Jim Batterton

• About this site

Martin Prins

“I-I-I don’t know,” I answered, “Nobody knows.”

“I do,” she said confidently. "Sixteen years ago, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior and I received eternal life.” She then got out her Dutch Bible. Together we read...

• About this site

Phil Sarlo's Personal Story

• About this site

James Dyck

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

Peter Ramsay - I thought... “Yes I have done some wrong things, but I am not bad enough to go to Hell. There are many people who really deserve to be there – but I don’t."

The very last thing I wanted to do was to let go of the things that I thought earned me favor with God and gave me a special status.

• About this site

• About this site

THE SABBATH AND THE LORD’S DAY

Is there any Scripture for making the first day of the week or the Lord’s Day, a Sabbath, on the ground that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day?

None whatever; the Sabbath never was changed from the seventh to the first day of theweek by any divine revelation in the Scriptures. The two days are quite distinct.  The former was the Jews’ day, and we read in the Acts that the apostles would improve the occasion, by going to the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath to get an opportunity for testimony (Acts 13:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:42; Acts 18:4)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:4), and then on the first day of the week, break bread with the disciples (Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: .). Their idea of the Sabbath was a well earned physical rest after six days of work, but true spiritual rest they never earned. The true rest, that of the Lord’s Day—the resurrection day—is rest in Him. We begin with this rest, and then work throughout the week. The two days ran concurrently in the Acts period, but there is not a line to show that the first day of the week was a physical rest-day. Probably the reason why the early disciples broke bread at night was that they were working all day. A certain legal sect gets a great advantage over denominational Christians owing to this common, mistaken notion. Its adherents point out that God never changed the seventh to the first day, and therefore, as they are legal to the core, they enforce on all literal obedience to what is to them the greatest commandment of all— Sabbath observance. Yet they themselves do not strictly keep it as the law enjoins, but are content with an approximate obedience, as long as you join the ranks of their denomination. It is perfectly true that “God rested on the seventh day from all His works,” as recorded in Genesis 2:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:2, but though God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, there is no mention that it was instituted as a rest day for man till Millenniums later, nor have we a single case recorded in the history of the antediluvian patriarchs, nor of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, of Sabbatical observance. What we read of Sabbatical resting in Gen. 2." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 2. 2 was no doubt coincidental with creation, but Genesis was only written by Moses, toward the end of the sojourn in Egypt. The Sabbath was not formally enjoined upon Israel till the giving of the law at Sinai in Exodus 20," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20, though shortly before, when God gave the Manna, He arranged for a double quantity to be collected on the sixth day, “in view of the rest of the holy Sabbath,” so soon to be instituted. The collecting of the manna was to go on right through the desert wanderings, so that the question was settled at the start by anticipation, how manna was to be collected for the Sabbath’s consumption, preparatory to the institution of the day, in chap. 20. Later, in chap. 31. the true import of the Sabbath is explained (verses i 3, x 6: “Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. . . . It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever”).

The death-penalty was attached to a failure to observe it in every particular, e.g., the man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Nor were Israelites allowed to light a fire on the seventh day. But the Sabbath with its stringent laws was never given to the Gentile nations and still less to the church. The question as to the advantages of one day’s rest in seven is not disputed here. There can be no doubt at all that in practice some such rest is called for. Doubtless governments have a perfect right to decree such cessation from work on the pattern of the Jewish Sabbath, but that is totally different from enforcing a sort of Sunday Sabbath as a religious obligation, which is one of the pillars of Christendom under the title of “Sabbath Observance” (see Colossians 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:16). What then is the Lord’s day?

It is the first day of the week, the resurrection day, on which the early disciples came together to break bread (Acts zo), and on which they were enjoined to lay by them in store as God prospered them, to avoid special collections when the apostle arrived (1 Corinthians 16:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:2). But because the day is not the Jews’ day, it is not for that “my day,” any more than any other day is “my day.” This is negative, but is there no positive enforcement? The first day is what no other is said to be: “the Lord’s day,” and though there is not a line of Scripture, known to the writer, which enjoins a legal or Sabbatical observance of the day on anyone, if it is His day, it is peculiarly fitting to regard it as such, and to avoid anything which would unnecessarily make the day common. The way we spend the Lord’s day may well be the straw which shews how the wind blows. The man who deliberately flouts the Lord’s day, flouts the Lordship of Christ, and shews the direction in which his whole life is trending.
W.H.

• About this site

The Bible teaches that the consequence of sin is death.

Genesis 2:16-17" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:16-17  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  (17)  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Romans 6:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Natual Consequences

Even the most rabid libertarian structures his life on the system of reward and punishment built into nature. Although he may choose to dispense with any reward and punishment system in raising his child, he pursues the reward of continued life by eating appropriate foods. He avoids the punishment of terminating life by not eating poison. If there were no consistency of cause and effect, we would randomly stumble toward annihilation of the planet. On one day, sterilizing a baby's feeding bottle might preserve him from germs. On the next day, it might take the child's life. In the physical realm, we recognize the necessity of both a positive and negative system of cause and effect.

If no concept of reward and punishment existed in the moral realm, God would be removed from His throne. If, on the one hand, every act (whether consistent with God's character or not) had a beneficial outcome, God would not be holy On the other hand, if every act (whether consistent with God's character or not) had a harmful outcome, God would not be good.

What is Justice?

If, then, we recognize the value of a system of reward and punishment, let me pose a series of questions, addressing two basic issues. First, is justice - a fair system of reward and punishment - possible? Second, what punishments are appropriate?

Is Justice Possible?

When ruffians roam the streets randomly victimizing the innocent, is there no inner voice that says, "This must be stopped?" Can a man of means and charisma viciously end the lives of two others and continue to live comfortably without any public outcry? Can two men further their private agenda by blasting millions of dollars worth of public property and incidently snuffing out over 160 lives, randomly scaring scores of families for life, without someone asserting that there must be justice?

History records many instances of benevolent rule in the hands of a strong leader, yet the general lesson of past history is that power corrupts men and that a craving for power drives corrupt men. Power concentrated in the hands of a man or a totalitarian state has endangered, rather than ensured, justice. Decentralized power placed in the hands of the governed is now having its run at a place in history. If we concede that democracy is the best form of government that man can devise, are we satisfied with justice as it now exists? Is it an unfair generalization to state that society consoles itself with the thought that the system is not perfect, but it is the best we can do?

Is idealism dead? Has the humanist arrived at the conclusion that the only alternative is unacceptable? Or shall we who worship the God who embodies moral absolutes concede that His character shall never be vindicated and His universe is beyond His power to regulate?

Justice is only possible in the hand of a sovereign and righteous God. God has stated, "He will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:31). His holy character and the sordid path of history demand that He carry out justice. His holy character and His sovereignty give Him the right to carry out justice. His supreme power uniquely enables Him to carry out justice, He must, He should, He can an He will punish sin!
What Punishments are Appropriate?

Recognizing that God alone is capable of administering justice, we must allow Him to choose what is just as a penalty for sin. And He has already disclosed the penalty. As unacceptable to the modern mind as it may be, the Scriptures declare that Sinners "shall go away into everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46).

John R.W. Stott, noted evangelical theologian, claims that his statement in recent years was merely wondering out loud about the eventual annihilation of sinners. Suddenly men who claim to acknowledge the authority of the Bible have poured out of their closets to jump on the bandwagon which once carried only modernists and cultists. These evangelicals have joined hands to teach that annihilation, not eternal, conscious punishment, awaits the unbeliever. What does the Bible teach?

Examples from the Scriptures

What else can be the meaning of Jude's statement that "Sodom and Gomorrah ... are [not were] set forth for an example, suffering [not suffered, but are suffering] the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:7)? Can it be possible that those who worship the Beast have been annihilated when the Scriptures say, "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night" (Revelation 14:11)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 14:11)? The story of the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31) is a factual account, complete with the names of two of the individuals involved. Was the rich man consciously enduring punishment when he said, "I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:24)? Was there any prospect of an end of this conscious torment when Abraham told him the "great gulf" was fixed? No one would ever give him relief by going there; no one could ever grant him release to come from there verse 26). Why did the Lord say that living without an eye or hand or foot is preferable to being in "hell fire" (Mark 9:43-48)" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:43-48)? Could He have exaggerated when He reiterated that "their worm dieth not?" The word "worm" is figurative, but He clearly implied that "their worm" is a personal anguish that will never "die". Is annihilation consistent with the Lord's repeated refrain linking this personal, unending anguish with "the fire that never shall be quenched?" Just reviewing these passages which are so clear in teaching eternal, conscious punishment is overwhelming to heart and mind. Those we love are rushing to this incomparable, unthinkable tragedy.

Can a Loving God Condemn Eternally?

But why such an extreme and severe punishment from a loving God? Perhaps the reason so many try to rule out eternal, conscious punishment is because of failure to understand the offensiveness of sin to God. Every sin defies the authority of God by saying that man has the right to decide what is beneficial for himself. Every sin denies the goodness of the character of God. If sin is defined by the character of God, not merely by an arbitrary choice God has made, then every choice to sin says that sin is good and therefore that God is not good. Every sin displays an inveterate hatred toward God. Sin rent the heart of God with the agony of Calvary. Sinners need to know this and saints need to be reminded of this: sin is so offensive, abominable and destructive in God's view, that nothing else is an appropriate penalty but eternal, conscious punishment.

Shortly after a pipe bombing in Centennial Olympic Park Atlanta, marred the 1996 Olympics, a radio commentator was extolling the virtues of the Olympic Games. He opined that they represent the best of athletic achievement, endeavor and devotion; they showcase the ideal of global harmony, as athletes from vastly different cultures compete in an atmosphere of mutual respect; by their long tradition, they form a link with what is good in the past. He reviewed the tragic killings at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and then expressed his revulsion toward the person who so senselessly, callously and violently dared to spoil such an exalted event as the Olympics. He cryptically closed his commentary with a call for damnation on such an individual, "whoever he may be." Because the bomber desecrated such a special, significant and unique event, the commentator deemed him worthy of damnation.

Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki who presided over 0.J. Simpson's civil trial denied a defense request for a new trial. He considered the $33.5 million judgment "reasonable and not excessive." Why? "The reprehensibility of this defendant is without a doubt most grievous and beyond comparison." And what shall we say of the sinner whose sin has stained God's world with the blood of His Son, has attempted to besmirch the pristine character of God and has affronted the very throne of God? "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy...?" (Hebrews 10:29)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:29).

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Help will be valued upon Genesis 4:4, 5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:4, 5, where we read that God had “respect” to Abel and his offering and not to Cain and his, and Romans 2:11," TARGET="_blank">Romans 2:11, where it is said that there is “no respect of persons with God.”

We can be quite sure that this latter verse is ever and absolutely true. The Greek word, “to have respect of persons,” means, “to receive the face of a person,” i.e. to look at the outward appearance—at the gold ring and the gay clothing, at the feature and the stature, etc., whereas we know that “God looks, not at the outward appearance, but at the heart.” When, therefore, we read that God had respect to Abel and his offering, we must divest ourselves of any idea of favouritism or unfair preference on His part. In fact, the Hebrew word in Genesis 4," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4, “to have respect,” has no thought of respect of persons, but of looking to someone, or something. The word is used in Psalm 119:117" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:117—”I will have respect unto thy statutes continually”; again in 2 Samuel 22:42" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 22:42—”They looked but there was none to save,” and also in Isaiah 17:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 17:7—”In that day shall a man look to his Maker.” We may be sure that had it been righteously possible, God would have accepted Cain as well as Abel. The key to the verse is in Hebrews 11:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:4—”By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain . . . God testifying of his gifts.” It was not that Abel was “more excellent” than Cain, though very likely he was, but that his sacrifice was more excellent; so that God simply had respect to Abel because of his sacrifice. The expression, “by faith,” shows, I think, conclusively that God had revealed how his creatures were to approach him, “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” No doubt, Cain’s sacrifice was beautiful enough, but it was Cain’s way, not God’s. It was merely the work of his hands-of the same vegetable kingdom as the fig-leaves of which Adam and Eve had made themselves aprons. Abel offered from the first-fruits of  the flock and of the fat thereof, i.e. the slain lamb. In Abel’s offering there were two things : there was something which spoke of his repentance, it was as though he admitted that he deserved the death of the victim; and there was something, too, which spoke of the lamb of God, without blemish, slain before the foundation of the world. How far Abel apprehended the truth we cannot say; he obeyed and allwas known to God. We are blessed according to His appreciation of the infinite Person and work of Christ, not according to ours, which, however, does determine our enjoyment of our blessings.

W.H.

• 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

• About this site

• About this site