Is going to the doctor a sign of a lack of faith?

• About this site

Sunday School Teacher Resources

• About this site

 The Person of Christ is a work by various authors about the most precious subject in all the scriptures - God's Son, Jesus Christ.  Some subjects include the Perfect Servant, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, the Incarnation of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Impeccability of Christ, His Pre-existance, His Moral Glories, the Atonement  Work and others.

• About this site

A mini coloring book and small posters to help the Sunday school teacher tell the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire.

• About this site

 The Two Roads Chart

• About this site

• About this site

It is believed by some that Eternal Punishment is only for a certain period.

Is the doctrine of Eternal Punishment a tradition and not fundamental?

How should this be answered, and how should those in our assemblies who hold these views be treated?

The doctrine of eternal punishment is fundamental to the understanding of salvation. The test of a doctrine is not what the world thinks of it, or even the professing church, but what the Word of God declares. Judged by that test, I have not the slightest doubt that a condition of never-ending punishment awaits those who reject the grace of God in whatever form presented, and die in their sins and self-righteousness; and this has been the general belief of the church down the ages. That a committee of determined criminals or weak sentimentalists should decree the impossibility or injustice of life-sentences might be comprehensible, but would not affect the course of the law in any degree. Nor will the divine administration be affected in the slightest way by man’s opinions of His decrees.

When the opponents of never-ending punishment are asked, “What then will become of the wicked?” they cannot agree among themselves: one party say all will eventually be saved—they are the Universalists; another that all who refuse the grace of God will eventually cease to be—they are the teachers of what is known as “Conditional Immortality.” I believe both these theories are in conflict with the Scriptural teaching throughout, e.g., “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life (i.e. life in harmony with God, more than mere existence); and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life (which refutes universalism); but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36)." TARGET="_blank">John 3:36).

The wrath of God cannot abide on a nonentity, which refutes annihilationism. Space will not allow here any lengthy consideration of this tremendous theme. One or two points may, however, be raised. If we believe in the never-ending bliss of the redeemed, we must believe in the never-ending punishment of the wicked. The Lord’s own words make this plain, for He uses the same word in the same context of each: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life everlasting” (Matthew 25:46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46). Some again say that the devil and his angels will suffer eternally, but not human beings; but in this same chapter our Lord classes them together: “Depart ye cursed (He will say to wicked men) into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). That fearful punishment, here so plainly revealed by Him who was the embodiment of holy love, was not prepared for men, but for the devil and his angels, but those who deliberately choose to follow him will find themselves with him for ever. A great effort has been made to show that the word translated here “everlasting” or “eternal” only means “age-lasting.” That may be perfectly true by derivation, as is true indeed of our word “everlasting,” but what matters is the usage of the word. It is used of “God” (Romans 16:26);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:26); His “honour and power” (1 Timothy 6:16);" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:16); “covenant” (Hebrews 13:20);" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:20); “kingdom” (2 Peter 1:11);" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:11); “gospel” (Revelation 14:6);" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 14:6); the “weight of glory” of the redeemed (2 Corinthians 4:17);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:17); the unseen world (2 Corinthians 4:18);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:18); the glorified body (2 Corinthians 5:1);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:1); “glory” (2 Timothy 2:10);" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:10); “salvation” (Hebrews 5:9);" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:9); “Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:14), etc., etc., on the one hand, and on the other, of future punishment, as above (Matthew 25:46);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46); “fire” (Matthew 18:8);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:8); “damnation” (Mark 3:29);" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3:29); “destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:9).

‘What honest believer, subject to the Word, but must admit that the never-endingness of God, His Spirit, salvation, redemption, and the consolation and the inheritance of the redeemed, stands or falls, with the never-endingness of the future punishment of the finally impenitent! Is it not strange that men, instead of repenting of their sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, should rather spend their time in trying to disprove what the Saviour so clearly taught (none more clearly than He)—the fearful future of those who refuse Him, whom God has provided in His infinite love as a Saviour from “the wrath to come!” As for the second part of the question, we must “make a difference” between those who may be for the moment perplexed over a doctrine and those who doubt it as part of their fixed belief. It is noticeable that among “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” in Hebrews 6:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:1-2, which are clearly considered as fundamental (“not laying again the foundation,” etc.), the doctrine of “eternal judgment” closes the list.

This, therefore, is a fundamental question, and those who deny it have so far departed from the faith, and deny the clear and unmistakable words of Christ. How can such then claim a place among the people of God? Their denial of God’s truth raises the solemn question whether they have ever truly known His grace. May God in His infinite mercy preserve the feet, both of writer and readers, from straying from His Word, on this or any other truth!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Please explain the New Testament teaching of Leviticus 21:21-22" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21:21-22

The physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects.

Clearly there are physical defects, which, while not hindering a brother breaking bread, would disqualify him from leading the assembly in worship to the Father, e.g., dumbness, excessive stammering, defective organs of speech. I remember a good brother thus afflicted, to whose presence none thought of objecting, but to whose audible exercises, which were frequent, some did take exception. Probably he would have been more in the love of the Spirit, had he but rarely taken audible part in the worship. But the physical defects, enumerated in Leviticus 21" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 21 ,as preventing the Sons of Aaron from exercising their public priestly functions, would correspond to-day rather to moral defects, which though not bringing the person in question under discipline, would render him unfit to lead the assembly in its priestly worship.

How could a brother for instance, who was known to lose his temper in public, or be a quarrelsome person, or had a bad financial record, be indicated as a leader of the saints? How could a bankrupt, who had not paid his creditors, or a man who owed money to the saints or the world, pretend “to offer the bread of God” in the public assembly? The lack of conscience evidenced by attempting to do so, would in itself be but poor proof of the reality of his Christian profession, though he might still be allowed to break the bread, pending possible developments. It might be hoped that his own sense of propriety would keep him silent, but if not, the elder brethren would doubtless feel their responsibility to act.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Highfield Road Gospel Hall Toronto has been in the news for a video that was posted online from a conflict between a group of neighbors and a group of people from the church.

Incorrect Assumptions

The street preaching was interpreted by some neighbors as "an attack", "a protest" or a "method to drive out gays from their neighborhood".  "Messages of hate" and "homophobic" as other descriptions appeared on blogs across the internet. Predictably comments from Christians and gays alike condemned the group for its perceived attacks.

Corrections

To the credit of journalists Daniel Dale and Jesse McLean, from The Star, interviews were conducted with people from both sides of the street to try to shed some light on what the two groups were saying. In the article Viral video in Leslieville is not what it seems , the reports show that the church was not, and never has used its sermons, singing or prayers as weapons in the culture war.  

 ----- quote from article -------------

“I don’t like how the whole issue is being distorted,” said Blair Chiasson, a civil servant who lives with his partner, Paul Collins. “Nothing happened. Nothing happened.”

Christine Oddy was on her porch when she heard a sermon which featured, she said, “something about blood running down the street, souls going to purgatory.” She approached the parishioners. “You are hateful people, that’s what you are,” she can be heard saying on the video.

Online, hundreds of others joined her in condemnation. Prominent U.S. sex writer Dan Savage, who is gay, called the parishioners “Christofascists.” Another gay blogger called them “Christian terrorists.”

To Chiasson, however, they are the unthreatening “church people” — and they did not do anything wrong.

Chiasson, 45, said he believes Highfield parishioners only choose to read the Bible from a spot near their house because a fire hydrant prevents cars from parking there.

He said the parishioners preached on the street long before he and Collins, 47, arrived 13 years ago. Moreover, he said, he and Collins have never felt personally targeted by the parishioners, have never heard them say anything homophobic, and have not even been present for three years on the summer Sundays when the infrequent sermons occur.

He said the parishioners are “a part of the neighbourhood” with the right to speak freely. The neighbours who confronted them, he said, “overreacted.”

“We don’t even know the people that started this,” he said. “So the people who are apparently our defenders, we don’t even know who they are.”

--------------- end quote --------------

Some churches try to target gays with provocative statements that are meant to enrange and belittle their opponents.  Churches like Westboro Baptist are well known for proudly display signs saying hurtful and provocative things.  However, the churches that meet in Gospel Hall buildings are careful to refrain from political involvement or name calling.

The debate now has turned to whether or not preaching on the street is a right or an annoyance.  In a follow-up article, reporter Jessica McLean asks the question - A righteous disturbance or a democratic right?

• About this site

• About this site