Suppose a father senses an evil streak in one of his sons. Suppose this evil streak embeds lack of regard for the father in the heart. In presence of cognizance of dependence on the father for sustenance, however, there is arrival at a forced respect for the father, forced respect of which the father is aware.
While the hypothesized son has an evil streak, said streak has yet to manifest in actions, is, at this point, merely inferred.
Having recognized presence of the evil streak in his son, suppose the father refuses to invest in said son, only invests in all of his other sons. In presence of such a decision, there is not any evidence that the father loves his son, with outcome an independent and objective observer safely can assert that it is not impossible the son resents the father precisely because the father refuses to love. In presence of highlighted snafu, we arrive at the inference that, to an independent and objective observer, with the son yet to engage in any evil actions, only the father appears to be evil. The father then cannot be adduced to be more righteous than his son.
When a father is unloving towards a son or daughter who seems to have a bent towards evil, but who has yet to manifest such bent in actions that are evil, it always can be argued that his or her unloving actions are partly responsible for maturation of an evil bent into evil actions.
Suppose, however, that upon recognition of the evil streak in his son, that while the father loves all of his sons, he lavishes some additional attention and love on the child who seems to have a bent towards evil. If the hypothesized independent and objective observer were, once again, to be on the scene, he or she would attest that the father loves his son, that the father deals righteously with his son.
Whenever a father loves a son or daughter who seems to have a bent towards evil, but who has yet to demonstrate such bent in actions, if, eventually such a child were to become evil, the father is exonerated.
If a father is to love a child who seems to have a bent towards evil, but who has yet to manifest such bent, presence of such love is evident in provision of needs and gifts, gifts that perhaps are not deserved.
Let us then apply the analogy to the relationship between those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, and The Father of The Lord Jesus Christ — our Father in Heaven who now also can, through The Holy Spirit, live in our hearts (Luke 17:20–21).
We have that a person who has an evil bent, but who professes the name of Christ can be gifted with anointing for producing of beautiful songs, or for leading of a Church congregation in singing of songs to the glory of Jesus and The Father. The Father may even gift such a person with the gift of prophecy — the spiritual capacity for speaking prophetically to a local church congregation, or spiritual power that casts out demons. When such a person is given opportunity to speak to the church, and he or she manifests anointing from The Father, The Father attests His love both for the person, and for the church.
Suppose that, regardless of all of the blessings furnished by The Father, that a believer in Christ goes on to cherish the evil bent in himself or herself, assumes all of the gifts and blessings imply he or she can live however he or she desires. So then, he or she engages in debauchery and licentiousness, does not care to maintain sexual purity, or mistreats others. Upon engagement in such behaviors, such a person no longer is able to fellowship with The Holy Spirit, with outcome eventually all that he or she does transpires in the flesh. Eventually, such a person likely falls out of the church, loses interest in Christ, and declares she or she has discovered a truth that is richer and better than salvation through faith in the name of Jesus Christ.
If, at this point, we once again invoke the independent and objective believer, the observer declares that the choice made by the believer safely can be asserted to be contrary to all of the love received from The Father. The Father then is seen to be just and righteous in His actions (Romans 3:4).
Because The Father desires, rather truly humbly to be justified in His actions, The Father blesses all who come to Him with blessings and gifts. This way, whoever of all who come to Him who, eventually, devolves into evil cannot attempt to predicate such choice on the accusation that he or she was not loved by The Father.
Jesus illustrated the truth that The Father does not judge prior to provision of blessings and gifts in the Parable that I prefer to refer to as the ‘Parable of the Loving Father’ (Luke 15:11–32).
In the parable, a son approaches the father, accuses him of being unloving, and asks for his inheritance. The father acquiesces, provides the son with his inheritance, an inheritance he goes on to dissipate in a foreign land.
We see here that while the father treats the son with love — provides the inheritance as requested, the son reveals that his demand for the inheritance, as such his displeasure with his father, lay in the fact that his father would not allow him live a riotous life spent doing nothing except drinking and partying. We arrive then at validation of the premise of the analogy.
A son or daughter who, while living with the father is not able to engage in riotous living, but who, upon receipt of an inheritance engages in riotous living reveals an evil bent that required opportunity for it’s manifestation.
When eventually the son comes to his senses, he comes back to his father, pleads that he need not be treated as a son, only needs food, clothing, and a roof over his head.
His father would have none of it, rather rejoiced that his son had come to his senses, had decided to return home and live right. While the son did not demand any longer to be recognized as a son, his father lavished him with love, embraced him, and threw a party to celebrate his return.
In the parable more popularly known as the ‘Parable of the Prodigal Son’, even the son who had gone on to produce actions consistent with an evil bent had to acknowledge that he had been loved by his father.
But was the behavior of this son without cost? Absolutely not. He, having received his share of the inheritance, everything his father owned now would pass to his older brother.
What then did the loving father do? His father pleaded with the older brother not to be vindictive, not to treat his younger brother as he deserved, to welcome him back as his brother and be benevolent towards him, after all, did all that he the father owned not now belong to him, the older son?
In the pleading with his older son, the father declared two things. First, while he remained alive, the younger son would be treated as a son. Second, upon his death, he hoped that his older son would continue his actions, would treat his formerly ingrate younger brother as his brother, would not make any attempt to treat him as a servant.
The Parable popularly known as ‘Parable of the Prodigal Son’ really is better understood as ‘Parable of the Loving Father’.
If you assume that because you are blessed of The Father with material things, and anointing of The Holy Spirit, that this implies you can live anyhow you want, you arrive at a spiritual error, for it is your response to those blessings — either of desire to live holy, or excuses for sin — that determine The Father’s judgments of your person.
This is how The Father always has done things, and this is how He continues to do things. In this respect, Apostle Paul declares as follows (words in brackets mine in spirit of an amplified reading of the Scriptures).
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (all had access to the body of Christ — the spiritual food, and The Holy Spirit — the spiritual drink). For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered (for they died) in the wilderness — 1Corinthians 10:1–5.
For additional concreteness, consider that each of king Saul, and king David were, through Prophet Samuel, anointed of The Holy Spirit (1Samuel 10:9–11; 1Samuel 16:1,13). Regardless of the anointing, and all of the blessings that came with the anointing, Saul chose to rebel against God, lost the anointing and the kingdom. David, on the contrary, cherished the anointing, went on to acquire an everlasting covenant as earthly forebear of Jesus Christ from The Father.
The Lesson? Just because you are anointed of The Holy Spirit does not imply you are approved of The Father. If you are to know God, this is possible only in presence of anointing of the Holy Spirit and participation in the body of Christ. So then, all who come to The Father receive the anointing. Only those who, however, obey The Father are filled with The Holy Spirit, arrive at living and walking in The Spirit, as such please The Father.
The words of
confirmation from The Lord Jesus Christ?
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the kingdom (reign) of heaven, but he who does the will of My father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord’, have we not prophesied in your name (being blessed with spiritual gifts), cast out demons in your name (being blessed with spiritual power) in your name, and done many wonders in your name? And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness (you who use anointing from God as excuse for wallowing in wrong attitudes and behaviors)” — Matthew 7:21–23.
If the anointing that you receive from The Father is to lead you to life, it does not become an excuse for sin, rather propels you to appreciate the love of The Father, such that you delight in the doing of the things that please Him.