Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Stephen Vance

• About this site

Grace Taufeek's Story - "...an ultrasound showed a mass around my spinal canal. I was confused, sad, mad, and scared as I was trying to realize what was really happening. I was quite scared – sometimes even to tears – but deep down, I always had a sense of peace..." (more)

• About this site

Elizabeth Stickfort

• About this site

• About this site

David Jones

• About this site

What is Deliverance Ministries

"Deliverance" ministers address personal problems in people that are believed to be caused by demons or Satan.  The routine for binding a demon is something like a psychiatrist practicing exorcism.
First the deliverance minister may ask a few questions about the person and his/her problems.  "How long has this been occurring?" "When is it most frequent?" etc.

It is assumed that the person needs deliverance from a demon to cure the problem whether it be unexplained pain or a bad habit such as alcoholism.  
The deliverance ministries approach then tries to begin a conversation with the demon trying to evoke a response from the demon.  If this begins to sound like a prohibited practice in scripture, then you are correct.  Notice a few verses from the Bible here:

Leviticus 19:31" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31  "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:10-12  There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer  (11)  or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead,  (12)  for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

Leviticus 20:27" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:27  "A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

1 Corinthians 10:20-21" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:20-21  No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.  (21)  You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

The minister of a deliverance ministry may then try to intimidate the demon through speaking loudly, commanding in an authoritative voice, invoking the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  

If there are not quick results, the practitioner may schedule future sessions to talk to the demons again.  
Other forms of deliverance may be in the attempts to bind Satan from entering into a new church or preventing him from attacking a house.

One may seriously question whether such practices border on the spells and charms that cults prefer to practice rather than praying to the Lord to protect and prosper.

If you are feeling the need of God's protection, pray directly to Him, not to Satan or to his demons.  The Lord's own example of prayer for the Disciples includes the phrases:

"lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" (Matthew 6:9-13)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 6:9-13)

Some verses for you to read for comfort include:

Psalm 139" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139 – the omnipresent, omnipotent God of the Universe knows you better than you know yourself.

Psalms 91:1-4" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 91:1-4  He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.  (2)  I will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."  (3)  For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence.  (4)  He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.

The most important protection that God can provide is the salvation of your soul.  See other questions regarding salvation for eternal security.

I know Christ took our sins on the cross, but for some reason I'm not sure if I'm saved. 

• About this site

HOW MANY CUPS?
Is it not as much a departure from the scriptural practice to use two or so cups at the Lord’s table, as it would be to use fifty-two?

Though the unity of the cup is not insisted upon in the Scriptures in the same way as that of the loaf, which in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: represents the one indivisible Body of Christ, nevertheless it is always “the cup” that is spoken of—the unique receptacle of that which represents the blood of Christ. But even in the case of the loaf, as each member present partakes, the outward unity of the loaf is not preserved. Indeed, even before that, as the brother who gives thanks, breaks the loaf, and for convenience places the portions on different plates, the figure of the unity of the body is in no way affected, as it would be were the loaf originally cut up in in bits. No more would the unity of the cup be, even though it stood on the same ground as the loaf, by being poured into different glasses or cups, for convenience of distribution. It is still “the cup,” each being filled from the one original receptacle. But by the introduction of what is called “the individual cup” for each “communicant,” the receptacles are multiplied and the identity of the wine in them is completely lost and the thought of fellowship hindered. As we practise it, though there be two or more cups, for purposes of distribution, all are filled from the original receptacle and still constitute “the cup”—the communion of the blood of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Were “the brethren of the Lord” in such passages as Matthew 12: 46," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12: 46, Matthew 13: 55," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: 55, etc., His actual brethren? or were they his cousins, as some teach?

Were it not for controversial reasons I do not think any such question would ever have been raised. The word for “cousin” is distinct, and that used for the Lord’s “brethren,” though sometimes meaning “stepbrother,” is the ordinary one for brother, and there is no hint in the Gospels of Joseph having been married before. This effort to make the word mean “cousin” is supposed to be necessary in order to defend the miraculous birth and the false idea existing that it is holier not to have children, than to have them; whereas the two thoughts—the Virgin Birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary, are quite distinct and independent. While we believe unswervingly in the former, we hold that the testimony of Scripture is against the latter. The expression, “the brethren (adelphoi) of the Lord,” occurs nine times in the Gospels and once in the Acts. In Matthew 12:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:46 and its parallels in Mark and Luke (where His mother and brethren come to Him); Matthew 13:55" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:55 and its parallel in Mark (where the brethren are named Jacob, Joseph, Simon and Judas, four common Jewish names), in connection with His mother and sisters. The four others are: John 2:12" TARGET="_blank">John 2:12—”His mother and His brethren,” and chap. 7. 3, 5, io, where His brethren are said not to have believed in Him. However, it is asserted by the advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that “these brethren” were the sons of Alphus, the husband of the sister of the mother of our Lord, and therefore his cousins. If this were so, it is remarkable that they should be so consistently found with the mother of Jesus, their aunt, rather than with their own mother, the wife of Alphus or Clopas, who was still alive. Now, it is nowhere affirmed that any of the Lord’s brethren were among the twelve apostles; indeed it is plainly stated in John 7," TARGET="_blank">John 7, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him.” But among the apostles there were at least two sons of Alphus, James and his brother Judas, and possibly Matthew, who in Mark’s Gospel is said to be “the son of Alphus,” and these certainly could not be among those who did not believe on Him. The two things are inconsistent. Afterwards the brothers did believe, but they never entered the ranks of the twelve apostles. In fact they are in some places distinguished from the apostles, e.g., in Acts 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:14, where they were present in the prayer meeting, but apart from the eleven. See also 1 Corinthians 9:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:5, “As well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas.” In reality there are two verses in the New Testament which state implicitly that Mary had other children besides our Lord, namely Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: 25 (“till she had brought forth her first-born son”); and Luke 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:7 (“And she brought forth her first-born son”). Now, though the Revisers have omitted, “first-born,” in Matthew 1:25," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25, the word is not a plain and clear error, and therefore by the canon of authority laid down for the Revisionists,* it ought to have been left alone. The Luke passage is not disputed and is very emphatic. Had our Lord been the only Child of Mary, He wouldcertainly have been called her only Son—her “monogenës.” As it is, He is called in both these passages her first-born, her “prötotokos.”

W.H.

• About this site

Is tithing the same as giving in the New Testament?

No.

1 Corinthians 16:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:2 teaches us that our giving to the Lord should be systematic and proportionate. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." The N.T. leaves each believer free to decide before the Lord what the proportion should be. "Not grudgingly, or of necessity" (2 Corinthians 9:7)" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 9:7) describes such giving. "If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not not according to that he hath not" (2 Corinthians 8:12)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 8:12). In times of economic depression it may be difficult for many to give a tenth. Now many believers may be able to give more than a tenth.

W. Gustafson

• About this site

• About this site

Should the word “sin” in Genesis 4:7" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:7 be “sin-offering” as some translators suggest?

The fact is that the same Hebrew word, "hattath”, may be rendered either “sin” or “sin-offering,” according to the context in which it occurs. In the Authorjsed Version it is given, “sin,” about 17 times, and as “sin-offering” about 120 times; while it is also in a few places rendered, “punishment” (for sin). All this is of interest, because it suggests that the sin, its punishment, and the offering which atones for it, are in a sense equivalent in value, since one word serves for all three.

But naturally the above fact makes it diflicult in a few passages to decide which rendering into English is the proper one. In Gen. 4." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 4. 7 the Newberry Bible gives, “sin offering” in its margin; and this rendering well agrees with the verb “lieth” which follows, for this, as the New- berry margin also points out, is a word used of animals “crouching” or lying down. It is the same Hebrew word that occurs in Genesis  49:14 of an ass crouching down under its load, and in Isaiah 17" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 17: 2 of flocks lying down to rest.

Of course, the distinction between the various kinds of offerings was not made known at that early time as it was afterwards in Leviticus. Yet God’s act in clothing Adam and Eve with coats of the skin of some animal was doubtless an object lesson to them of the necessity for blood- shedding, as pointing the way to remission of sins. Probably most of the sacrifices offered in times prior to Leviticus took in more aspects of truth than the one, and might be considered from different points of view.

If the verse be taken in this sense, the meaning would be, “If thou art a well-doer shalt thou not be accepted? but if not, a lamb or other animal is readily available, lying as it were at thy very door, to be made use of in offering for thy sin.”

On the other hand, in Cain’s previous “gift-offering” there was no acknowledgement of sinnership on his part. He had assumed the place of a “well-doer,” without having a right to it.

An interesting point which would follow on this view of the passage is that Cain, instead of shedding the blood of the readily available animal, that it might cry for mercy on his behalf, went out to shed his brother’s blood, which cried for vengeance on him (v. 10).

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site