The Old Nature

• About this site

Jim Batterton

• About this site

Andrew Musch

• About this site

 What is a Church?

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

• About this site

Some of the free Bible games here include:

1. The Bible board game Lost Bible Searchers Game .  This free Bible game requires each player to travel the map of the Bible world collecting lost pages from books of the Bible.

2.  Books of the Bible Game .  This collection of six free Bible games uses the names of the books of the Bible to help students learn their order and some facts about each book.

3. Criminal Suspects of the Bible .  This free Bible game requires students to identify the bad guy based on a police record of his/her crime.

4. Tribulation Survivor Game .  This is one of the many free Bible games in the downloads section.  Students are put into the Great Tribulation with the goal of surviving great disasters, persecution of the Antichrist and famine.

For more traditional free Bible games, browse the350 Sunday school worksheets that contain a coloring page, crossword puzzle and other activities to review a Bible story.

Use one of the puzzle makers below to create your own free Bible game. 

• About this site

THE GOSPEL
Is it true to say that there are two Gospels, Paul’s and Peter’s, each with a different aspect of the Lord’s Return in view; the former described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:17, the latter, in Acts 1" TARGET="_blank">Acts 1: Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2: and Acts 3:20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 3:20?

Certainly Paul’s Apostolate was chiefly to the Gentiles, and Peter’s to the Jews, and no doubt the presentation of the Gospel would vary accordingly. Compare Paul’s address at Antioch in Acts I 3 and that on Mars’ Hill to an Athenian audience. The former is full of Jewish history and of Old Testament quotations, the latter contains neither the one nor the other. Such references would have had no special weight with Gentiles, but the Gospel in both is centred on the same Person— the Lord Jesus, and on the same work—His death and resurrection. It was the same Gospel in a different setting. Naturally things in the Acts were in a transition state, especially in the earlier chapters. An offer was still being made to the nation of Israel on the ground of resurrection, in which certainly Paul had no part, not being yet an apostle. Had they repented and been converted, no doubt the Lord would have been sent back to them (see chap. 3. 20), but the nation did not repent and so was set on one side, and God’s greater purpose “from before the foundation of the world,” was gradually unfolded. Paul did become the special minister of this—the mystery of Christ—but he in no way claimed the monopoly of it, which some would attribute to him, as his words in Ephesians 3:5" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:5 with reference to that mystery, show: “Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men. AS IT IS NOW REVEALED UNTO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS BY THE SPIRIT.” It was revealed to them, as well as to Paul, but he became the spokesman. To say that Peter continued to the end to limit his hope to the return of Christ to the earth, is both arbitrary and unscriptural. He certainly does deal with that aspect of the Lords’ return in his second epistle, but in his first epistle he speaks of “a living hope . . . to an inheritance reserved in heaven for you.” This is not an earthly hope any more than the “revelation of Jesus Christ” in chap. 1. 23, or the appearance of the Chief Shepherd in chap. 5. 4. In both these it will be the revelation of Christ to the Church.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is it safe to use Weymouth’s Translation, since it contains such error as is found in the note upon Hebrews10:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews10:27 (page 560)?

It has been pointed out that the notes in this version are not by Dr. R. F. Weymouth, but by E. Hampden-Cook, M.A., who is said to have “Edited and partly revised” the work. In my edition of 1910 the very unsound note on Heb. 10." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10. 27 referred to above is on page 6i6; and it is by no means the only one of the kind; the notes on this subject always being in the interests of what is known as, “Annihilationism” a very serious and growing heresy to-day. This teaching, however, is not confined to the notes, but occurs in the text. Wherever, apparently, the translator (or do we owe these touches to the “part revision” of Mr. Cook?) comes upon the question of the future of the wicked, the same influence can be noted: e.g., Matthew 25:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46 which is translated, “And these shall go away into the punishment of the ages, but the righteous into the life of the ages,” which is the ordinary meaningless and erroneous language affected by the Annihilationist teachers. How this book found its way into my small library, I have no idea; but I neither use it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do so. The Lord’s words apply here, “Take heed what ye hear,” and I am convinced that all this talk about “onian” and “the ages” is everywhere a danger-signal for those who desire to hold fast the whole revelation of God and the
doctrine of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is it so that “Immortality in God’s Word has no reference to the soul”? If this be so will you kindly explain Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul”

Immortality is immunity from death. Clearly man did not then possess immortality in that sense, when created, for he was warned he would die, if he ate the forbidden fruit. But what is death then? It certainly is not “annihilation” or a cessation of existence, for Adam and Eve Continued to exist after the fall. In fact no external change apparently took place in them. But a marked spiritual change occurred, for “They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden. . . and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God” (Genesis 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:8). Death therefore is not cessation of existence, but separation of existence, that is existence out of harmony with God.

This spiritual death has been the condition of the whole human race ever since. When a man believes the gospel “he passes from death unto life” (John 5:24)." TARGET="_blank">John 5:24). He now possesses eternal life and has the assurance from God that “he will never perish” (John 10:28)." TARGET="_blank">John 10:28). This is immortaiity in the spiritual sense, “Verily, verily I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death” (John 8:51)." TARGET="_blank">John 8:51). But the fall did not kill the body. To assure this, man was shut off from the tree of life and flow “it is appointed unto men once to die” (Hebrews 9:27)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:27). Even the body of the Christian “is dead, because of sin” (Romans 8:10)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:10). If he dies, his corruptible body will put OR incorruptibility at the Lord’s return, if he survives till then his mortal body will put on immortality. He has the immortality of the spiritual side of his being already included in the gift of eternal life, for that immortality is not only a bodily attribute is clear from the Words, “God Who only bath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:16) —that is in Flimseff, though, of course, He does communicate it. The special verse referred to, Matthew 10:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28, merely states that the soul survives the body. Man may kill the latter, but cannot kill the former. This would be equally true of an Unconverted man, who will never cease to exist away from God, as of a converted man who will never cease to live with God.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is the Sermon on the Mount the rule for the Christian to-day?

The question is not, be it noted, whether the principles of the Sermon on the Mount are applicable to us to-day; but was it intended to be the rule of Christian living? Of course, it is part of God’8 Word, and as such, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So, indeed, is the Law of Sinai, and the rest of the Scriptures, but that does not prevent our drawing dispensational differences, and holding that certain parts do not apply to us primarily or directly. The law is not the Christian’s rule of life, for we are told again and again (e.g., Romans 7:4;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19)" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:19) that we have died to the law. It would then be difficult to assert that the Sermon on the Mount, which is the quintessence of the law, is the Christian rule of life. It may be questioned whether many who laud it as a code of morals, and make it literally binding as a rule on the Christian, have a very clear idea of its teaching, or really practise it themselves in any exhaustive way. They seem to have in their mind a dozen or so verses about giving to every man that asketh you, letting a man have your cloak who asks for your coat, going with a man two miles if he forces you to go one, and giving your right cheek to the one who has just smitten you on the left. But this is only a very small part of the Sermon, and if no one has ever perfectly obeyed the ten commandments, it is equally certain that no one has ever perfectly carried out the Sermon which deals with the hidden thoughts of the heart, as well as with acts.

Indeed, when Paul was before Ananias and was unjustly smitten, he did not turn the other cheek, nor did our Lord Himself before Caiaphas, as He certainly would have done, had He laid down the Sermon on the Mount as the Christian rule of conduct. In the new style of teaching, unfortunately too common, heard in our midst to-day, from men who have but a feeble grasp of any distinctive truth or place, it is often the fashion to belittle dispensational teaching. No doubt this teaching has been exaggerated, but that is no reason for denying it its true place.

To understand rightly the Sermon on the Mount, we must under stand the dispensational character of the Gospel of Matthew, and in a less degree of the other Synoptists. It is addressed primarily to Israel; from the first chapter, Christ is offered them as their King—the heir to the throne of David. John the Baptist was the herald of the coming Kingdom, and so the Lord, the twelve and the seventy; and the miracles, which are so prominent in chapters 8 and 9; were the signs of the Kingdom; it was as King that the Lord presented Himself to Israel in chapter 21 (see vv. 4, 5). The Sermon on the Mount comes in its place, as the rules binding on the children of the Kingdom, while the Kingdom is being set up. When the Kingdom was rejected, and the powers of the King attributed in chaps. 9 and i a, to Satan, then the Lord revealed the mysteries of the Kingdom, namely, how the Kingdom would be set up in men’s hearts, during the absence of the rejected King. When the Church is taken away, the testimony of the Kingdom will once more come to the front, and I take it, that during that period, the Sermon on the Mount, will come into very literal force for God’s servants among Israel. It has been alleged, on the other hand, that our Lord in His parting commission told His disciples to teach the converts to observe whatsoever He had commanded them, but that that does not apply to the whole of Matthew is clear, for no one would maintain that our Lord’s words in Matthew 10:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:5 and 6, about not preaching to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel, should be taught to converts to-day, as a rule for their witness. I only quote this to show that our Lord intends His “Sermon” to be interpreted in the light of subsequent revelation; e.g., “Owe no man anything”; “Whiles it remained was it not thine own?” “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”; “If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well why smitest thou me?”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site