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

• About this site

George Menard

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Shelly McKenna

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

WTB - Want to Buy - Christian Website or your website based on the Bible, Sunday school, prayer, Bible study or related topic.

If you have a website that has been useful for sharing the Bible with the Internet audience but now find it difficult to maintain, please contact us at using the Contact link on the left.

Information we would like to know about your site:

1) Costs.  How much are you asking to sell your site for?

2) Value.  A website is valuable not for it's design, but for it's traffic. We are interested in buying a site that has some value in its assets such: established time online (more than one year), has some traffic (100 or more visits per day), some quality inbound links from other internet sites (such as dmoz or yahoo directory),  some subscribers in a mailing list, and some search keywords that are in the first 10 results of Google, Yahoo or Bing (MSN).

3) History.  Tell us about your site. Why and when did you create it? What makes you decide to no longer operate it?

GospelHall.org is a Christian website whose mission is to share the message of the Bible as God's Word.  Any websites that we aquire are operated on this understanding.

Shad Sluiter

• 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

• About this site

• About this site

• 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

The question of women serving as church leaders is one of the most read debated questions in Bible-believing churches.  In business, government, sports, science and other fields, women have proved themselves able and intelligent in every way.  Why do some churches retain old ideas then and keep them out of the preaching role?  The answer is that a church is not guided on the same principles as other areas of society.  While some church groups may feel free to treat the Bible as only one several of their sources of authority, the Holy Scriptures should the main purpose of a church is to put into practice the word of God (1 Timothy 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15).  The question of whether women should preach is not a question of personal preference or ability, but whether it is in line with the teaching of the Bible.

Relevant scriptures

Some relevant scriptures in regards to this question include 1 Timothy 2:11-14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13.  The way we understand these words from God will guide us.  A similar question in regards to women in the church is to the question of the silence of women.  These scriptures are 1 Corinthians 11:5;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and are answered in the question “Should women speak in the church?”

1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 – Authority is male

 1 Timothy 2:11-14" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  (12)  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  (13)  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  (14)  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

 While in a church gathering, there are distinct roles given to men and women as a result of (1) creation “Adam was formed first, then Eve” and (2) the results of the fall “the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”.  Teaching the scriptures, according to this passage, is a male role.  Exercising authority over man is also not permitted for women.  This would include leadership roles and public teaching roles in the church.

Having stated the clearest interpretation of this passage, it should be noted that there are attempts to nullify this primary meaning by applying other interpretations.

 Women had a lack of education?

The first objection to this statement in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 is that women were not capable in their culture to teach the scriptures to men because of their limited experience, education and lack of opportunities from centuries of male-dominated traditions.  However the verse does not say “due to lack of education, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority”.  Formal education did not factor into Christ’s decision to choose the disciples / apostles and it was not a factor in excluding women either. 

Only for the wives?

Another argument against this passage is to say that the passage only applies to women who are married.  Some translations of the passage say “wives” rather than “women” in general.  However, the passage is teaching about men and women. The references to men and women in the surrounding verses make clear sense for both married and single people.  For example in 1 Timothy 2:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.” Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer?  A second example in 1 Timothy 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:9  say “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”.  Are only wives to dress modestly? Of course not.  The passage is talking to people both married and single.

Examples of women ministers

Another argument used against this scripture is the mention of women who served as deaconesses in the Bible.  Service is a godly work for both men and women.  However, the service of godly women would not have contradicted Holy Scripture in that of taking a leadership role or in public teaching of men.  One example of woman who served was the couple Aquilla and Pricilla.  In Acts 18," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18, they work as tent makers with Paul.  At the end of the chapter, in verse 26, Apollos was invited to their house to learn more of the way of God.  This threesome Bible study resulted in that Apollos became a better public teacher.

Act 18:26" TARGET="_blank">Act 18:26  “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

The women mentioned in Romans 16" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16 are referred to as “servants” and “helpers” and “workers” including Phoebe, Pricilla, Mary and Junia.  It is not necessary to think of these women as part of any special religious class of leadership. Any sister who serves can be a “deaconess” or “servant” or “worker” without being a teacher or exercising authority over a man. 

1 Timothy 3:1-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13  and Titus 1:5-9" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5-9 – Elders and Deacons are Men of Respect

Among the list of requirements for both elders and deacons in the assembly is the reference to a man with his family: “husband of one wife and his children are believers”. The words “he” and “his” are mentioned eight times in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3.  The leaders of the church are required to be male. 

Conclusion

The scriptures are the church’s operating manual.  The question of women leadership in the church therefore is not to be based on questions of ability or fairness or from trends in politics or business.  1 Timothy and Titus teach that God has put men in position of authority.  The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching or service, but it is not to be in the context of authority over the man.

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site