Anointing With Oil

[sag38]

Oil is oil of the anointing type and there is nothing wrong with following what James instructs us to do.

"The rod of discipline" is not exclusively referring to a beating but the overall application of discipline in a child's life. Spanking, for the most part, is a form of punishment. A smart parent doesn't punish his or her child. He or she disciplines a child. There is a huge difference between the rod of discipline and a rod used on a child's backside. Seldom did I ever use spanking with my son. I could make him howl a lot louder through discipline. To illustrate, he is fifteen and he would rather me beat with a rod (haven't spanked him in five years) rather than be cut of socially from his friends.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are two meanings that I have heard of with regards to anointing with oil.

1. It is representative of the HG

2. It was actually medicine and the elders would be called because doctors were not readily available so they would combine the prayer of the church and taking medicine.


I agree that it is unnecessary to use oil for the purpose of representing the HG since we are now indwelt. In the OT the HG acted in an external way and during the church age He acts in an internal way. Anointing with oil serves no purpose today. If we are sick take our medicine and pray.

Think that both points are valid, but also that it ties into forgiveness of sins of the individual, so perhaps we can bring some illness to ourselves by unforgiveness, and/or non confession and repentance for personal sins!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

A historical narrative is a bit different than an epistle.

1) I said it was vague and did not provide much if any guidance, however, I am interested in your statement here ...

2) So you're saying there is no instruction in the gospels? You might want to rethink that.

The Gospel accounts are recording actions done, but not necessarily providing impetus for having them done. James, however, prescribes the practice.

And I outlined how James described the practice. But if you're continuing to claim that the gospels are nothing other than an historical narrative, I'd have to take issue with that.

That's surprising since a couple of years ago whilst in Africa, a group of ministers participated in an exorcism. We prayed and fasted for someone and our friend, a local missionary who I've know for about 15 years, cast out the demon.

Really? The missionary cast out the demon? You want to stick with that conclusion?

It was an amazing display of God's grace and power.

And had absolutely nothing to do with the missionary's praying, whooping and hollering or laying hands on the possessed person. And I wonder, was that person a believer? If so, nothing actually happened. A demon cannot possess a believer.

The Apostles weren't granted special powers beyond what all other believers have been given. Scripture seems clear on this.

What Scripture is clear on -- not "seems clear" but actually is clear on, is that the disciples and apostles had gifts given to them that they could not pass on to others. That is documented throughout the New Testament.

You seem to be confusing biblical genres. Historical narrative doesn't equal epistolary instruction in terms of prescriptive value.

Again with "biblical genres." You need to be very careful espousing a view that the gospels are primarily "historical narratives." These are terms used by the "legendary Jesus" scholars who claim that the story told in each of the four gospels is a compilation of "historical narratives" told down through the centuries and collected in books now titled Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In other words, you're using terminology used by Jesus deniers. As I said, be careful of what you believe you understand about the nature of the biblical writings.

I'm not saying that the oil is, in and of itself an agent of God's grace. (Which would be difficult to surmise from my one or two sentences) I am saying the biblical prescription mandates that we use oil (which is a fairly general term but likely means olive oil of some kind) for this ceremony. So we use olive oil for this ceremony.

With that I agree. I just pray you and your ministerial associates use it in the proper perspective.

 

[preachinjesus]

1) I said it was vague and did not provide much if any guidance, however, I am interested in your statement here ...

2) So you're saying there is no instruction in the gospels? You might want to rethink that.And I outlined how James described the practice. But if you're continuing to claim that the gospels are nothing other than an historical narrative, I'd have to take issue with that.

I didn't say that. How familiar are you with hermeneutics?

Really? The missionary cast out the demon? You want to stick with that conclusion?And had absolutely nothing to do with the missionary's praying, whooping and hollering or laying hands on the possessed person.

This is highly disingenuous on your part. You weren't there and still to scoff and assume things. There was no "whooping and hollering." If you don't believe in these things that is fine, but I've been part of several episodes like this and bear witness to other miraculous acts of God in this world. If you don't believe me, well I'm sorry for that. I do believe these things do happen, though in a limited manner.

And I wonder, was that person a believer? If so, nothing actually happened. A demon cannot possess a believer.What Scripture is clear on -- not "seems clear" but actually is clear on, is that the disciples and apostles had gifts given to them that they could not pass on to others. That is documented throughout the New Testament.

Not that this answer matters to you, but the person was not a believer but became one after the demon was cast out. Not right away but soon thereafter.

The Apostles had no gifts uncommon to man. They were uniquely called and situated to carry out the apostolic office in their time, but this was primarily one of missionary and instruction. Feel free to challenge me on this too. It was the part of the topic of my dissertation.

Again with "biblical genres." You need to be very careful espousing a view that the gospels are primarily "historical narratives." These are terms used by the "legendary Jesus" scholars who claim that the story told in each of the four gospels is a compilation of "historical narratives" told down through the centuries and collected in books now titled Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

So you are putting words into my mouth (or keyboard)? You assume that I take up historical critical scholarship because I'm pointing out that the Bible is composed of differing genres and there are different interpretative approaches to the differing genres? Really, you really want to do this?

These terms aren't solely used by those who are of the liberal schools but also sound evangelical scholars. If you cannot understand this, than I am sorry for you. I can recommend some reading if you desire. You have a very limited view of Scripture and theology.

In other words, you're using terminology used by Jesus deniers. As I said, be careful of what you believe you understand about the nature of the biblical writings.With that I agree. I just pray you and your ministerial associates use it in the proper perspective.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I am a faithful pastor and sound theologian. As a member of the Evangelical Theological Society I sign a statement yearly affirming inerrancy and orthodox doctrine. Please read up a bit on varying legitimate hermeneutical approaches and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks.

 

[righteousdude2]

If that is true....

There are two meanings that I have heard of with regards to anointing with oil.

1. It is representative of the HG

2. It was actually medicine and the elders would be called because doctors were not readily available so they would combine the prayer of the church and taking medicine.


I agree that it is unnecessary to use oil for the purpose of representing the HG since we are now indwelt. In the OT the HG acted in an external way and during the church age He acts in an internal way. Anointing with oil serves no purpose today. If we are sick take our medicine and pray.

.... then why do we baptize in water? Why lay our physical hands-on people? Why do we share the bread and wine? After all, Rev, as you say, we now have the Holy Spirit in us, so these physical elements should no longer be necessary to obey and follow the lead of the word! If what I read in your comment is right, the Holy Ghost is now in all of us, so physical contact is no longer needed, as our blessings and prayers can take place by a form of spiritual osmosis! :thumbs:

Anne said it best - "We've done it for the sick as per James 5 and there are times that people are healed (my daughter) and times that they are not. But we are told to do it so we do." I'd agree with Anne ... and anyone else who believes in the literal use of oil! Use it in faith and let God do what He does best, answer the need taken before Him, because it was done out of obedience!

Once again, it is really up to you folks to do as you see best. No one can know what or if the oil is symbolic or even necessary as a symbol! So, if you don't want to use oil, DON'T! But, please don't poke fun at, or critise those who do use oil!

I use oil, because I happen to believe that it is as representative to obeying and following the teachings put down before us in the Gospels, as it is to baptise in water, and serve the elements of communion! But then again, I also believe in the gifts, and washing feet.

Maybe the oil, like some of the gifts, ended at Pentecost! But as for me an my house, we will serve the Lord!

Do what is best for you, but don't keep putting down those who follow the word according to how they percieve it to read, as being "Not in touch!"

And for those who have made fun, like using non-cholesteral oil, let me say that I would not want to be responsible to answering for those puns and jokes, should they be called to your attention at the judgement!

Of course, the above in my opinion, and I do not care if you like it or not! I do not care if your accept it or not. I do not care what you think or believe, because I have discovered, for myself, what works, and as for oil and laying on of hands, with the elders or deacons or pastors joining in with me, let me just say, "It works for me!" And those who come for prayer expect oil and the laying on of hands in the churches I attend!

 

[righteousdude2]

Well...

I didn't say that. How familiar are you with hermeneutics?



This is highly disingenuous on your part. You weren't there and still to scoff and assume things. There was no "whooping and hollering." If you don't believe in these things that is fine, but I've been part of several episodes like this and bear witness to other miraculous acts of God in this world. If you don't believe me, well I'm sorry for that. I do believe these things do happen, though in a limited manner.



Not that this answer matters to you, but the person was not a believer but became one after the demon was cast out. Not right away but soon thereafter.

The Apostles had no gifts uncommon to man. They were uniquely called and situated to carry out the apostolic office in their time, but this was primarily one of missionary and instruction. Feel free to challenge me on this too. It was the part of the topic of my dissertation.



So you are putting words into my mouth (or keyboard)? You assume that I take up historical critical scholarship because I'm pointing out that the Bible is composed of differing genres and there are different interpretative approaches to the differing genres? Really, you really want to do this?

These terms aren't solely used by those who are of the liberal schools but also sound evangelical scholars. If you cannot understand this, than I am sorry for you. I can recommend some reading if you desire. You have a very limited view of Scripture and theology.



I am a faithful pastor and sound theologian. As a member of the Evangelical Theological Society I sign a statement yearly affirming inerrancy and orthodox doctrine. Please read up a bit on varying legitimate hermeneutical approaches and you'll see what I'm talking about. Thanks.

it is nice to know that TND is not just picking apart my comments! I no longer feel picked on :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[prophet]

My brother uses the same obedience clause to beat his kids with wooden rods.....hmmmmm.

Pro 23:13-14
13 Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.


You want your nephew's and nieces in Hell, I assume.

 

[Revmitchell]

.... then why do we baptize in water? Why lay our physical hands-on people? Why do we share the bread and wine? After all, Rev, as you say, we now have the Holy Spirit in us, so these physical elements should no longer be necessary to obey and follow the lead of the word! If what I read in your comment is right, the Holy Ghost is now in all of us, so physical contact is no longer needed, as our blessings and prayers can take place by a form of spiritual osmosis! :thumbs:

Brother I cannot for the life of me figure out how you think what I said leads to any of that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I didn't say that. How familiar are you with hermeneutics?

Very. Your use of the phrase is in line with deniers. I'm sure you didn't intend that, but that is precisely how they use it, mostly to call the "historical narrative" of the gospels into question, and deny their teaching.

This is highly disingenuous on your part. You weren't there and still to scoff and assume things.

Darn right I do. It's nonsense. You credited the missionary with the casting out of the demon. First, I don't believe most of that rubbish anyway, and two, if that did happen, it wasn't the missionary that did it.

This is along the same lines of the charismatics who claim they have resurrected people. It borders on blasphemy.

The Apostles had no gifts uncommon to man.

You keep saying that. It isn't true. And I don't care what your doctoral (?) dissertation was about, if that was it's conclusion, it is wrong. Paul was given the gift of healing, but late in his ministry left Timothy ill at Miletus. The gift was dying out even then, or he would have healed him. The disciples were given their powers by Jesus for their life's ministry:

Mark 6, NASB
7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits;​

They had these powers as long as they lived, but they were unable to pass them on. Their very status as apostles was only a temporary gift that did not outlive them. Prophecy, healing, "signs and wonders" miracles, tongues and interpreting, words of wisdom, words of knowledge -- these last two were replaced by the Scriptures and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- even a discerning spirit: All of these were temporary gifts that passed away with them.

The permanent gifts granted all believers: Teaching, helps (ministering), administration (of the local church or of a mission), evangelism, pastor/teacher, exhortation, giving, mercy, celibacy (for those who do not marry and give their life to the service of Christ, not as taught and held by the Catholic clergy).

So you are putting words into my mouth (or keyboard)?

You said (or typed) the words. I'm telling you in what context the phrases you used have normally appeared. You can take heed or not. Up to you.

These terms aren't solely used by those who are of the liberal schools but also sound evangelical scholars. If you cannot understand this, than I am sorry for you. I can recommend some reading if you desire. You have a very limited view of Scripture and theology.

No need to be sorry for me. I fully understand where you are coming from. No thanks to the offer of reading materials. More than likely I've already read them. Thanks anyway. My view of Scripture and theology is quite sound.

As a member of the Evangelical Theological Society I sign a statement yearly affirming inerrancy and orthodox doctrine.

And yet you espouse tongues, healing attributable to human intervention, and prophecy. Do they know that?

 

[Inspector Javert]

.............

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pro 23:13-14
13 Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.


You want your nephew's and nieces in Hell, I assume.

Considering the parents they have.....I could safely say that they are already there.:laugh:

 

[prophet]

Considering the parents they have.....I could safely say that they are already there.:laugh:

You'll have that.

 

[preachinjesus]

Very. Your use of the phrase is in line with deniers. I'm sure you didn't intend that, but that is precisely how they use it, mostly to call the "historical narrative" of the gospels into question, and deny their teaching.

I'm disappointed that your default position is to accuse me of being a theological liberal and one who denies Scripture. If you truly desire engagement and conversation you'll do well to change your posture. Walking into a thread with your fists up looking to punch away isn't a sound methodology.

My background can be testified by others on this forum as I've been a sensible contributor for many years. Attempting to fit any of us, like you've done in multiple threads to good people, into a "denier" role which is analogous to theological liberalism is incorrect on your part and inappropriate. Please reconsider your approach.

Good day.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm disappointed that your default position is to accuse me of being a theological liberal and one who denies Scripture. If you truly desire engagement and conversation you'll do well to change your posture. Walking into a thread with your fists up looking to punch away isn't a sound methodology.

My background can be testified by others on this forum as I've been a sensible contributor for many years. Attempting to fit any of us, like you've done in multiple threads to good people, into a "denier" role which is analogous to theological liberalism is incorrect on your part and inappropriate. Please reconsider your approach.

In all of your replies to me, you've not once dealt with the chief point I've made, i.e., you credit men in this day and age with healing, prophecy, etc. Are you going to respond to the fact this gives no glory whatsoever to God, reserving it for mere men, or not?

Good day.

I've had one, thanks.

 

[righteousdude2]

Let me see, if I can explain!

Brother I cannot for the life of me figure out how you think what I said leads to any of that.

Let me see .... you said, "I agree that it is unnecessary to use oil for the purpose of representing the HG since we are now indwelt. In the OT the HG acted in an external way and during the church age He acts in an internal way."

It appeared to me that since the oil, in the OT was an external way to represent the actions of the HOLY Ghost, but not needed in today's church because we are indwelt ... that the same could be said for the external elements of communion and water baptism. Both of these acts came before Pentecost, at which time the Holy Ghost indwelt each of us; so why would the church need to appy or use EXTERNAL elements water, bread and wine] now that we are indwelt, Rev! :wavey: Wouldn't the same argument be applicable to the communion and baptism as that of the oil!

After all, all three are outward, external acts and elements used to simulate an act of the Holy Ghost, so why can't we just bypass the il, the bread and wine and the tank of water, and merely say to the person be bpatised, be healed, be joined in communion? Are these not logical interpretations of what you clearly outlined in the statement I qouted from you above?

That is how I arrived at my conclusion of spiritual osmosis ... let's do away with symbolic external symbols, and just rely on the indwelling power of the Holy Ghost to do the act through words of prayer and chants!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thinks that it ties directly into spiritual sickness, as if one is walking harboring sin, unforgiveness, refusal to walk rightly with the Lord, can bring physical results in, as they have chosen to have bitterness, anger etc start process of destroying them!

Also, NOT a teaching that states all sickness and illness will be healed all the time, as this passage shows us that quite early on, the gift of healing as practiced by the Apostles was disappearing!

 

[righteousdude2]

Well ....

Thinks that it ties directly into spiritual sickness, as if one is walking harboring sin, unforgiveness, refusal to walk rightly with the Lord, can bring physical results in, as they have chosen to have bitterness, anger etc start process of destroying them!

Also, NOT a teaching that states all sickness and illness will be healed all the time, as this passage shows us that quite early on, the gift of healing as practiced by the Apostles was disappearing!

I think it is clear that not all sicknesses or injuries to the body are going to be healed, nor will everyone who has faith and prays, get a heavenly touch of miraculous proportions!

Paul had a thorn .... He was a mighty man of God .... filled with the spirit and he had one of those personal visitations by Jesus ... he knew how to lay on hands and pray ... yet he went shipwreck many times, and after three fervent prayer sessions, God left a thorn in his side ... a thorn he called a messenger of Satan that was there to torment him ... and yet God let it remain ... telling Paul that, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12:9)

Sometimes we are left with thorns to keep us trusting in God for His grace and strength to see us through! I believe that several of the chronic conditions I have been left with have been left to make me more dependent upon HIM, and to keep me from boasting or losing focus on what HE called me to do!

Great point Yeshua ... however, I do not believe that the gift of healing is disappearing, any more than I believe the gifts of the Spirit disappeared. Still, we are aligned when it comes to whom it is that reigns gloriously within us, and that is Jesus!

 

[Aaron]

It's an act of obedience and worship like fasting. Just do it, and the meanings and significance will become clear.

 

[Aaron]

I'm disappointed that your default position is to accuse me of being a theological liberal and one who denies Scripture. If you truly desire engagement and conversation you'll do well to change your posture. Walking into a thread with your fists up looking to punch away isn't a sound methodology.

My background can be testified by others on this forum as I've been a sensible contributor for many years. Attempting to fit any of us, like you've done in multiple threads to good people, into a "denier" role which is analogous to theological liberalism is incorrect on your part and inappropriate. Please reconsider your approach.

Good day.

Boo hoo about being called that all you want. You are a liberal.

 

[glazer1972]

Early in my Christian walk I had severe knee pain in my right knee. Squatting would cause tears. I didn't have the money at the time to go to the doctor. Our pastor at the time preached on James Ch 5. I went forward and asked for prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil. The pastor, ministers and the deacons all done this in turn. It was very humble and was not done like the pentecostals on tv do it. God healed my knee that night and it has never hurt since. That was about 20 years ago. I have no problem with it as long as it is handled correctly.