The Two Roads Chart

• About this site

Jim Joyce - When I was 16, I decided to leave home and live on the street.  I thought real living was having fun and going after a thrill.  I became a regular user of drugs and alcohol. In my parents' home, God and spiritual things were most important. Just as I decided to leave the house, it occurred to me, “If I leave, I will leave behind the gospel. This will be my final decision to reject God.” It was as real as if I was opening a door and walking into hell. I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to be lost. I wanted to be saved...

• About this site

Rosa and her son Jesus

• About this site

Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

 Baptism

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

Go to the main Sunday school page for puzzles, lesson plans and other activities for Sunday school teachers.

• About this site

In Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 does the Rock represent Christ? Or does it mean Truth? Or does it mean the Word of God? If it is Christ, can you give Scripture to prove this?

No doubt, our questioner is aware that this is a much disputed passage; though personally we believe the true meaning is not far to seek, in the light of the context and of the general analogy of Scripture. The disciples’ answer to the Lord’s question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” led on to His second question, “But whom say ye that I am?” The Lord desired to hear from their own lips their confession of Him. All were addressed, but one—Simon Peter—replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” And the Lord pronounced him—”Simon Bar-jona”—blessed (lit, happy), for this had not been learned in the schools of men, but direct from His Father. Not only so, but as Simon Peter had confessed his Lord’s Name before His fellow-disciples, now on the principle of Luke 12:8," TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:8, the Lord confesses his name—”And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter.” In other words He confirms to him the name of Petros or a Stone, which He had conferred on him at his introduction by his brother Andrew (John 1:41)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:41).

Moreover, the Lord has something more important to dwell on, namely, the noble, God-given confession by Peter of His true Messiahship and glory as the Eternal Son—something bigger than a “Petros,” a stone,—a “Petra,” a rock. This distinction is common in classical Greek, and though in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord usually spoke, the difference is not shown, both words being Cepha, the fact that the inspired evangelist, in translating, brings out the classical difference, seems to show clearly that the Spirit of God intended the difference to be preserved. Peter is never certainly spoken of as a rock (petra) in any other place of Scripture, but he himself speaks of Christ as the rock (petra) of offence, and this is the word used in 1 Corinthians 10:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:4—”They drank of that spiritual rock (petra) that followed them, and that rock (petra) was Christ.”

Peter was “a living stone” along with his fellow disciples, but Christ was the living Rock. Our Lord’s words accordingly are not, “Thou art Petros, and upon thee I will build my church,” but “Thou art Petros and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Perhaps we shall be told this is only Protestant and heretical doctrine. But was then Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in the 4th century, heretical? and yet he writes, “The rock petra is the blessed only rock faith—confessed by the mouth of Peter.” Was Jerome heretical, who writes, “Christ has founded His church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the Apostle Peter has been named”? Chrysostom whom we cannot admit was a heretic, says, “On this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession of Peter,” and so Ambrose of Milan, Basil of Seleucia, and indeed over forty of the early fathers and ecclesiastical writers (not all, we presume, Protestants or heretical teachers) held that the rock was Christ Himself as revealed in the confession of Peter. So Augustine of Hippo: “On this rock (petra) I will build my church, not on Peter, the stone that thou art, but on the rock that thou hast confessed, I will build thee, who in this reply standest for the church.” We may thank God that we have something more stable than vacillating Peter upon which to build for eternity.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE HOUSE OF GOD

Do you think that the House of God is regarded in Scripture as “the place of profession,” as is sometimes taught?  That is, the "profession" of one who is not saved, but is a part of church culture.

A good deal is taught on this subject, which we do well to test by the Word of God. It is sometime erroneously taught that the House of God is the place of Christian profession, and that God recognises this as a “third something” between the true Church and the world. What is known as Household-Baptism, for instance, thus seeks to justify the baptism of children and unconverted household servants. These are brought, they assert, into the House of God—they are “in the ambit of the Church of God,” as the strange expression goes. They are there on the ground of profession; but what profession can infants make? And if unconverted persons make any, it can only be false. That man has made a mixed thing of it by carelessness in reception, or by neglect of Scriptural discipline, is sadly true; but to make out that God is responsible for, or connives at such a state of things is indeed serious.

Now, the expression “House of God” refers in the Old Testament, if we except Genesus 28:17, 22, where Jacob uses the expression in a figurative sense, to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, and though uncleanness and even idols (2 Chronicles 33: 7)" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33: 7) might invade that House, they never formed part of it, and at every revival were drastically removed and cleansed away (e.g., 2 Chronicles 24:13;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 24:13; 2 Chronicles 29:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 29:16; 2 Chronicles 33:15)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33:15).

Paul in writing to Timothy speaks of his knowing “how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This is the local aspect—the Church of God, viewed as the place of responsibility. Undesirable elements did incorporate themselves, alas too easily, in the local “house” (see Jude), but though the condition was detected, it was not approved of. Ecciesiastics justify the sad lack of discipline in their organisations by the parable of the tares and the wheat—”Let both grow together until the harvest”—but they seem to forget that “the field is the world,” not the church. Undesirable visitors, thieves, and such-like, may find entrance into a house, but it is contrary to the desire of the head of the house, and they form no part of the household and must be removed as soon as detected. In Hebrews we read, “But Christ as a Son over His own house: whose house are we, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:6), that is, those who continue in the way prove themselves to be the House of God, the rest have no part in it.

It is indeed a blessed privilege of the people of God no longer to be “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:19). And this is His purpose in gathering saints to Christ —“To whom coming as unto a Living Stone. . . chosen of God and precious; Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:4, ). “Ye are God’s building.. . ye are the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:9, 16). When the apostle speaks of the “House of God,” does he then view it as possibly or even probably including “false brethren crept in unawares,” or ideally? I believe the latter, for whatever is not God’s building is an extraneous element to be purged out. For instance, in Hebrews 10:21," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:21, Christ is presented as “High Priest over the house of God”—surely He is not the High Priest of false worshippers—trespassers in that house. Again, Peter reminds us that “judgment must first begin at the house of God.” Has he in view the heterogeneous company, that some seem to see almost exclusively, in the place of profession—a mixture of believers and unbelievers, because they all profess and call themselves Christians? I think the context shows rather that the true House of God is in view—contrasted with those that “obey not the gospel of God,” and paralleled in the following verse with the righteous—”If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:17, 18). Where is there room in this verse for a third something, neither righteous nor ungodly, but “professors.” The original from which this quotation is taken bears this out: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 2:31)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 2:31).

These latter, including false professors, will be recompensed not now, but in the future. But someone will say, “Does not Paul speak of ‘the great house of Christendom’ in his Second Epistle to Timothy?” Certainly not in so many words, though such a form of words has been dogmatically attributed to his writings. What he does say, I believe parenthetically, is, “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour” (chap. 2. 20). This passage and the ‘parable of the tares seem to be the sheet anchors of ecclesiastics to justify their mixed systems. To them “the great house” is “the Church” in their broad sense of a great ecclesiastical, christened organisation, reciting the apostles’ creed and practising “the sacraments.”

Others, as we have seen, understand Paul to mean “the great house of Christendom,” though I believe such an idea springs from a misreading of the passage. I submit again that verse zo is in the nature of a parenthesis, explaining the use the apostle is about to make of the term, “vessel unto honour” in verse 21. “In a great house” (that is in any great house in Rome, where he was in prison, or in Ephesus, where Timothy is supposed to have been), there are vessels of various materials and of varied uses. At this point the apostle resumes his exhortation, “If a man purge himself from these”—the evil things and men above referred to—he shall be something corresponding to the literal material vessels of gold and silver of any great house, namely a spiritual vessel unto honour in the House of God, “sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”

One does not wish to dogmatise, but I would ask my readers, who desire to be still subject to the Word of God, apart from the glamour of great names, carefully to weigh above with the Scriptures.

W.H.

• About this site

FORGIVENESS
Is there to be forgiveness without acknowledgment of wrong?

There are various categories of forgiveness in the Scriptures, which must be distinguished—God’s forgiveness of sinners; the Father’s forgiveness of His children; ecclesiastical forgiveness; and personal forgiveness.

As to the first named, though it is a mistake to apply to the conversion of the sinner, the words of 1 John 1:9" TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, etc.,” which have to do directly with God’s children, yet it may be confidently affirmed that no sinner ever received divine forgiveness without acknowledgment of sin in one form or another, tacit or explicit, leading on to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, when revealed. But here it is not so much a confession of particular sins, as of sinnership—”God be merciful to me a sinner.” This corresponds with “repentance unto life,” the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in conviction, without which there can be no true conversion to God.

In the case of the Father’s forgiveness to His erring children, it is conditional on confession of sins; then “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is perfectly true that God’s forgiveness has already covered the sins in question, but His forgiveness as Father is needed, if communion with Him is to be restored. The confession should be real and full, and at once forgiveness and cleansing follow, though not often realised to the full at once. David was forgiven the instant he confessed his sin in the presence of Nathan, but later he wrote the 51st Psalm. This may correspond to the application of “the water of separation” on the third and seventh days (Numbers 19: 12, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 19: 12, 19).

As for ecclesiastical forgiveness, this is that which is referred to in Matthew 18:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23" TARGET="_blank">John 20:23—the “binding or loosing,” the remitting or retaining, of sins, not by ecclesiastical officials, the pretended priests of Christendom, but by the local church. Nothing is said in these passages of the condition attaching to the forgiveness, but the case that arose in the Corinthian Church (see chap. . i), throws light on this, for in the second epistle, the restoration of the offender is recommended by the apostle on the ground of his repentance—”lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow”—and if they forgive him, he (Paul) will forgive also (2 Corinthians 2: 7-10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2: 7-10). Paul does not appeal to some leaders in the Corinthian Church, but to the Church as a whole. This ecclesiastical forgiveness has been perverted into what is known as auricular confession, and priestly absolution, things, as we believe, totally foreign to the New Testament and Christianity. As for individual forgiveness, there should be from the first a forgiving spirit on the part of the offended person; he must not bear a grudge or count the offender as an enemy, but be ready to forgive (Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22), but he must not express his forgiveness until the offence is acknowledged. To do so would be a subtle way of putting your opponent in the wrong, and be an insult rather than a favour. “If thy brother tresspass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him” (Luke 17:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3, 4).

William Hoste

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6. between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall. . . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in chap. 9. 6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25: “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isa. 9." TARGET="_blank">Isa. 9. 6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son. W.H.

• About this site