At what point must one be put away from the assembly as a covetous person or a railer (1 Corinthians

At what point must one be put away from the assembly as a covetous person or a railer (1 Corinthians 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11)?

Verse 11 lists 6 people who must be removed from the assembly. Four of those are repeated from verse 10. Those four, including one who is covetous, are persons who have violated the clear statement of Gods moral law. In all four cases, one violation makes them transgressors of the law, therefore guilty. While God judges thoughts (see Matthew 5:22, 28)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:22, 28), men can only deal with actions. When one called a brother exhibits covetousness by doing something which is, in itself, morally wrong, he must be removed from the assembly.

A railer and a drunkard complete the list in 1 Corinthians 5:11." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11. The determination of these is more subjective, not always involving clear violations of Gods moral law. An actions circumstances or the frequency with which it occurs deserve consideration. Elders, who are spiritual, impartial, and sufficiently informed, guide the assemblys decision to put away a railer or drunkard.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Holy Spirit who is meant by the phrase "He who now letteth" in 2 Thessalonians?

Who is the person referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:7" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:7 as "He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way"?

There have been many suggestions given as to the identity of this restrainer. It is a spiritual conflict that is in view. We believe then, that a Divine Person is required to satisfy the context of the passage. We feel this rules out the two most common theories, that "He who hindereth" is the Roman Empire or Satan. The first has not the power and the latter has not the purpose. Mark 3:25" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3:25 says, "If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." We suggest that the Holy Spirit in the Church is the "Restrainer" of Satan's man of sin. He will "be taken out of the way" (verse 7). We regard this as the Spirit of God going with the Church at the rapture. This does not mean He will cease to operate in the world, but His mode of working will revert to His activity in Old Testament days.

S. Maxwell (our brother's first answer in Truth and Tidings "Questions and Answers," May, 1978)

Other pages in this section

About this site

How could the Lord acknowledge an assembly when it had departed so far (Revelation 2 and 3)?

How could the Lord acknowledge an assembly when it had departed so far (Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2 and 3)?

The assembly at Corinth was badly damaged by the influence of the world around it. Galatian believers had been influenced by serious doctrinal error. These and other assemblies, including those in Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2 and 3, began as assemblies, through God’s work, consistent with the pattern. The Lord determines how far an assembly can depart. He reads the heart and judges righteously. We are not responsible to make that decision. He requests permission of no one and informs no one.

We are responsible, though, to preserve the integrity of the assembly of which we form a part. Whether or not a certain company is an assembly, if its practices and associations will damage young believers or lead any astray, we shouldn’t associate ourselves with that assembly.

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Hebrews teach that salvation can be lost if a believer sins?

Some passages in Hebrews seem to indicate that believers can fall away. Please explain these passages.

Three passages typically raise this issue in the "warning passages" in Hebrews: 3:14 (with verse 6); 6:4-6; 10:26-27.

   1. "For we are made ("have become," Young's Literal Translation) partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end" (3:14). This is logically the same as saying that those who had not become partakers of Christ would not remain faithful to Him. What had happened in the past determined their future. Those who had been saved would demonstrate their salvation, by continuing steadfastly. Those Hebrews who at first claimed to accept Jesus as Messiah, but turned away from Him, were not actually partakers with Christ; they had never been saved.
   2. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;" (6:4-6). Their involvement with the Spirit, the Word of God, and the miracles of the Messianic age ("powers of the world to come") links them with those who say, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works" (Matthew 7:22)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:22)? The Lord's answer, "I never knew you" (verse 23), shows they were never saved. Sadly, although enlightened, these Hebrews also were never saved, but fell away, never to be brought to the place of repentance they once claimed.
   3. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation..." (10:26, 27). These are the "enlightened," having clear understanding of the truth about Christ. Turning from Him and returning to Judaism was sinning "willfully." Since Christ offered the "one sacrifice for sins" (verse 12), they were without a sacrifice for sins. In light of the prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:26; Matthew 22:7; 24:2)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:7; 24:2), to return to Judaism meant facing the fiery indignation which took place in 70 A.D. What tragedy awaited in those who thus spurned Christ, despised the privileges into which the blood of the new covenant brought them, and insulted the Spirit of grace!

Throughout the "warning passages," it is valuable to note the use of "we" for all the Hebrews who claimed a relationship with Christ, "you" for those whose fruits showed they were genuine believers, and "they" for the individuals who turned away, thus showing that they were never saved.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What did the Lord mean by, "He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John]?

What did the Lord mean by, "He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John the Baptist]"?

Some take this to refer to the Lord Jesus. In the same chapter, He describes Himself as lowly (v 29). To consider that the most lowly of all is the greatest of all bows our hearts in worship! How wonderful and how wonderfully true! One difficulty with this interpretation is that we would normally think of the Lord Jesus as being the King over the kingdom, rather than in it. A stronger objection is the context. This is a contrast introduced by "nevertheless." The first part of the contrast deals with John’s official privilege and honor. In this interpretation, the Lord would be speaking about His person, not His office. To paraphrase, the Lord would be saying "no human has been given a higher privilege in service that John, but I am a greater person than others." That doesn’t seem balanced.

The first "sampling" is from the human family, "them that are born of women"; the second is from the kingdom of heaven. Could the Lord be contrasting greatness in terms of privilege? In the human family, no one has been more privileged than John in the work entrusted to him. In the kingdom of heaven, even one considered to be the least (in his service?) is more privileged through the grace bestowed on him than John was through the honored work he did. Greater than all we are privileged to do for God is the grace we have been privileged to receive from God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the "fear of death" no longer satanic in its origin?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

Satan used Adam as the instrument to bring death into the world (Romans 5:12)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12). So it may be said the Satan is the origin of death in the world. The fear of death, though, has human origins. However Satan can use it effectively as his tool.

The verse, therefore is not making a difference between those who lived before Christ and others who were born after the cross. It would be incorrect to say that believers or unbelievers in times before Christ were more afraid of death. However, it is correct to say that we have a much clearer understanding of Eternity and life after death. We should anticipate heaven more than even the greatest saints of the Old Testament.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does "breaking bread" in Acts always refer to the Lord's Supper?

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the prodigal son a backsliding believer or a lost sinner?

Does the story of the prodigal illustrate the recovery of a swaying believer or the salvation of a lost sinner?

Most definitely the latter. The context confirms this. In Luke 15" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15: Christ replies to the Pharisees' criticism, "This man receiveth sinners." In verses 11-32, He compares His reception of such with the father's reception of a rebellious son. These sinners, portrayed in the prodigal, were not believers who strayed, but the ungodly. To construe that this interpretation makes God the "Father" of sinners simply overburdens the allegorical framework of the parable. Describing a straying believer as "dead" though, is going too far. Also, the term "lost," as chapter Luke 19:10" TARGET="_blank">Luke 19:10 shows, refers to the perishing, Further, the Savior interprets the sheep and silver as denoting 'one sinner that repenteth." Luke uses the word "sinner" 18 times, always describing the ungodly. Similarities do exist between the sinner's conversion and the saint's restoration, but some of the language true of one cannot be used of the other.

D. Gilliland

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible say about "full-time" minister work?

Is a full-time, itinerant, "faith-supported" ministry biblical or relevant?

Such a ministry is biblical and therefore relevant, since the God-breathed Word fully equips us for every age and circumstance (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16, 17). The Spirit separated Barnabas and Saul to a distinct work (Acts 13:1-4)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:1-4). While Paul had reasons for doing secular work in Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 18:3; 20:34;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:3; 20:34; 1 Corinthians 9:12, 15;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:12, 15; 2 Corinthians 11:12)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:12), the norm is "that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:14). It was therefore appropriate that he and Barnabas would forbear from secular work (verse 6). The gospel was their full-time work. Their’s was an itinerant ministry. Likewise, Timothy and other young men traveled with Paul (Acts 20:4)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:4). Although the work had progressed for several decades, there were still itinerant preachers whom Gaius faithfully helped (3 John 5-8)." TARGET="_blank">3 John 5-8). Such men - then and now - consolidate, unify, and further the work of God by moving among existing assemblies and into new work. Timothy and Titus stayed for extended periods in locations that needed assistance. These were temporary assiguments in which they served along with other local men.

The New Testament pattern is that such work received support through the voluntary offerings of assemblies (2 Corinthians 11:8;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 4:14-16)" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:14-16) and individual believers (1 Corinthians 16:17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:17). To reduce support to a contractual basis lowers the spiritual character of Christian giving and robs the worker of a singular dependence on His Master for all his needs.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I live at peace when my brother and I disagree?

Can believers live together peaceably when they differ on some personal issues of Christian living about which both have strong emotions?

Yes, we can because the Lord enjoined it (Mark 9:50)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:50), but only by applying Scriptural teaching to ourselves. The crux of the matter is not the right or wrong of another believers actions. Our behavior toward others is as important as their obedience to Christ. Another believers disobedience to truth doesnt justify our disobedience to the Lords command to love and serve our brother (John 13:34, 35)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:34, 35). Showing him patiently and scripturally "a more excellent way" is loving service. Even when motivated by a desire to uphold truth, behavior directed against another believer denies significant truths.

Lowliness (regarding ourselves) and forbearance (regarding others) accompany the wisdom that produces peace (Ephesians 4:2, 3;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:2, 3; James 3:17)." TARGET="_blank">James 3:17). Peace with my brother doesnt depend on his obedience to the Lord or on my obedience to my brother, but on my obedience to the Lord (Proverbs 16:7)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 16:7).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu