What becomes the role of those God has used in planting an assembly?

What becomes the role of those God has used in planting an assembly?

The assemblies in Crete were apparently exposed to the attacks of those who contradicted sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9). Paul was concerned that the men who led the flock would be able to stand against such men and thus preserve the assembly for which they were responsible. Titus had a part to play in this by his teaching (2:1), but the goal was that each assembly would have men within it who possessed this capability. The role of those who plant and nurture a young assembly is to so strengthen that assembly that it will be able to function and flourish without him (or them). In speaking to the Ephesian elders, Paul makes it clear that this is also the Spirit’s goal (Acts 20: 28-32)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: 28-32). Remarkably, God is able to accomplish this despite the native characteristics, even of Cretans (Titus 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:12).

The instruments the Spirit is using in this work need sensitivity so they neither rush ahead of the Spirit’s working nor lag behind it. Circumstances differ and the rate at which this good work progresses differs from case to case. Those who are not familiar with a particular work may not be fitted to understand the timing of the Spirit’s work. Nonetheless, the goal remains the same.

Paul speaks of himself as having a role like a mother (1Th 2:7)" TARGET="_blank">1Th 2:7) and a father (v 11) in the development of the Thessalonian assembly. Parents work toward the day when their child will be able to function on his own and make choices consistent with the truth they have taught him. Some parents can so control a child that they limit his maturing. Sometimes parents step in too quickly when they see some unsteadiness in their mature child. Eventually, parents must trust the power of the principles they have instilled in their child and commit him to God in prayer. They trust God’s power and wisdom to continue the training required. Epaphras certainly practiced this (Col 4:12, 13)." TARGET="_blank">Col 4:12, 13).

David Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What are we to make of God's condemnation of homosexuality and recent reports suggesting that some are born homosexual?

The reports alluded to are far from conclusive and far from being universally agreed upon by all in the medical field. In many quarters the desire to prove a biological basis for homosexuality is the driving impetus for the research. But let us assume for the moment that in a future day the biological basis for homosexuality is proven. Does that give license to practice the deed? All will agree that normal heterosexual desires are hormonal and inborn. Does not God condemn the expression of those desires outside the marriage bond? Doesn't every unmarried believer have to discipline those desires and sacrifice them in devotion to Christ and in faithfulness to the Word of God? All union outside the male female union in marriage which God instituted in the Garden is outside the will of God. Having the desire, whether inborn or not, is not the sin. The sin is the expression of that desire in actions, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do we pray to the Father or to the Son or Holy Spirit as well?

PRAYER TO THE LORD JESUS
Is it scriptural to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ continually in a Breaking of Bread meeting, and for a believer to confess privately to saints that he does not believe in praying to the Father in such a meeting, seeing that we gather there to remember the Lord?

I believe the custom referred to, though doubtless many godly persons are addicted to it, is due to a defective view of what the atoning death of Christ entailed on the other Persons of the Godhead. It is true that our Lord Jesus alone suffered directly for sins on the cross. There the Divine judgment fell on Him; there He was forsaken of His God. But who can estimate what it cost the Father “not to spare His own Son”?—nor should we forget that it was “by the Eternal Spirit that He offered Himself without spot to God.” It seems clear that to limit our worship, or nearly to limit it, to the Lord Jesus is to come short of His definite purpose, communicated by Him in revealing the Father. Far from desiring that His own should concentrate on Him their worship, He indicates the contrary. “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.” (John 4:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:23). By so doing we do not set the Son on one side. “At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)." TARGET="_blank">John 14:20).

Again, to maintain that we ought only to worship the Lord Jesus, because we are gathered to remember Him, seems to embody a fallacy, Does not the very act of breaking the bread lead us to the Father? As the Son is revealed to our souls in His love and preciousness, we adore the Father for such a gift; “Through Him we both (i.e. believing Jews and Gentiles) have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Ephesians 2:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:18). One of the greatest needs of our hymn books to-day is, I submit, that God would raise up Christian poets, to add to them more hymns of the type of our departed brother Deck’s, “Abba Father, we approach Thee.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are all believers "saints" or are saints a special class?

SAINTS
Will you please explain the meaning of the term “Saints”? Does It apply to all believers?

A saint is one who is sanctified and the root meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words, translated “Sanctify,” is to set apart for a particular Purpose, the nature of which is not specified. It may be good, it may even be bad. Perhaps Psalm 4:3" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 4:3 is one of the best definitions of scriptural sanctification: “But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself. The word, “godly”, being a descriptive title of the people of God—those who belong to God. Compare Psalm 50:5" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 50:5:
“Gather my saints together unto Me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” This includes all the people of God. Holiness of conduct is clearly the end in view, but we must not confuse the way and the destination. We get into great confusion if we forget this distinction, that sanctification does not in itself denote a change of character or conduct, but that in some cases it leads to that.

(1) Thus, “sanctify”, is applied to inanimate objects, which cannot experience a change of character—e.g., the gold sanctified by the temple and the gifts by the altar (Matthew 23:17-18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 23:17-18).
(2) It is applied to unconverted persons, whose character presumably remains unchanged. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and unconverted children by the parents (1 Corinthians 7:4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 7:4).
(3) It is applied to the Lord who never needed a change of character. “Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world.” “For their sakes I sanctify myself” (John 10:36;" TARGET="_blank">John 10:36; John 17:19)." TARGET="_blank">John 17:19).

Progressive sanctification is the continued response of the believer, whom God has set apart, to His purpose for him. Joseph was set apart by Pharaoh to rule Egypt, so he did not go back to the prison but gave himself to the work. Paul was set apart for God’s service and he was “not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” If God has sanctified us at the moment of our conversion, it is for us to sanctify ourselves, and this will undoubtedly shew itself in our conduct. It is a very sad thing when believers can talk of sanctification and yet are but little sanctified in their ways. True sanctification consists in conforming our ways to what God has revealed in His Word for us. The Scriptures meditated upon are a great means in the hands of the Spirit for sanctifying the people of God (John 17. 17)." TARGET="_blank">John 17. 17).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras?

Mardi Gras is the French translation of “Fat Tuesday”. Those who know Spanish can see the resemblance in Martes (Tuesday) and grasa (fat). Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras occurs the day immediately preceding Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. In mid February, the pagans in the Roman empire celebrated the Lupercalia, a circus-like festival. Like other holidays, the Roman Catholic religion decided to adopt the practices of the pagans rather than offend the newly "Christianized" masses.

Mardi Gras is celebrated for a few weeks, depending on the location in the world, in a festival called Carnival. Unbridled partying, drunkenness, sex and debauchery are the features of this festival. Freqently Carnival is celebrated in Central America, South America and Southern Europe where Catholic traditions are strong. New Orleans is the largest and most famous Mardi Gras celebration in the United States. Elaborate costumes and barely clothed women are common in Mardi Gras parades.

Since the Catholic teaching of Lent stipulates that the faithful refrain from sinful practices, fast and pray during the 40 days of Lent, Mardi Gras has been a tradition for centuries to have a huge party just before the days of Lent. Think of it as one last binge before giving something up for 40 days.

There is either a serious misunderstanding or ignorance of God’s word in the combination of Mardi Gras and Lent. The Bible says that Christians should avoid willful sin and uncontrolled behavior all of the year, not just during Lent or Holy Week.

“Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” Romans 13:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:13-14

When is Fat Tuesday?
March 8, 2011
February 21, 2012
February 12, 2013
March 4, 2014
February 17, 2015

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the meaning of "known of Him" the same in Galatians 4 as in 1 Corinthians 8?

Is the meaning of "known of Him" the same in Galatians 4:9" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 4:9 as in 1 Corinthians 8:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:3?

Yes, this understanding of the phrase lends meaning to the passage.

A number of commentators indicate that the expression, "ye have known God - or rather are known of God" is equivalent to "ye are saved." This is in contrast to the previous verse, when, in their unconverted state, they had no knowledge of God and were in bondage to idols. Now, how ironic that they were saved and yet had

turned to another form of bondage, keeping the ceremonial law!

There may also be a further thought in Paul’s adding, "or rather are known of God." He may be noting, in contrast to their reliance on their own initiative in keeping the law, that salvation ("ye have known God") was the result of God’s initiative toward them ("rather are known of God"). They responded to God’s initiative then and are to likewise respond to God’s initiative by the Spirit’s work in their daily living.

Understanding the expression to mean the same as in 1 Corinthians 8:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:3 may further extend Paul’s argument and may more completely fit the context. Paul goes back to their salvation ("ye have known God") and to their happy condition at that time ("known [approvinglyl of Him"). When they were enjoying God’s smile on them, they welcomed the message of salvation apart from the law (verse 14), enjoyed true blessedness, and would have given him their eyes (verse 15). Instead of enjoying such divine favor, they had now gone backward through their subjection to the ceremonial law.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Will all people eventually be saved?

UNIVERSALISM

Do not scriptures such as Colossians 1:20," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:20, Ephesians 1:10;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:4-6; 1 Timothy 4:10;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:10; Romans 5:19;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:22-28; Philippians 2:9-11;" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:9-11; teach the universal salvation of the race? Will not all men be saved?

This questioner is a “Universalist,” believing that all fallen creatures will one day be restored to Divine favour, and brought to heaven.

Let us examine each verse in turn:

there is nothing in Phil. 2:9-11" TARGET="_blank">Phil. 2:9-11 about willing submission. All will bow the knee and confess Christ as Lord, if not willingly, then unwillingly. When the Lord utters the terrible words to certain ones, “Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” is there a hint that this will mean their conversion and restoration?

Certainly 1 Corinthians 15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15: 22-28 is a strange passage to prove the salvation of all. It refers to the terrible scenes in Revelation 20" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20 when Satan and the impenitent will be judged and cast into the lake of fire. It is said that Christ at the end will “put down all rule and all authority and power” (v. 24). If this meant their reconciliation, then death would be reconciled too, for “destroyed,” in verse 26, is the same in the Greek (Katargeo) as “put down” in verse 24. The real meaning is explained in v. 25: “all His enemies will be put under His feet,” or “made His footstool,” as in Psa. cx. This would be a peculiar way of expressing reconciliation. It was not thus that the father in Luke 15" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15 welcomed the prodigal. Joshua did treat the Amorite kings just in this way, and it sealed their doom, and they were executed before nightfall.

Romans 5:19" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:19 does not say a word about all being saved, but merely that “as many were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, so many will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ”. The condition of repentance and faith is enforced throughout the epistle. How divorce it from this verse? Romans 2:5" TARGET="_blank">Romans 2:5 tells us of those who refuse to repent.

1 Timothy 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:10 simply says that God is the Saviour of all men, “specially of them that believe.” Why “specially,” if all are equally saved? Many believe, and I think they are right, that Saviour here means “Preserver.” (The French—version has usually ‘Conservateur,” i.e, Preserver.) The Lord cares for all, and in a special way for His people.

1 Timothy2:4-6" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy2:4-6 does not say that all will be saved, but that God is willing that all should be saved. We glory in this truth, and we are sure that wherever He can righteously apply the saving efficacy of the blood of Christ, He will do so. The ransom is paid for all. It is sufficient for all, efficient for them that believe. But those who refuse to believe will perish in spite of the work of Christ. To some the Lord had to say, “Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life”. Neither Ephesians 1:10" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:10 nor Colossians 1:20" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:20 says a word about “things under the earth,” or infernal things, as Phil. 2:10" TARGET="_blank">Phil. 2:10 does, when the sujection of all is in view. It is, moreover, “all things” that are to be reconciled. How could heavenly persons need it? But sin has entered the heavenly sphere; discord has marred the harmony there as here, and things, so far, need adjustment or harmonising. Certainly, all things in heaven and earth will be “headed up” in Christ (Ephesians 1:10)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:10), but the impenitent are not included. They will be vessels of wrath to display God’s power and wrath. The questioner allows there are some verses which seem to teach otherwise, and quotes one—John 3:36" TARGET="_blank">John 3:36—which he really explains away by leaving out the first part, and dwelling on the fact that “the wrath of God abideth in the unbeliever” is in the present. But it is clear that the future is referred to from the first words, “He that believeth not, shall not see life.” This cannot refer to the present, for as long as breath is in the body, a man may turn, believe, and see life; but once the unbeliever passes from this scene he will never see life, but will exist under the wrath of God for ever. Space will only allow me to point out, that our Lord gave no hint of a future probation and restoration of all. Do His words (to quote only one Gospel) in Matthew 10:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28; Matthew 13:42;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:42; Matthew 18:9;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:9; Matthew 25:46," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46, teach universal salvation? The Lord spoke of many passing down the broad road to perdition; of a “closed door,” and of many asking in vain for admission; of “a great gulf fixed,” which none might pass! The hope of Universalists is a false hope, as all who trust in it will one day find. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, He that believeth not shall be damned."

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does an elder "assume" the position of leader or is he appointed?

Should the oversight meeting be open to all elder brethren of consistent walk in life, or only to a few, who “assume” the care and rule of the meeting?

I think one qualified by God for such a work would be very slow to “assume” anything;

1 Timothy 3:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1: 6-9;" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: 6-9; and 1 Peter 5:1-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:1-5 give us the qualifications of an overseeing elder: first, he must” desire” it (or “stretch forward” to it, as the original expresses). But that is not enough; he may even be “consistent in walk and life,” and yet fail to manifest the necessary qualification for eldership. Does he rule his home well for instance? or is it a matter of common knowledge, that he is ruled in the home? An overseer of this type is a great hindrance, for sometimes it is the power in the home that seeks to rule the church by his means.

Has he a “good report of them that are without”? Does he “hold fast the faithful Word”? Has he a pastor’s heart, to feed the flock of God?

I think one qualified by God for such a work would be very slow to “assume” anything; he would be apt to do the work, show fitness for it, and have a heart for the Lord’s people, but it would not be for him to push himself into a prominent position; rather his fellowship would be sought. Elders caring for the saints should be on the look out for brethren who are manifesting any spiritual activities, and seek to encourage such, remember that age comes on apace, and that soon perhaps their work will need other hands to take it up.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God sometimes stop talking (striving) with men who reject Him?

In Genesis 6:3," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:3, “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive With man.”

Did this apply only to that dispensation?

The words in question are in close connection with the intermarriage of “the Sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” described in Genesis 6," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6, by which the barrier between the Seth line and the descendants of Cain was broken down. The sons of God did not make the worldly women godly, but the reverse process took place, as is nearly always the case to-day under similar circumstances. A great increase of evil was the result, and the world was filled with violence and corruption. This was foreseen by God, Who gave utterance to the above solemn declaration, adding, “for that he also is flesh.” Man had had at least two thousand years to show what “evolution” could do, if such a principle existed. Surely he would have developed into something supremely excellent. Let verse 11 reply: “The earth also was corrupt before God and the earth was filled with violence.” Is not such a development more consistent with the doctrine of the fall of man, than of his constant and consistent “evolution” toward a higher ideal? We need not be surprised if the Modernists wish to expunge the first ten chapters of Genesis. To believe in the evolutionary hypothesis one must not only deny the plain statements of Scripture, but shut one’s eyes to the facts of history and human experience. However, God adds in grace, “Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years”; that is, I take it, there was to be still a respite of that duration.

There is no evidence to show that the testimony of Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” ceased before the flood. But as far as I know, God nowhere pledges Himself to continue pleading with men till the end of their careers. Indeed, such emphasis is laid on immediate decision, that it would be the height of folly to count on even one more chance. We know that when the Man of Sin will be revealed God will send on those, who will have refused the truth, a “strong delusion that they may believe the lie” (2 Thessalonains 2:10-12). This moment however has not yet arrived, and it would be both unprofitable and presumptuous to attempt to show that the Spirit has ceased to strive with anyone still alive, for this is to invade the divine prerogative, and pretend to “search the heart.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Caleb an Israelite?

Was Caleb (see Joshusa 10:6) an Israelite?

The Lord’s injunction in Numbers 13:2" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 13:2 (R.V.) with regard to the sending of the spies was, “Send thou men . . . of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a prince among them.” In obedience to this, Moses “sent them according to the commandment of the Lord, all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel” (v. 3). There follows a list of their names and tribes, in which is included, “Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh” (v. 6). Thus in this passage, the first in which Caleb is mentioned, it is affirmed, not only that he was of the tribe of Judah, but that he was a “prince” and “head” of that tribe.

His being called “the Kenezite” (or “Kenizzite”) in Numbers 32:12" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 32:12 and Joshua 14:6," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 14:6, 14 has led some to assert that he was not an Israelite, but one of that Canaanitish race called “Kenizzites” in Genesis 15:19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:19 while others have associated this patronymic with Kenaz the grandson of Esau (Genesis 16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:II, 15), thus making him out to be an Edomite. But when we find that Caleb’s younger brother was called Kenaz (Josh. 15. 17;" TARGET="_blank">Josh. 15. 17; etc.), and that Caleb’s grandson was also called Kenaz (1 Chronicles 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 4:15), it becomes evident that the name was a popular one in the family to which he belonged, and that the term “Kenezite” in his own case merely connects him with some earlier Kenaz amongst his ancestors.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu