shopping centre while I grab a coffee, and I have to always reread where I was up to, to get the context. So by the time I finish, I’ll have read the book several times over.

      Wish I had time to read books from cover to cover in a short time, like I used to!

    35. As a critique of, what amounts to, Roman Catholic influence over church philosophy and indoctrination, the book I’m reading, ‘Pagan Christianity?’, has merit, but he tends to lump all church activity under the same heading, and, å la Ellen G White (SDA), comes up with the assumption that everything about the contemporary church is flawed because the RCC is so flawed. I think God is bigger than that, and more able to see us through the crisis.

      He doesn’t really come up with an alternative church model which both fits scripture and builds on what is established in a positive way, although I’m sure he does elsewhere in his book world. It has some good points. I wouldn’t give it to a new believer though, because we want them to have confidence in church life, not run away in fear!

      On the subject, Hislop’s ‘The Two Babylons’ is far superior, if very heavy, and makes the point much better, whilst remaining more favourable towards the real Church.

    36. Several things …

      FL mentions John Stott and David Pawson as ‘heroes’ or at least amongst those he likes to read listen to from time to time.

      As they are contemporary with one another here’s an interesting snippet.

      When Pawson was an up and coming Bible Teacher with pulpits opening quicker than breeding rabbits, David was baptised in the Holy Spirit. (interesting debate to be had between people who agree with a separate subsequent baptism following the believer coming to faith and being filled with the spirit at that time …)

      Anyway, Stott said to David “have you lost all your critical faculties?” and doors of ministry closed quicker than … (insert your own analogy here) …

      Since then, they have publicly disagreed on replacement theology and Christian Zionism. Debate for another thread perhaps.

      FL said: “because we want them to have confidence in church life, not run away in fear”

      I agree. No church is perfect. What we need to do is arrive at a situation where leaders are not revered but supported. Leaders don’t lord it over but support members under them.

      I am passionate about this … members cannot fulfill their God-given ministry without Leaders supporting them and helping them to achieve it. Rather than leaders being on a pedestal, members should be. And the members pedestal is the leader.

      It is a symbiotic relationship and ultimately it is exactly about Relationship. I am sure that FL spends a great deal of time building relationship with his flock. (It’ll be why he still has a flock! It is self-evident … 😉 )

      Upholding leaders in prayer is so important … especially when they aren’t our leaders and we have a disagreement with them 😉

      I think that in all our discussions, we come back to this point. How do we make church a better place? How do we make accountability inside churches good, wise, safe and righteous? Accountability both ways of course.

      A good environment for our kids so that they catch our Passion for Jesus. That they are safe and learn how to cope with the world and everything that can be thrown at them. How we can be better human beings so that we are better life partners to our spouses and better parents to our children.

      This is all so important. We can’t stand still and say “20 years ago it was so much better.” We have to keep moving on, growing in the Lord.

      More Coffee!

      Shalom.

    37. “What we need to do is arrive at a situation where leaders are not revered but supported.” – Bull

      Well put, I think. That’s a sound and scriptural approach.

      You know, I even know of a leader who was offended that a mere congregation member thought of them as a friend. The congregation member was reprimanded, because thinking of the leader as a friend was not respectful. Needless to say, that was a disastrous end to the friendship.

      “Leaders don’t lord it over but support members under them.”

      I agree, but I also think that the way of thinking about ‘under’ and ‘over’ (though I’ve done it myself) is somehow unhelpful; not quite right. Ultimately, the leader is to be an example that we can follow. Even teachers, or preachers, need to be examples, which is a reason for the character requirements of those positions. Following an example implies that we are on a similar path, (all following ultimate example, the Way, that is Jesus), rather than some above others and some below others. Particularly when we know that in God’s Kingdom, so many things are turned upside down.

      Perhaps the more we mature, the more we also realise that we can’t hold ourselves up ‘above’ others. So in humility, we lead and we follow, as we recognise where Christ is, and in whom we see and hear Him.

      Certainly a demand or hunger for others to recognise our position ‘over’ them, could be a lack of maturity in many cases. So could a need to pull good leaders down off pedestals that aren’t actually there.

      There are some groups experimenting with meeting layouts that don’t involve altars, or elevated stages etc, or have round circles of seating, to try to address this kind of issue in a physical way.

    38. Goodness, Bull, I love it that you’re getting positive and enthusiastic about the Church!

      I wrote to John Stott because he stopped believing in eternal torment for the unrepentant sinner, and JW’s now quote him in the Watchtower. He was a n early influence, but he helped with showing how to study scripture.

      We were taught in Bible School not to get too close to congregation members, not by Phil, but by others. I can understand the reasons, being overly vulnerable can be painful experience, but, we have to take risks beyond reason, and the shepherd should know his sheep by name. We are not our own. We are bought with a price.

      As for the layout of churches, it has been said that they follow the Roman model, and therefore have the wrong atmosphere for meetings, but my wife and I visited the Synagogue in Sydney last year, and it was clear that most churches are actually designed around the Jewish model, which was good enough for Jesus, as far as a meeting hall is concerned, although the field of witness is broader than this.

    39. You twisted my words Facelift! I did not imply what you said I did:

      “Jesus is clearly warning of false Christs, not anything to do with claims of a peculiar anointing.”

      I changed the topic to define what I’ve heard the correct translation of this is to be. And I think you failed dismally in trying to understand what I said. Let me try again:

      Matthew 24:5
      For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘Jesus is the Christ’, and will deceive many.

      Teddy: “(Don’t know what they do now, maybe Specks does)”

      Yeah. I could share, but Facelift seems to have his head stuck up a pig when I discuss with him what’s happening at C3. I say ‘This is what I’ve seen, heard and observed’. All I hear is a muffled ‘You’re skeptical and deluded’, coming from a mouth squirming with pig guts.

      What I see is what I say at C3. And when I argue using scripture and express what outcomes I see in places like C3 that are in error on certain doctrines, I’ve got to convince Facelift with replies like this he makes:

      “My theology is of the Word, not man.”

      Facelift wins everbody!

      ——

      Facelift: “(not a reference to Simon McIntyre, I trust)”

      No. It’s the name given to the buying of the Spirit. And it is based off that part of scripture in Acts, that word or name came to be.

    40. Quite a rude comment Specks, but for the life of me, I can’t stop laughing. Can’t get the sound of a muffled voice from the inside of a pig out of my head!

    41. “We were taught in Bible School not to get too close to congregation members, not by Phil, but by others. I can understand the reasons, being overly vulnerable can be painful experience, but, we have to take risks beyond reason, and the shepherd should know his sheep by name. We are not our own. We are bought with a price.” – FL

      I’m not sure from this whether you agree with that approach or not.

      I can definitely understand their approach. As you say, its probably for the protection of the pastoral team.

      Still, the effect when carried out is to separate the pastoral team from the congregation. There is then immediately a breakdown into two groups. That often happens in a workplace, and the more extreme its become, the more discontent usually arises. I don’t think its the way we were intended to be. If a church can’t function without that kind of setup, then it probably shows that we are responding to flaws in our own natures, rather than emulating God’s will in this matter.

      Not that a leader can be close friends with everyone in their congregation if it is large. But to have a few friends, a few two-way relationships within tghe congregation that aren’t based around leadership team positions, would be healthy. With people they ‘click’ with. We all need those.

      The instance I referred to above was one in which in earlier years the two people had been friends prior to one becoming a pastor. So it was a shock to the congregation member for that relationship to be considered disrespectful at a later stage.

      FL, because you said, “I can understand the reasons, being overly vulnerable can be painful experience, but, we have to take risks beyond reason, and the shepherd should know his sheep by name.” – can I take that to mean that you don’t agree with the ‘no friends’ approach?

      I think that being willing to be vulnerable at times is the only way to make genuine close friendships. So a church group will do very well to somehow nurture a safe environment for this, for all its members, leaders included.

    42. s&p, that was over the top, or rather, below the belt! 🙂

      In fact you said that the verse in question should be reinterpreted from, “I am the Christ’, to “Jesus is the Anointed One”, which was clearly a wrong way of translating the Greek, ‘ego eimi christo’.

      https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/do-they-claim-to-be-a-christ/#comment-9665

      “My theology is of the Word, not man” was a response to a question by Teddy, who was implying I am a Haginist. I wasn’t going to answer the question at all, but then realised this is akin to agreeing with the claim. You make me regret answering Teddy with your comments.

      But, I put it to you that if your theology isn’t of the Word, but of man I would consider you were somewhat in error somewhere along the line, so it is a correct way to understand the Word, not a way to win points. Is that the way you see it? A point scoring exercise? Then you win. I’m only interested in truth and rightly dividing the Word.

      “My theology is of the Word, not man’, followed a paragraph where I discussed authors I am reading, in response to Teddy’s questions, but qualified it with the fact that I spend most of my reading time in the Bible, so that ‘my theology is of the Word, not man’. I hope that clarifies it for you.
      ••••••••••••••••••••••••

      RP, I think leaders have to be vulnerable and transparent in many ways, and not allow themselves to put up on some kind of pedestal, but some learn to be guarded after the many times they are cut. They want to keep a soft heart and clear conscience, and be open to everyone who comes, but there a few who see pastors as the reason for their problems, and they become targets. They are gifted and equipped to deal with these things, but it can still be painful, and t is especially disconcerting to see Pastor’s wives and children hurt or damaged emotionally by some situations which can arise, which should never take place in Christian circles.

    43. This what you said, s&p:

      ‘So how can we get this so-called anointing? You listen to Simon and do as he says! If Simon promotes his books, you buy his books. If Simon advertises his bible colleges, ministries and his conferences and his ‘move of God’, you go to his bible colleges, serve in his ministries, be dedicated in church attendance, pledge allegiance to Simon’s movement (move of God), so that God can make you greater through this so called deal. (If I do this, I will get this much from God.)’

      That is cynicism. That is a direct attack on Hillsong and C3, and the means by which they develop students, the people you attacked for desiring the anointing on their leaders. The Simons you refer to can only be Brian and Phil, or people in similar positions, the people you are at war with.

      Fro your comments on various threads, you do not see a way out for anyone and despair for the people at these places. That is scepticism.

      My advice to you would be to tone down your attitude towards the students you target, because, as I said to you, you cannot be of any use to them in assisting their walk if you have this basic cynicism and scepticism at the root of your decision making in regard to their future spiritual well-being.

      None of this is personal attack on you, or not listening to you, or being stuck up some creatures intestines. I’m saying that you cannot help anyone if you begin with the wrong approach and attitude.

      You mocked students who crave the anointing on their teachers. I did not disagree that they need to get over this, but I disagree with your approach. I said,, give them to me, and I’ll shape them. They have what it takes to make it in ministry, but it needs to be nurtured, not neutered, nullified or knackered.

      Zeal and fervour can be hard to deal with in youth, but they are essential to surviving in ministry. Presumably these students want to be in ministry. Then their youthful zeal, fervour, drive and passion needs to be directed correctly, not crushed, not laughed at, not despised, not mocked, but carefully crafted into an effective mechanism for the change which needs to come in our world, or it will be going down the tube.

      I was being helpful. I was saying your cynicism and scepticism works against your cause.

      And I said that from a completely muffle free position.

    44. FL, I can understand why you strongly object to what S&P said, but I have to say, that what he said in the paragraph you quoted, is basically what is taught. He’s not just ‘being cynical’, though in a way its good that you thought he must be, because it shows that it might be different where you are.

      This is where the obedience doctrine of John Bevere fits into the picture. His books were highly recommended at my ex-church. We had not only our pastor, but two visiting pastors, one of them from CCOF, one from another C3 church, come and preach on obedience and following our pastors vision, with the expected actions and results being what S&P describes. Its not an exaggeration, its what is taught around here. Unfortunately.

    45. Take Phil Pringle as an example. He carries and anointing for sure. You could call it a grace, or a measure of faith, but, nevertheless, there are God-given tangibles in his ministry which, to use Pentecostal jargon, shift things in the heavenlies. They are not detached from the Holy Spirit, but of the Holy Spirit, and the way Christ operates in his life and ministry, according to his response and obedience to the call of God on his life. Without Christ this anointing could not and would not operate.

      Phil has been around long enough to have influenced thousands, and has the resources at his disposal to increase the output of his ministry through books, CD’s, DVD’s internet, Bible School, and other means.

      It is not obedience to abstract requests, i.e., the purchase of a book, or of a DVD, or of product, or enrolling in Bible School, which enhances the grace, measure of faith and/or anointing on that person’s life, but the reading of the material, or the receiving of the teaching. It is the absorption of the content as a consequence of following an instruction which brings enhancement, not the act of following the instruction.

      If there is a call on person’s life, as either an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher under Christ, then there is a grace and measure of faith associated, often termed an anointing, which influences change or enhancement in a hearers’ life, through the ministry of the Spirit in that person’s call.

      For instance, people are saved by grace through faith, but they cannot be saved unless a believer is sent to them to preach the gospel and they receive, by faith, the message. God is sovereign, but he operates the gospel through his people, the saints.

      So God calls and graces certain people for specific tasks. They are not higher, or better, than anyone else. They just have a unique call and grace, along with a measure of faith, which God endues them with for a specific task, amongst a specified group of people they are sent to, which is always to help train and equip that group of people for the work of the ministry.

      Every believer has a measure of grace and faith for their call in life. We are all equal in God’s eyes, but, at the same time, all unique in our God-given ability and function within the Anointed Body. If the Body is Anointed, then we are all anointed.

      So when we speak of purchasing product produced by Phil Pringle, we are utilising the best available means of publishing the good news, which is being constantly enhanced by technology. ‘How blessed on the mountains are the feet of those who publish good news’.

      We sent free DVD’s of messages, on request, to a Pastor in Kenya three weeks ago, and he went out to villages, using the DVD’s, and, to date, he has reported that around 30 people have given their lives to the Lord. Praise God. This not the only time this has happened. We are supporting three churches which started through DVD’s. Was there an anointing on the Word preached in those DVD messages? I don’t know, but it would be OK to say it that way. The gospel works however it is preached. We live in the age of advances where the gospel, and the Word of God can be multiplied through technology, and we still have books, which have been around at least since the, then, incredible technology of the Gothenburg Press changed the world by making Bibles available to the common people.

      The difference here is that I see the point of being responsive to purchasing Christian literature and resources, and actually absorb the material, allowing the grace on the writer’s life to enhance my ministry, whereas s&p sees it as obedience to a command to carry out the act, and not the reception of the content. Which is the cynical response of a sceptic, in my view, as I don’t receive the admonishment to buy books and resources in the same way when I am at conferences. I am in control of whether I buy materials or not.

      It is not the purchase of the book which carries the virtue, but the reading and understanding of the book alongside the Bible which enhances ministry.

    46. “That is a direct attack on Hillsong and C3, and the means by which they develop students, the people you attacked for desiring the anointing on their leaders. The Simons you refer to can only be Brian and Phil, or people in similar positions, the people you are at war with.”

      Umm… It’s what Bentley does, Patricia King does, John Crowder does, Matt Ford does. It goes beyond C3 and Hillsong, even though some members in their congregation do hold this belief and it taught or suggested anyways. They weren’t in mind when I wrote that actually. 🙂

      John Bevere subtly teaches this to: obey your leaders and you shall be blessed. This could imply just the prosperity gospel, but still there is a rubbing off. (And I bought him up before I saw Raving Pente refer to him.)

      By placing yourself under someone and being obedient to them – ‘something’ from God on them rubs off on to you. This, in Bevere’s understanding, is either finance, more faith or spiritual authority.

      I would say from what I know, the prosperity teachers started this anointing teaching and then became a heavy focus in the American charismatic movement.

      Facelift: “So God calls and graces certain people for specific tasks. They are not higher, or better, than anyone else.”

      But Facelift, Phil has been around long enough to have influenced thousands, and has the resources at his disposal to increase the output of his ministry through books, CD’s, DVD’s internet, Bible School, and other means. Surely he is better than yourself.

      Of course you elevate him. However, I believe we all carry the same Spirit – and at times we all start ministries, prophesy, heal a sick person, teach and protect others – therefore all equal and act as a cluster of lilies below the water surface. Our leaf holds the other up because we choose to go lower for the sake of love.

      Unfortunately, you have ministers that elevate themselves so that people can follow them. When they start losing people, they start making up doctrines and promises/visions like politicians, to keep them in line and support their ministry.

      Facelift: “So when we speak of purchasing product produced by Phil Pringle, we are utilising the best available means of publishing the good news, which is being constantly enhanced by technology.”

      I completely disagree. We are robbing the opportunity for God to be engaged with our personal ministry – Him teaching us how to be affective in sharing our testimony and his gospel to others. The other is more robbery, in believing that only God can use someone like Phil to spread the gospel rather than the rest of the body.

      Facelift: “Hffmm-mm-gghh–ff–mm-hhmm–hhfgg-rrrr-mmff.”

      I didn’t think you’d hear me.

    47. “The difference here is that I see the point of being responsive to purchasing Christian literature and resources, and actually absorb the material, allowing the grace on the writer’s life to enhance my ministry, whereas s&p sees it as obedience to a command to carry out the act, and not the reception of the content.” – FL

      The submission/obedience teaching says that by being obedient and doing what your pastor tells you, God is enabled to bless you in all kinds of ways. This would include any anointings around the place. Conversely, if you are disobedient, you prevent God from blessing you etc. While a normal person would agree that absorbing the material presented is how we would typically expect to learn and benefit from product, it is in fact taught that obedience is the essential criteria for receiving God’s blessing in anything. Obedience typically includes tithing. But it will also include doing other things you are directed to do. Fortunately the directions at C3 aren’t typically onerous, in my view. But in some settings this can be very abusive teaching.

      So basically, S&P isn’t making things up.

      FL, I think the thing is, you don’t really believe these things are taught as we describe them.

    48. Common sense says, “If they know what they are talking about, I will learn from them”.

      People who buy into the anointing concept say, “If they’re teaching tonight, I will receive from them what they’ve got to offer”.

      They sound so similar. But one suggests learning and applying what one teaches. The other suggests receiving more than just teaching so that they can be open to receive something else from the person.

      I’ve often heard, “Pastor Simon is preaching next week. His ministry is so anointed don’t miss out next week!” or, “Pastor Simon is an anointed man of God coming to preach next week. Be here to receive from him”. Even one’s like “Pastor Simon is preaching next week. He is a man who can bring in the anointing in his meetigs. It will be powerful stuff!”

      Pastors actually use the word to rope in the congregation to come not just for the teaching alone. It’s manipulation – its exaggeration and advertising.

      If we’re wanting what someone has, then I think we’ve missed the mark.

    49. I don’t do “Hffmm-mm-gghh–ff–mm-hhmm–hhfgg-rrrr-mmff.”, s&p. I can articulate what I think very well. I think for myself, which is why you find it so hard to get your perspective to gain any traction with me, especially when your tyres are so greasy with pig fat left over from your other insult.

      You said,
      ‘We are robbing the opportunity for God to be engaged with our personal ministry – Him teaching us how to be affective in sharing our testimony and his gospel to others. The other is more robbery, in believing that only God can use someone like Phil to spread the gospel rather than the rest of the body.’

      I never said that Phil is the only one God uses. I was giving him as an example of someone who has progressed to become a mentor of thousands. It is a natural progression for an apostolic calling. He is mentoring them to be effective in sharing their testimony and the gospel to others. And in that he has a proven track record.

      But your point is mute. God does use people to further his purposes. He always has, as I’ve already pointed out on this thread.

      God uses Paul to this day. He has influenced billions. Does that take away from God’s capacity to influence people personally? Of course not. Is Paul the only way to experience God’s influence? No.

      Is Paul greater than you or I. In essence, in person, no. In experience, and in understanding of grace in some areas, definitely, yes. In apostolic, prophetic and teaching grace and the measure of faith in certain areas, definitely, he is greater. His distinctive call was to the Gentiles. He is called the Apostle to the Gentiles. Is that still experienced today? Yes, undoubtedly.

      So are we robbing God by reading Paul?

      That would be a very silly thing to say. We are praising God by accepting what he said through Paul. In fact, it would be very difficult for us to know as much about God as we do today if we took no notice of the people God called and anointed to reveal his will to us through the Old and New Testaments.

      Does that place Phil on the same scale or level as Paul. No, of course not. He is a servant of God, no more, no less, but he is sent to people of this generation for a specific purpose.

      You said,
      ‘Phil has been around long enough to have influenced thousands, and has the resources at his disposal to increase the output of his ministry through books, CD’s, DVD’s internet, Bible School, and other means. Surely he is better than yourself.’

      That is also folly. He is not better than anyone. Or worse. He has been graced by God and given the measure of faith to serve more people. He has been empowered to reach more. He has responsibility and is accountable to more people. That doesn’t make him better.

      He, like you and I, has to operate within the grace and measure of faith God has given him. If he has been granted five talents, he has to bring increase on five talents, which means he has to utilise the measure of faith God has given him to the fullest. I may have been graced with two talents, so I have less to work with, but the reward is the same, provided I bring increase to the talent given. God gives grace and the measure of faith according to his purposes, not our ambition.

      ‘God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all we ask or think – according to the power that is at work in us’.

      Saying I must, therefore, admit that he is better is the conclusion of a cynical mind, as I am trying to explain to you.

    50. I once watched a Benny Hinn broadcast where he showed how he deals with all the prayer requests that he gets.

      People write in with prayer needs and also call his ministry to discuss their needs and someone writes down the request. All of these notes are carefully stacked and bundled together, and were placed on a pallet in the studio in front of Pastor Benny. They showed them, there was probably a tonne of paper there all stacked up.

      Pastor Hinn explained that he prayed for all these requests by placing his hand upon them and offering a prayer. I got the impression that he did not read them either before or after praying for them.

      Now the impression that a lot of people will be given is that there is some special “anointing” that Pastor Hinn has which he can release at will by laying hands on those papers. This anointing means that God (who already knows the requests) will be more disposed to granting favor upon them.

      But if you asked Pastor Hinn straight up whether his prayers are any more effacacious than any other believers, he would say no.

      Many Pastors operate I think on two levels like this. When asked directly they will give a biblical answer. But by their actions and in the indications they give their inner-circle, they promote a different view.

    51. Well, I would agree with wazza2, and have often spoken of my disgust of the way certain TV evangelists conduct themselves, as have people like Hagin, who wrote a book condemning their practices, and know of other Word of Faith ministers who have also called for them to desist.

      There is no precedent in the NT for laying hands on paper! Nor for there to be an anointing to pay people’s bills this way. There is, though, a precedent for prayer, which includes prayer for people’s needs to be met.

      There are probably many stories like this, but, as I have already said, they do not nullify the real anointing, or the correct doctrine of the anointing.

      I don’t think wazza2 actually gets you of the hook, s&p.

      You didn’t answer my question. Are we robbing God by reading Paul?

    52. Facelift: “Ss-rrf-whh-rhhuppfnn-gwfd–bfy–vwwdhng–Pffl?”

      I think I made out what you said. Wasn’t sure if you were being rhetorical or actually expecting me to reply to such a stupid question.

      The difference between Paul verses the ministers of today is that he has always encouraged Christian’s to be opened minded about what God is doing through us and in the greater body of Christ.

      These above ministers promote narrow-mindedness and also limit the saints role in the body of Christ and their ability to see God fully in their life. Paul was quite adamant about these ministers in the body of Christ who played such a divine and spiritual role but did very little for the kingdom.

      As for Phil Pringle’s slipstream ministry – he marketed well and chose which doctrines he wanted to believe which would benefit him. It just occurred to me how much these doctrines are actually undoing his credibility – especially the anointing doctrine he peddles behind the pulpit.

      Some C3 college lecturer two years ago at church swallowed this anointing doctrine from the pulpit fully. I was talking to them and they got so excited that they were in Phil Pringle’s CAR. Then they were even MORE excited that they were able to into Phil Pringle’s house.

      And then they saw Phil Pringle’s office and excitedly walked into it and… started groping at the air to take as much of the anointing in the air for themselves!

      Not only that, they told me they rubbed their hands along Phil Pringle’s computer keyboard to receive the ability to write powerful sermons and teach with Phil’s anointing on them.

      I was with others. We all chuckled while underneath my skin I was thinking only one thing – “This is idolatry I’m hearing”.

      This so called lecturer did a little ‘praise God’ at the end of their testimony. But it couldn’t be anything further from God. When people are raised under a leadership that lets this nonsense pass because leadership teach it and allow people to wallow around in their error, this is robbery.

      It is robbery because people think the only way they can get closer to God or move more under God’s power, authority, love, faith, glory or presence is by being under leadership so it will rub off on them. This is the kind of robbery I’m talking about.

      Paul would even call it this. He told the Corinthian church to be wary of the masqueraders of such nonsense in the church. They had the church bound with their clever and flattering words, fantastic appearances and charm, angelic visitations, experiences and out of this world prophecies. The people were bound to them. That was bad enough then, but even worse now.

      On the subject of Super Apostles – did anyone notice Phil Pringle’s book ‘Keys to Financial Success” was endorsed by the super anointed Peter Wagner, the modern day Super Apostle? My view on Phil having this connection with Wagner is very troubling. Pringle may have just achieved a greater level of anointing now that the anointed Wagner says Pringle’s work is credible.

      (The book is awful BTW.)

    53. I don’t think an alleged piece of silliness by a college lecturer makes any difference to whether God is upset if we read, listen to or purchase Phil’s materials. I see fruit in his ministry. How on earth is God robbed because we read one of his servant’s books?

      I’m very sorry you’re so upset about C3. I don’t think there’s any point in carrying on trying to work with you to help you think more of the people there.

      You’re clearly very against everything they stand for. The more I try to work through this with you, the worse it gets, the angrier you become. And I suspect you are well armed with many other allegations of evil against them. I find it quite grieving that you think so little of people who seem to me to be hugely friendly, welcoming and in love with God.

      I really do hope you can find your way out of there, for your own sake, and for theirs.

    54. Hi,
      I can’t remember how I had clicked and come to your post here. But when I saw the interesting title of your post ‘Do they claim to be Christ’, I think I would like to say something.

      Yes, I think I would like to be more generous and more tolerance on all our mistakes, ignorance, imperfection, and nonsense too. But with my stand and aspiration for sound doctrines, there is a limit for me to accept everybody as the ‘anointed ones’, the ‘anointed christs’, or the prophets who always claim that ‘as He is (anointed), so am I’.

      I think it boils down to motives. We all know that after we’ve accepted Christ, we would be more Christ-like (in terms of God’s love and Christ-like characters), which will prove that we are the disciples of Jesus Christ (John 13:35, 1 John 4:16-17). This should come very naturally to every true believer of Christ. It should be effortless. But if we become very eager to prove to everybody, including ourselves, that we are like God, like the anointed one, or like Christ, with more anointed power or more glory to exalt ourselves, something could be very wrong. Perhaps, we should see the contrast between the two types of anointing from two very different ‘anointed’ ones: one was already a history (he is the fallen one), the other is the true Christ who will be coming soon:

      Lucifer’s pride Christ’s humility
      Isaiah 14:12-15 Phil 2:5-6

      True anointing from God is borne out of humility, not of pride. If Christ, being the anointed one, would still humble Himself, how much more we, the disciple of Jesus, ought to be like Him too (Phil 2:2,5).

      Hence, based on this, if I were to meet a proud and greedy man, I can still love him and accept him like any brother. But if he is excellently boastful and has the anointing to preach, to heal, to work miracles, and to do many things, I would have to be very careful. If anybody wants to dispute about this, can he explain the Lord’s warning on this also (Matthew 7:15-16 and 20-23) ?

      (Anyway these are my thoughts. I don’t mean to argue. But I can accept disagreement or differing opinions. Sorry for the tone. Somehow I have tried to adjust my tone for the sake of those who are very sensitive to ‘questioning tone’. I am just trying to establish how you guys believe and think about God’s truth.)

    55. 27 March 2010

      Shall We Fraternize with Those Who Bury the Gospel under Wagon Loads of Trash?

      Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
      posted by Phil Johnson

      The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from “Under Constraint,” a sermon preached Sunday morning 28 April 1878 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.

      have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, “He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator.” Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration.

      I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

      “That is your bigotry,” says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

      I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

      He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. . . . substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

      Oh, if some of you were like your fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation.

      These men steal the pulpits of once orthodox churches, because otherwise they would have none at all. Their powerless theology cannot of itself arouse sufficient enthusiasm to enable them to build a mousetrap at the expense of their admirers, and therefore they profane the houses which your sires have built for the preaching of the gospel, and turn aside the organisations of once orthodox communities to help their infidelity: I call it by that name in plain English, for “modern thought” is not one whit better, and of the two evils I give infidelity the palm, for it is less deceptive.

      I beg the Lord to give back to the churches such a love to his truth that they may discern the spirits, and cast out those which are not of God. I feel sometimes like John, of whom it is said that, though the most loving of all spirits, yet he was the most decided of all men for the truth; and when he went to the bath and found that the heretic, Cerinthus, was there, he hurried out of the building, and would not tarry in the same place with him.

      There are some with whom we should have no fellowship, nay, not so much as to eat bread; for though this conduct looks stern and hard, it is after the mind of Christ, for the apostle spake by inspiration when he said, “If we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

      According to modern efficiency he ought to have said, “Let him be kindly spoken with in private, but pray make no stir. No doubt the thought was original, and we must not question his liberty. Doubtless, he believes the same as we do, only there is some little difference as to terms.”

      This is treason to Christ, treachery to truth, and cruelty to souls. If we love our Lord we shall keep his words, and stand fast in the faith, coming out from among the false teachers; nor is this inconsistent with charity, for the truest love to those who err is not to fraternise with them in their error, but to be faithful to Jesus in all things.

    56. It always amazes me to read Spurgeon’s sermons – you would think he visited a C3 church only yesterday.

      And he might have become the unlucky brunt of PP’s throwing a jug of water……..

    57. I don’t really see much difference, in degrees of error, between those who say that a piano stool has the anointing of a worship leader, and therefore to touch it means receiving the anointing, and, on the other side, those claiming that God is manipulating everything, so that whatever we do is precisely because it was God’s will that we do it, and we had nothing to do with what we did, or in other words, God ordained evil in those who are evil.

      They are destined for an evil ‘anointing’, where others are ‘anointed’ for salvation.

      There seems to be a kind of relative theology to both these positions.

      But the greater problem is with the doctrine that says some sinners will always be sinners and will die in their sin because God has ordained it for them in particular. The word ‘anointed’ can be interpreted as ‘ordained’, or ‘selected’, or ‘separated’, or ‘elected’.

      Out of this doctrine, of course, it follows that everyone remains a sinner even though they have been accepted by God, and they were predestined to be saved, because there is no inherent goodness to anyone, even though they are forgiven. The doctrine of absolute inability.

      However, if this is so, for the doctrine to actually work, they cannot be sinners even though they have sinned, because, they are preordained for sainthood. One or the other, for there can be no in between. A person is either a sinner or saint, and therefore, ordained, appointed, or anointed, to be a saint, or anointed to be a sinner, and, according to this doctrine, before the creation.

      So the foolish idea of touching a piano key in order to receive a perceived anointing seems rather banal in comparison, mere folly, an impossibility, which has no real repercussions because it will not change anything, except perhaps, encourage that person to be more worshipful towards God and expect to play piano better, determined to follow the example of the person they admire! Superstition, at worse.

      I looked at the idea of total depravity and absolute inability, and John McArthur’s teaching on this subject, but, sadly it made some assumptions about, firstly, the way other evangelicals think in regard to salvation, sin and sainthood, and secondly, what God actually says about the work of the cross, and the effect of the gospel when it is preached.

      Yes, all sin, and all die in Adam, but that in itself says that sin entered, and was not predetermined. It was not ordained, nor were men anointed to sin. They sinned because they could. They had a choice to obey the one commandment of the Garden, but refused. Adam was not made with sin in him. He was made with choice in him. God gave one law he had to obey. He chose to sin. That is the difference.

      In Christ, then, all may live, because he died once and for all. Just as Adam’s sin brought death to all, so Christ’s righteousness, brought life for all, with one condition, that they believe on the One who paid the price of their sin.

      The Anointed One is Christ. He was appointed, anointed and sent to pay the price. Our choice is to receive the price paid, but we will only ever have that opportunity when we have heard the gospel preached, and faith enters.

    58. FL – I had no idea that you were trying to work with S&P to help him think more of the people at C3! Your method seems to be to try to convince him that his perception is wrong about virtually everything he says. I agree with you that this is a waste of time, particularly given that you have never to our knowledge been a part of his congregation and have not experienced C3OF as a regular congregation member like some others of us here have. You give his experiences absolutely no validity, and unless you give a person some credence, you cannot help them work through anything. Instead, you will only futilely argue about his first hand experiences. It is not safe for him to express anything when you are present, because you shoot it down as soon as you see it.

      Some of us here once hoped that people who had been burnt by megachurch experiences might find it possible to share here, without being discredited every time they wrote something. While you are so defensive about these people and places, this will almost certainly never happen. It is your choice of course. God knows your heart.

    59. I also thought that FL’s last post was pretty good. I’m not a Calvinist, but I do appreciate their presence. It’s a debate worth having.

    60. Thanks for the rebuke, RP. I’ll consider it. However, I think there’s more to what s&p is saying than you infer. There’s an extreme anger and distaste towards, not just the leadership, but the people of C3. At least you don’t go as far as accusing them of simony, witchcraft, cultism as s&p repeatedly does. That is my point. At least you have walked away and left them to, and made your criticism from afar, with some sound points worth regarding.

      I don’t think s&p is listening to me either, but that’s his choice.

      A great sermon for you all from Rolfe Bernard, Baptist Preacher, on the real need for the Church. This is really revivalist and empowering.

      [audio src="http://media.sermonindex.net/0/SID0647.mp3" /]

    61. Facelift: “So the foolish idea of touching a piano key in order to receive a perceived anointing seems rather banal in comparison, mere folly, an impossibility, which has no real repercussions because it will not change anything, except perhaps, encourage that person to be more worshipful towards God and expect to play piano better, determined to follow the example of the person they admire! Superstition, at worse.”

      I used to think that this was superstitious. But it’s more than that – it’s idolatry. This is a pretty black and white view that I’m expressing, but I have yet to see likewise.

    62. Facelift: “There’s an extreme anger and distaste towards, not just the leadership, but the people of C3.”

      Believe me Facelift. I avoid the religious at C3 at all cost, but that does not mean I disregard them as a brother in Christ. I am very much in love with the congregation of C3. It’s the institute I’m upset with. However, I do get upset when people choose to blindly follow leaders because they are told to.

      And obviously this is not for my sake. I know down the track where those people in the congregation will be at and I will be ready for them – even though I’ll be upset for them and sad for them later.

    63. I think I recall someone doing PP’s ironing to pick up on his anointing. 🙂 But it was long time ago now! Also, I’ve heard of them buying his paintings and bringing the anointing home. It reminds me of Catholic relics, except they are current.

      Having said that, I do actually like PP’s paintings (except for all those crosses – such as the ‘Prosperity Cross’). I think they look good. I’d be happy to hang them up without any thought of anointings. I know people who have bought them just because they like them, as well.

    64. I was in the car with two people (was it two years ago?), the person driving liking his crosses too.

      They actually said this (quote):

      “I would love to have one of his paintings in my house -any will do – I just want his anointing in my house.”

      Boy! I just loudly corrected them in front of the other person – “You WILL NOT and you CANNOT buy the anointing! Don’t you know who the Anointing actually is?”

      We were just driving out of C3 at the time. We are still friends – if not closer. They have now come to see the light of C3 and no longer go. They actually thanked me for being there for them and correcting them. They remembered that night in the car. 🙂

      My friend actually told me that Phil didn’t suggest you can buy his paintings to receive his anointing – another pastor who took the mic actually did. First off as a joke. Same joke the following week.

      A week or two after that, it was suggested you could be the anointing, as my friend was trying to explain to me why she thought that way of the paintings.

      As I said somewhere above – anointing with advertising achieves great outcomes!

    65. I would say some simpleton Christian’s often confuse the ‘anointing’ with feelings to those with celebrity status or christian celebrity status.

      I remember standing next to Phil Pringle once feeling intimidated by his presence. I ignored it and treated him like a normal person, talking to him about church life. I didn’t manage to talk with him for long. But a friend of mine (a blessed, simple friend) made a comment as Phil left. They said how they felt such a strong anointing whenever he was around – they could feel his authority.

      I automatically attributed this to people’s view of Phil’s Christian celebrity status. I felt that feeling creep over me, but I refused to feel little in front of him if this was just that ‘celebrity presence’.

      Unfortunately, I think people’s superstitious views of leaders or pastors can have devastating consequences on them. Look at William Branham.

    Comments are closed.