Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

• About this site

Debby Stickfort

• About this site

Salvation Story of a Drug Addict

• About this site

Julie Kelly

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

No.

Despite news stories about a Gospel Hall in Leslieville (Toronto, Canada) public preaching of the gospel is not a protest or an attack on any group or individual.

The message of sin and salvation, if understood correctly, is not about a call to bring our nation back to traditional values.  Instead, defining sin as God sees it should cause one to look for salvation in Christ Jesus.

For a fuller picture on the events behind the story see -  Viral Video in Leslieville Neighborhood Not What it Seems

For what is preached about homosexuality in the Gospel Hall, see the question What should a church teach about homosexuality?

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Was it only at His incarnation that our Lord became

(1) “The Image of the invisible God”; (2) “The Firstborn of every creature”; and (3) “The express Image of His Person”?

I believe that all three expressions were true of Him before then; and this is the opinion of most commentators on the passages, both ancient and modern.
 
With regard to Colossians 1:15-20," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15-20, it seems to me that the simplest and most useful division of the attributes of Christ contained in these verses, and of the verses themselves, is into two groups.

(i) Those which were true of Him from the beginning (vv. 15-17).
(2) Those which were true of Him from the Cross (vv. 18-20).

In the first of these groups He is “The Image of the invisible God”; in the second He is “The Head of the Body, the Church.” In the former He has the title, “Firstborn of every creature”; in the latter He has that of “Firstborn from the dead.” In each case a reason is appended for the application to Him of these titles. He is “Firstborn of every creature, for by (or ‘in’) Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth.” He is “Firstborn from the dead . . . for it pleased the Father . . . by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. . . things in earth or things in heaven.”

Now since the reason assigned for the title, “Firstborn of every creature,” is that all things were created by Him, I cannot see how that title, or the one coupled with it, “Image of the invisible God,” can be referred to His incarnation only. Both declare His dignity as Originator and Sustainer of the first creation, just as those in verse i8 declare His pre-eminence in connection with the new creation.

As to Hebrews 1:3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:3, it is agreed by Mr. Hoste that Christ was always ‘The Brightness of His glory,” and when once this is granted I cannot Conceive how the next clause, “The express Image of His Person,” is to be divorced from its fellow, and referred to something which only became true of Him at His incarnation. Both clauses hang closely united Upon the same participle, “Being,” which precedes them; and if the view mentioned were correct, this participle would be bearing its literal meaning in the one clause, and then would have to be thought of as though it meant “becoming” in the next clause. On the other hand, when we take them together, as is usually done, we get in them an interesting contrast with the two opening expressions of v. x. In time past God spake in the prophets “by divers portions” (a portion now and a portion again), and “in divers manners” (some less clear and some more clear than others). But now God has spoken in His Son, in whom is, not merely a few rays shining out from time to time, but the whole effulgence of His glory; and not merely dim outlines and shadows, but the exact “image” of His substance. And of course it is implied that the revelation thus made is, like Himself, both full and perfect. On this the subject matter of the entire epistle is based. The passage should be read in the R.V., and its connection noted with the word “enlightened” in Hebrews 6:4," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:4, and “illuminated” (same Greek) in Hebrews 10:32." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:32.

William Rogers

• About this site

Ought we to interpret Genesis 1:1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1 as referring to the original creation of the universe quite distinct from the rest of the chapter, or is it the summary of what follows?

I certainly believe it is the former. If it were the latter, should we not expect the creation of both the heavens and the earth to be enlarged upon in the rest of the chapter, whereas the “heavens” in the sense of v. i are not mentioned again, nor is it the creation of the earth which is brought before us after Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, but the refurbishing of its surface conditions to prepare it as a habitation for man. The verb, “to create,” occurs only twice in the body of the chapter, at the start of animal life and at the start of human life, vv. 21, 27. Does not the fact that the earth alone is described as “without form and void” (tohtI wãbhohü) indicate that something had happened to it, which had not happened to the uni.. verse at large? There is nothing in verse i to suggest that the original creation was not perfect. That the earth was created a scene of desolation, is distinctly negatived in Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18: “He created not the earth a waste” (tohü) (R.V.).

These Hebrew descriptive words for “without form and void” occur together in only two other places, i.e., Isaiah 34:11" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 34:11: “the line of confusion (tohü) and the stones of emptiness”(bohü) ; and Jeremiah 4:23" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 4:23 “I saw the earth and lo, without form and void” (tohü wabhohü), and both describe scenes induced by judgment. We are not called to speculate as to why the earth, created as we believe, so perfectly (Gen 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 1:1) that “the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 38:7), became so imperfect. We cannot imagine them doing this, if the creation they witnessed was a waste of desolation, covered with waters and pitch darkness. Between verses i and 3 may occur a period of untold millions of years, sufficient for the laying down of the stratified, fossiliferous and cretaceous, rocks, the coal measures, etc.
But is this division of the chapter a mere arbitrary device, or is it justified by the form of the Hebrew employed? I will cite as a reliable witness Dr. E. B. Pusey, for many years Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford. He discusses the question in the Preface to his “Lectures on Daniel the Prophet,” p.p. xvii.-xxiv. He writes, “Of the forms of speech which could have been chosen, to express past time, that has been chosen, which least connects the date, when the earth was one vast waste, with the time when God created it.” Both were in past time, but there is nothing to connect “those times together.” “Had Moses intended to say that the earth was waste and desolate when God created it, the idiom for this would have been “and the earth without form and void” (without the verb) (page xviii.)—What Moses does write “has no force at all, unless it be used to express what was the condition of the earth in a past time previous to the rest of the narrative, but in no connection in time whatever with what precedes.” Dr. Pusey also points out that the “and” by which verse z is also united to v. i, shows that v. i does not stand as a mere summary of what follows. There are two distinct facts—the primal creation in v. x, and a subsequent condition of the earth “without form and void.”

W.H.

• About this site

DID GOD DIE?

Is it wrong to assert that God died on the cross? If so, we must revise some of our hymns, e.g.,

“Save in the cross of Christ, my God,” and “When Christ, the Mighty Maker, dies.”

It is quite possible that some of our hymns (though not perhaps above) need revising; at best they are human compositions, but let it be done by those capable for such work. Not every amateur possesses the poetic gift. Better leave out a hymn, than maul it. Certainly it is quite unscriptural to say that “God died on the cross,” for “God only hath immortality,” and as such of course cannot die, but this does not imply that the One who hung upon the cross was not God, for He was, and Thomas was perfectly right when he exclaimed later, “My Lord and my God.”

Perhaps an illustration will make the matter plainer. We read twice in Psalm 121" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 121 that “Jehovah slumbers not nor sleeps.” Are we then to assert when we read in Mark 4" TARGET="_blank">Mark 4: 38 of our Lord that “He was asleep on a pillow,” that God was asleep, or that He who was asleep was not God? Neither the one nor the other, for both assertions would be false. Hebrews 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14 teaches that He who in chapter 1 is spoken of as the Son, the Heir of all things, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and Who as such possessed Immortality, and was therefore immune from death, did Himself in order to purge our sins “take part of flesh and blood, that through death, etc.” He did not cease to be what He was before; but He became flesh, and so far capable of death, though never subject to death, as we are.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site