Doctrine of Impartation

[Elijah2]

:o Bit of a sweeping statement!

Wow, I am a sweeper anyway.

So please fill me in how sweeping I am, and please read the Parable of the Sower of Seeds and Weeds.

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

 

[hopeinGod]

I am hearing what you are saying. Do such actually believe that teaching the word and listening to sermons are not neccessary? Or is this an extrapolation of yours based on a personal disagreement with their theology, such as it is?

Serious question, not an attack.

For my part, though I defend the revival because as Jesus said, "He who is not against us is for our part", I personally quit watching it regularly because there was no Word being preached or taught. And I am hungry for the Word.

The manifest presence of God comes and goes as the Spirit wills for Gods own purposes in the earth, but my faith is not in a manifestation of the manifest presence of God, but in His Word.

I could accept "impartation" as it is being described here to be what God is doing today, but I could not accept that it replaces the Word, and makes sermons irrelevent.

Peace...

From one former pastor whose turned international evangelist, I did hear in one of his presentations to close followers of his that, "We don't need to hear another message." In other words, we've heard tons of them. It's time for results. Not every time a meeting is held should someone be appointed to seek the Lord for a Word in due season. The reasoning, I assume, is because there were a lot less manifestations of God's power in such meetings, and that folks' needs got unanswered.

This new approach, as I see it, is characteristic of those who are all Spirit an little Word. But, there must be a balance as the Word and the Spirit should work together. We used to say, "All Word and no Spirit and you puff up, all Spirit and no Word and you blow up, and a balance of the both, you grow up."

Even in the Toronto meetings, there weren't any real messages presented. It was instead set up to wait on the showering of the Spirit on the people present.

Dave

 

[JimB]

Hmmmm.

The idea that we have no need for teaching/preaching anymore because we have heard “tons” of sermons to little avail seems to dismiss those who are new to the faith and have yet to hear “tons” of teaching.

The NT seems to place a priority on teaching and public ministry. The word “teach” (in its various forms) appears more than 230 times in my NKJV NT, including these:

2 Then [Jesus] opened His mouth and taught them (Matt 5)

20 Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple (John 18)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28)

25 [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18)

20. [Paul] kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, (Acts 20)

17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Cor. 4)

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (1 Cor. 12)

19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue . . . 26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (1 Cor. 14)

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, (Eph. 4)
​

~Jim

We are like teabags – we never know our true strength until we are in hot water.​

 

[KleinerApfel]

So please fill me in how sweeping I am, and please read the Parable of the Sower of Seeds and Weeds.

To say "All these great revivals..." is a sweeping statement, thats' all I meant. Tarring them all with the same brush, and yourself as the judge.

All these great revivals and experiences are due to their own mind-set, and searching for a sensitive-feeling and meaning release, which comes about by a hype in a large gathering of Christians, who are at all different levels of maturity, such as wayside, stony, thorny, 30-fold, 60-fold and 100-fold Christians, who are seduced and deceived at different levels.

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

Thank you, I am. You too.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

These are doctrines of the bible

http://teachtheyoungwoman.blogspot.com/2008/04/basic-doctrine-and-charts.html

They are the basics of the bible. To call a thing a doctrine it has to be a theme running thru the bible or it's just another new traditional being imposed on the church.
Maybe if more time was put inti studying basic doctrine the waves wouldn't have the effect they do. Tossed to and fro are for those w/o foundations to firmly stand on.

 

[Elijah2]

Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD,

“ That I will send a famine on the land,
Not a famine of bread,
Nor a thirst for water,
But of hearing the words of the LORD.
(Amos 8:11)

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD,

“ That I will send a famine on the land,
Not a famine of bread,
Nor a thirst for water,
But of hearing the words of the LORD.
(Amos 8:11)

Well, it hasn't happened yet and the Lord is the watchman in these end days.

 

[Elijah2]

Hi TLIMB,

To say "All these great revivals..." is a sweeping statement, thats' all I meant. Tarring them all with the same brush, and yourself as the judge.

Well, I can only tar them together because I say much of the debris that they left when they schorched through our country over the years, and my sweeping statement is from my own personal experiences and others. I am not the judge, but expressing my opinion from those experiences of those scorchings. And I am not being offensive by using that word, scorched. There was much debris left behind when they left, that needed a lot of healing after it all left.

We are blessed, and thank you.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I thought I'd post these if anyone's interested in looking at them. So I just moved this post from the not-so-doctrine of impartation thread.


These are doctrines of the bible

http://teachtheyoungwoman.blogspot.c...nd-charts.html

They are the basics of the bible. To call a thing a doctrine it has to be a theme running thru the bible or it's just another new traditional being imposed on the church.
Maybe if more time was put inti studying basic doctrine the waves wouldn't have the effect they do. Tossed to and fro are for those w/o foundations to firmly stand on.
__________________

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Dang I meant to start a new thread Oh well. :

 

[imperfectchristian]

When I attended the Brownsville Revival 9 years ago, I went there...(like so many) seeking more of the Lord in my life. What I believe I ended up with was an impartation.

What does that mean?

It simply means I recieved their message. Not simply believed, but recieved.

This has happened to me several times in my life and it has fundamentally shaped who I am as a person.

The reason I had such a hard time with Brownsville was that it was too much for me at that time.

Not everything about the presence of the Lord is good feelings. There is a part that is very bitter and that was the cup I drank of at Brownsville.

When I recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit when I was young it was a very sweet impartation. I expected Brownsville to be the same but it wasn't it was just the opposite.

They were both moves of God where I recieved into my soul and spirit from the Lord and it changed my life, yet dramtically different.

I can't imagine Lakeland being as powerful as Brownsville or when I recieved the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think it is more powerful, I think it is different. I think moves of the Lord are different.

It happens on a smaller scale when you go to church. You recieve an impartation from the pastor and his walk with the Lord and it is ongoing and interactive. I think worship works in the same way, but it is more or less specifically in the area of praise worship.

 

[JimB]

When I attended the Brownsville Revival 9 years ago, I went there...(like so many) seeking more of the Lord in my life. What I believe I ended up with was an impartation.

What does that mean?

It simply means I recieved their message. Not simply believed, but recieved.

This has happened to me several times in my life and it has fundamentally shaped who I am as a person.

The reason I had such a hard time with Brownsville was that it was too much for me at that time.

Not everything about the presence of the Lord is good feelings. There is a part that is very bitter and that was the cup I drank of at Brownsville.

When I recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit when I was young it was a very sweet impartation. I expected Brownsville to be the same but it wasn't it was just the opposite.

They were both moves of God where I recieved into my soul and spirit from the Lord and it changed my life, yet dramtically different.

I can't imagine Lakeland being as powerful as Brownsville or when I recieved the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think it is more powerful, I think it is different. I think moves of the Lord are different.

It happens on a smaller scale when you go to church. You recieve an impartation from the pastor and his walk with the Lord and it is ongoing and interactive. I think worship works in the same way, but it is more or less specifically in the area of praise worship.

I can agree with this kind of “impartation.”

But what I am talking about is the kind of impartation when a person lays their hands on someone to impart from one to another a calling, or spiritual gift, or anointing. This seems to be counter to my understanding of NT Christianity in that it presumes on the part of the impart-er a special calling/gifting/anointing that they can impart at will to the impart-ee. That smacks of spiritual pride to me, especially when it is done with an audience.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.
~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

 

[imperfectchristian]

I can agree with this kind of “impartation.”

But what I am talking about is the kind of impartation when a person lays their hands on someone to impart from one to another a calling, or spiritual gift, or anointing. This seems to be counter to my understanding of NT Christianity in that it presumes on the part of the impart-er a special calling/gifting/anointing that they can impart at will to the impart-ee. That smacks of spiritual pride to me, especially when it is done with an audience.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.

~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

Sounds to me that is more of a psychological boost for specific faith....the power of suggestion if you will.

I would not automatically conclude that it is spiritual pride, more like a connecting of the dots for the congregation to encourage them to keep the faith with another leader.

I would agree that it is not Scriptural.

 

[JimB]

Sounds to me that is more of a psychological boost for specific faith....the power of suggestion if you will.

I would not automatically conclude that it is spiritual pride, more like a connecting of the dots for the congregation to encourage them to keep the faith with another leader.

I would agree that it is not Scriptural.

I understand.

What I have in mind, though, is a specific incident (which will go unmentioned) of one well-known minister publicly “imparting” his “special” anointing to another well-known minister.

~Jim

Ignorance is not innocence; it is a crime.​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The ability “to impart”, “to share”, “to give” charismatic gifts was the sole realm of an Apostle. We see Philip preaching to the Samaritans but when the time came fro them to receive the Holy Spirit, Philip had to allow Peter to do this ministry by saying, “’Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ But Peter said to him, ‘Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you’” (Acts 8:19-22).

From this we can see that Philip wasn’t an Apostle, he was being presumptuous, and he thought that he could buy this ability.

1)

It pains me to disagree with this, but the apostles felt they needed to lay hands on new believers placed in atalics in the bible. This is still a contraversial topic as it implies that more is needed than the working of the Holy Spirit. In fact the apostles brought out this very thing when they accused Simon the magician turned new baptised Christian. They cursed that anyone would try to that and yet that's exactly what they were doing.


btw it wasn't Peter it was Simon (not the same)

 

[imperfectchristian]

I understand.

What I have in mind, though, is I have a specific incident (which will go unmentioned) of one well-known minister publicly “imparting” his “special” anointing to another well-known minister.

~Jim

Ignorance is not innocence; it is a crime.​

I don't know...I take the Gamaliel stance on alot of stuff like this. I said it was unScriptural, but thinking about it ...there is the case of the birthright that was passed on from Issac to Jacob. There is also the passing of the mantle from Elijah to Elisha.

I would personally be hesitant to say it was not of God.

I can't stand some of the things Benny Hinn does, but that does not mean he does not have an anointing and it does not mean God does not use him. I am inclined to believe God does use Him.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Originally Posted by Elijah2

The ability “to impart”, “to share”, “to give” charismatic gifts was the sole realm of an Apostle. We see Philip preaching to the Samaritans but when the time came fro them to receive the Holy Spirit, Philip had to allow Peter to do this ministry by saying, “’Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ But Peter said to him, ‘Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you’” (Acts 8:19-22).

From this we can see that Philip wasn’t an Apostle, he was being presumptuous, and he thought that he could buy this ability.





It really annoys me when people fabricate things to make some point. That is lying and false teaching. That was not said to Phillip at all. I'm not saying anymore b/c it seems to be acceptable to everyone else to fabricate scripture. Facts are facts but that's just bs./
​

 

[KleinerApfel]

Simon the sorceror, a pagan magician, not Simon Peter the Lord's disciple, is the one who offered money for the gift he saw the apostles using.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Originally Posted by Elijah2

The ability “to impart”, “to share”, “to give” charismatic gifts was the sole realm of an Apostle. We see Philip preaching to the Samaritans but when the time came fro them to receive the Holy Spirit, Philip had to allow Peter to do this ministry by saying, “’Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ But Peter said to him, ‘Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you’” (Acts 8:19-22).

From this we can see that Philip wasn’t an Apostle, he was being presumptuous, and he thought that he could buy this ability.





It really annoys me when people fabricate things to make some point. That is lying and false teaching. That was not said to Phillip at all. I'm not saying anymore b/c it seems to be acceptable to everyone else to fabricate scripture. Facts are facts but that's just bs./
​

I was ignoring it.

 

[cyberlizard]

i briefly made a post this morning (before going to work)..... i said i would look at a few things.


is there a doctrine of impartation.... i think there is, depending on how you see things.

i would say there are the following aspects.... impartation, ordination, identification.


here are some scriptures....

Exodus 29v10 - the consecration and ordination of the priest. The priest was appointed into a specific office by the laying on of hands. See also 1 Tim. 4v14 where Timothy is encouraged regarding his gifting into his office/calling.

Lev. 4v15 - Identification. Hands were laid on a bull in transference of sin(s). This is a form of identification. See also 1 Tim. 5v22, this one is an interesting one. It says basically that you should be wary of whom you lay hands on, and also who lays hands on you. This text draws heavily on OT passages whereby a state of uncleaness can be transferred between people (this is difficult for some anti-law people to accept). There is also an interesting snippet in Num. 8v10 where the people lay hands on the levites, transferring their sins, who then laid hands on the sacrifice transferring it there, this is interesting as it shows a 'chain of contamination. The converse is true though, but there is only evidence of this really applying to Messiah. Where he touches a woman in a state of being unclean, rendering her clean by his own power.


Num. 27v23/Deut. 34v9 - here Moses lays hands on Joshua imparting a blessing. We see the impartation of a blessing in Matt. 19v13 & Luke 18v35.

There are loads of verses, but these are first instance verses (OT).


So next time you lay hands on someone, think before you do it. The scriptures say be holy as I am holy. Walk a holy life, do not become polluted by contact (like with the dead, thinking OT style).

for those wanting to know more about Jewish ideas on this subject, simply google 'semichah'.


Steve