Sunday School Activities

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• 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

Joel Hovey

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Can you give any Scripture for the “silencing” of a brother? For what “crime” is he to be “silenced”? and who is to do it?

This is an important enquiry. I suppose the questioner does not mean literally a “crime,” for surely no one guilty of a serious moral offence against the law could be allowed to preach or teach, even if he were allowed for the time being to remain in the assembly, which could hardly ever be the case. But I suppose what is meant is some brother, against whom, perhaps, no real accusation can be made, but who has been requested not to minister the Word.

Now, of course, we cannot judge of any particular case without knowing the details. I believe in general that no one would be silenced, unless there were good reasons—some manifest lack of gift, some recognised inability to edify the saints, some habit of too lengthy and unprofitable ministry, which had wearied hearers, or some clear moral defect. Sometimes a man may insist on reading and commenting on long chapters of the Bible, or always the same chapter, as we have known in one case, or always the same disputed doctrine, which in an unruly way he persists to inflict upon the saints.

Perhaps Paul refers to some such men in Titus 1:10" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:10 as ”unruly and vain-talkers and deceivers . . . ,“ and then adds, “WHOSE MOUTHS MUST BE STOPPED.” It is not necessary to fill every line of this indictment, to deserve the form of discipline here prescribed. A man would seem to fall within it, who is known as an unprofit able talker, or as pushing some doubtful or controversial teaching. I do not think this silencing ought to be done by an individual acting on his own responsibility. It is a case where “two are better,” and they should act only as representatives of the assembly.

The phrase, “the liberty of the Spirit,” is sometimes quoted to show that the Spirit gives liberty to anyone who likes to teach, but in their context the words only refer to seeing Christ without a veil. Certainly the Spirit does not give liberty to those whom He has not qualified to speak. However, it does not always follow that the one silenced will never again be able to minister, for sometimes it may be that a young man may have been too quick to come forward into this service, and may develop a true gift later. I know of one such case, where the one silenced (and he submitted himself humbly to the ruling of his elders) became afterwards universally recognised as a true minister of the Word.

W.H.

• About this site

Had the Lord Jesus Christ, a spirit, a soul, and a body, as a perfect Man, together with, yet different from, His being God?

This is no unnecessary matter for consideration, for not only is the Deity of Christ attacked to-day, but also His true Humanity, and that in circles where one might hope for better things. This arises partly from ignoring the labours of God’s servants in the past, especially in the first centuries of the Christian era, which we cannot afford to do. God overruled the early attacks on the Person of His beloved Son to consolidate and define the truths of His Deity and Humanity, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those whom He raised up to “contend earnestly for the faith.”

One truth which emerged as Scriptural from these conflicts was what is known as the “Hypostatical Union,” that is the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two whole and perfect natures, the Divine and the Human, in equal relation with One Divine Person, the Eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father. We cannot penetrate this mystery for “No man knoweth the Son but the Father;” we believe what is written. However, even the Arian heresy of the 4th century turned to the furtherance of the truth. The Arians taught the quasi-Godhead and quasi-Manhood of Christ. For them He was neither perfect God, nor true man, but something less than the former and more than the latter; and the spiritual element in His manhood (i.e., the spirit and soul) was replaced by His imperfect Godhead. The Arian controversy was a matter of life and death. Anus was a popular soft-spoken man and exercised a notable influence, as such men do to-day. However, the truth prevailed, and the Godhead of Christ, of the same substance as the Father, was established on a firm Scriptural basis, but His Manhood remained undefined.

It was the heresy of Apollinarius of Laodica (in Syria), an earnest opponent of Anus, that led to this. He taught that in the manhood of Christ the rational soul was lacking, and was replaced by the Godhead. This is virtually the error taught in some circles to-day. It was proved to be entirely unsatisfactory and unscriptural. If Christ were truly man, He must have been in possession of all that constitutes complete humanity—spirit, soul, body, will, etc. Indeed, His own words testify to this: “This is My body”; “My soui is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”; “Father . . . not as I will, but as Thou wilt”; “Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit.” (Matthew 26:26, 38, 39;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26, 38, 39; Luke 23:46)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 23:46). Thus the words, “The Word became flesh”, imply something much more than that a Divine Person took a body, which might have meant little more than a Theophany of the Old Testament, but rather that He entered into manhood, that He became incarnate as truly “born of a woman,” a virgin, with all that perfect unfallen humanity implies. He was not less man, because sinless; not less experienced in human joys, sorrows, affections, weariness, hunger, pain, because truly God; not less capable of death, because not liable to death.

He was, moreover, not a dual Personality, as Nestorius of Constantinople taught (430 A.D.), but one Divine Person, in equal relation with His dual natures. As man, He is able in all points to sympathise with His people’s infirmities; as God, He is able to succour them.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Romans 3:9-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:9-23  What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,  (10)  as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;  (11)  no one understands; no one seeks for God.  (12)  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (19)  Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  (20)  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin… For there is no distinction:  (23)  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 John 5:9-13" TARGET="_blank">1 John 5:9-13  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.  (10)  Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.  (11)  And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  (12)  Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.  (13)  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is “Reconciliation” the same as “Atonement”?

No, they are as distinct as cause and effect. Atonement is the ground on which reconciliation becomes possible. Unfortunately the Greek equivalents are not always correctly translated in our version. In fact in the only place (Romans 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11) where the word “atonement” occurs in the Authorised Version it is a mistranslation for “reconciliation.” On the other hand, “make reconciliation,” in Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 would be quite correctly translated, “make atonement” (hilaskomai), as it is the same root and nearly always translated so in the LXX, Greek Version of the Old Testament. This, too, is the word the publican uses in his prayer (Luke 18: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13), and goes much deeper than merely asking for compassion. It might be translated, “Be propitiated by sacrifice.” Some shallow teachers having sufficient acquaintance with Hebrew, to know that Kaphar (making atonement) means primarily “cover,” have thought this was its only meaning and have whittled “atonement” down to “covering,” and asserted that it is a purely Jewish thing. They ignore the fact that the word has a secondary meaning, denoting that by which alone God can cover sin, namely, by making full satisfaction for His broken law. This has alone been effected by the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ: “He poured out His soul unto death.” The Old Testament has the word again and again but only typically and prophetically; the New Testament alone has the reality (see 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10— hilasmos, the same root again). Reconciliation becomes possible by atonement, but practical when the sinner turns to God with repentance and faith. The word for “reconciliation” (Katallage) “points habitually,” as Dr. Moule reminds us, “to the winning rather the pardon of an offended King, than the consent of the rebel to yield to His kindness.” ‘Be ye reconciled to God’ would then mean, secure while you can His acceptance.”

W.H.

• About this site