What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

Restoration brings a thing back to its original state. Old houses and old cars are frequently "restored." Our question deals with relationships between a Christian and his Lord or between two Christians. Restoration is necessary when relationships have been damaged. An offense will shatter a relationship. Drifting apart will damage relationships.

David prayed for restoration after his sin with Bathsheba. "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation" (Psalm 51:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:12). Noteworthy in this psalm is David's confession of sin when he sought restoration. In Psalm 23," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23, he wrote of continuing occasions when the Good Shepherd "restoreth my soul" (verse 3). He realized his tendency to stray from the Shepherd.

Christians, too, may drift apart or offend one another. Our Lord gave instruction in Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 for restoring a broken relationship. The two must meet together, seeking to clear up the matter between them. It is likely that, in most cases, mutual repentance, confession and forgiveness will be required. If an offense has caused damage, restitution will also be necessary.

There is no difference in the need for restoration, whether to the Lord or another saint. In both instances, the need must be acknowledged. One cannot be restored to the Lord who has not first been restored to his brother or sister (Matt. 5:23, 24)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5:23, 24).

J. Slabaugh
Other pages in this section

About this site

In light of Matthew 22:30" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:30 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:50-54, shall we know one another in heaven?

This is an oft-raised question and one that shews how diverse are men’s minds. To many the very possibility of non-recognition seems unthinkable. If we are to know as we are known, does not that bespeak a deeper and wider knowledge than before, not a feebler and narrower, “when the mists have rolled away”?

Abraham knew Lazarus and the “rich man,” and all about their past; and the “rich man” knew Abraham and Lazarus, and can we suppose that Lazarus, did not know on whose bosom he was pillowing his head? See Luke 16:23, 25." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:23, 25.

This speaks, no doubt, of the intermediate state, but the principle is the same. The apostles knew Moses and Elias on the Holy Mount. What point would there be in making to ourselves friends with our money, that they may receive us into everlasting habitations? (See Luke 16:9)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:9), for how could these “friends” do so, if they could not recognise their benefactors?

I think the true conclusion is that we shall know those whom we have known and all others of the redeemed besides. This does not mean that earthly relations which are of a temporary character, will continue, and this is I think all that Matthew 22:30" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:30 teaches, but nothing is hinted as to a change of personality or a loss of identity. As for 1 Corinthians 15:50-54," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:50-54, surely no changes wrought in the saint by the putting on of immortality or incorruptibility, will exceed the wonderful change wrought in Christ by His glorification, and yet “He is the same” and is recognisable through it all, as John experienced (see Revelation 1:1-10)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:1-10).

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the collection a part of the worship at the breaking of bread?

Is the collection a part of the worship at the breaking of bread?

The context of Hebrews 13:13-17," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:13-17, including confessing "His name" (v. 15, JND), is the assembly (Matthew 18:20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20). "To communicate" (verse 16) is the same word translated "a certain contribution for the poor saints" (Romans 15:26)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 15:26) and is closely related to "no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving" (Philippians 4:15)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:15). Therefore, Hebrews 13" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13 links offering "the sacrifice of praise" (verse 15) and sacrifices of our finances (verse 16). Offering sacrifices is priestly and those who brought their sacrifices are called worshipers (Hebrews 10:1, 2)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:1, 2). Therefore when holy priests offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:5), they are worshiping. This is equally true of audible and inaudible expressions and of financial offerings.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God ever refuse to forgive in this life? If one is COflSCIOUS of having resisted the call of Go

Does God ever refuse to forgive in this life?

If one is COflSCIOUS of having resisted the call of God, may not that make it impossible for Him to forgive?

It is quite certain that God will never refuse forgiveness in this life to anyone who comes to Him as a sinner in the Name of the Lord Jesus, pleading in faith His atoning work. No other plea can suffice, but that will always reach the ear of God. “To Christ give all the prophets witness, that through His Name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:43). “We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:7). This is the forgiveness of God as Judge. Then to believers, the Father’s forgiveness, for the restoration of communion, is granted on confession. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9).

As to Divine forgiveness, there may seem to be an exception in Matthew 12:31," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:31, where the assurance of “forgiveness of all manner of sin and blasphemy” is qualified by the Lord with the words, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” the reason of His saying this being, “because they said He hath an unclean spirit.” I know this is usually taken as proving that the Pharisees had actually committed the “unpardonable sin;” for myself I feel more and more persuaded, taking other Scriptures into consideration, that the Lord was rather warning them of the terrible danger of refusing the future testimony of the Spirit, at and after Pentecost.

The rejection of Christ did not shut the door of forgiveness, for the Spirit was poured forth; but if His testimony were rejected there could only remain judgment. No one who finally rejects that testimony will ever, I believe, feel the need of forgiveness, much less ask for it. How many there are who did at first resist the offers of God’s mercy, and the pleadings of His Spirit, but who afterwards were led to repentance. Was not Paul’s “kicking against the pricks” a case in point? But it is not poor, timid, anxious souls who have finally resisted the appeal of the Spirit, but hardened and impenitent sinners like the murderers of Stephen.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

If the rumors are just passing stories that no one would take seriously, let them drift into nothingness. More harm than good might come from telling the person what others said. For example, if the person insisted on knowing who repeated the rumor, he would either be upset with you if you refused to tell him or upset with the person who told the rumor. You have become a talebearer who stirs up strife (Proverbs 26:20)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 26:20).

We should always ask for evidence to substantiate rumors about others, especially for persistent, harmful rumors. If supporting evidence is not available, make your disapproval clear. And never repeat damaging rumors (Titus 3:2;" TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:2; James 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">James 4:11). Wrongly damaging the reputation of others is serious (Proverbs 6:16-19)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 6:16-19).

Discussing the rumors in a friendly manner with the accused, without assuming the truthfulness of the rumors, would be a kindness, especially when accompanied by a sincere expression of concern that anyone would say such a thing. That would make it easier for the individual to admit that the rumor is true or partly true or else to affirm that it is totally false. Depending on its seriousness, you could even mention the supporting evidence you had been given. Every attempt should be made to contain the problem (Matthew 18:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15). If the rumor arose from a clear case of misunderstanding, don't give the wronged person a case against the source of the rumor, but volunteer to try to correct the misunderstanding yourself.

If the rumor appears likely to be true and involves issues of concern to the assembly, a believer is responsible to go to an overseer and kindly, humbly, confidentially, carefully inform him. If the believer did not inform the assembly's leadership, he would be responsible for wrongfully covering the sin (Acts 5:2, 8-10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:2, 8-10). It is a mistaken kindness to support a believer in sinning against God.

When the overseers become aware of a possible problem, they are responsible to thoroughly investigate (Proverbs 25:2)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 25:2), visit the individual, and guide the assembly to act in keeping with the facts. The believer who passed on the information to the overseers has no further responsibility and must submit to their judgment (Hebrews 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should young Christian families use TV and videos as a baby sitter?

Should young Christian families use TV and videos as a baby sitter?

With television about as common in the home as electricity and running water, suggesting that children grow up without it sounds hopelessly archaic. Nevertheless, "mine eye affecteth my heart" (Lamentations 3:51)" TARGET="_blank">Lamentations 3:51) expresses a principle. Even if parents were to effectively control the programming, the blatant materialism, violence, and suggestiveness of the advertising is detrimental. Television offers some valuable content. Its liabilities seem to outweigh its value.

While videos can likewise be harmful, they offer valuable content. With appropriate choices, parents can provide historical, scientific, geographic, and spiritual material through videos.

None of this, however, is a substitute for the value of a developing relationship between the child and his parents. Solomon remembers and values his personal relationship with both his mother and father in Proverbs 4:3." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 4:3. To habitually fill a child’s hours with a replacement for parenting is misguided. The parental relationship is especially important for a young child; it’s the foundation for the teen years.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the proper use of assembly funds?

What is the proper use of assembly funds?

1 Corinthians 16:1-4," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:1-4, linked with 2 Corinthians 8, 9," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 8, 9, guides us. These funds were a special offering for fellow-believers suffering from natural disaster (see also Acts 11:28-30)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:28-30).

1 Timothy 5:3-16" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:3-16 teaches and qualifies the assembly's responsibility to meet the needs of the indigent among its number.

Although not supported in Corinth by the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:12;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 11:7, 9)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:7, 9), Paul received support from the Philippians (Philippians1:5; 2:30; 4:10-19)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians1:5; 2:30; 4:10-19). He intimates that churches support the gospel financially (4:15) and states (1 Corinthians 9:14)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:14) that "they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." Assemblies or individual believers who benefit from ministry should "communicate" with those who minister (Galatians 6:6)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:6). This material communication (fellowship) expresses their share in this work of God.

Therefore, the Lord intends the use of assembly funds to express both Christian kindness and also the assembly's partnership in the work of God locally (Galatians 6:6)" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 6:6) and further afield (2 Corinthians 11:8, 9)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:8, 9).

Overseers guide the assembly (Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, mg.) in its distribution of funds. They are accountable to the Lord, the assembly, and the government (in that order) for this distribution.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the serpent

Was the serpent’s subtlety (Gen 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 3:1) due to its native ability or Satan’s powers?

Three clues suggest the subtlety was due to the prudence or sense God had given it. First, the comparison of the serpent to "any beast of the field which the Lord God had made" indicates that not just this one serpent, but the entire species of serpents was "more subtle." Second, the curse on the serpent (v 14) extends to all its kind, not just the serpent Satan used; and God’s judgments are just. Again, addressing the serpent, God moves (v 15) to the instigator behind the scenes and is actually speaking to Satan. That relates to the third clue. Without assigning a human will to the serpent, we note that Satan easily finds allies among those specially enriched with advantages (see previous answers). Satan spoke through the serpent, but in some way took advantage of its native subtlety, so that neither Eve nor Adam expressed surprise that a serpent should approach them as he did.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Isaiah 45 teach that God made the earth "without form"?

Doesn't Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 prove that God did not create the earth "without form"?

In the New Scofield Reference Bible, the editors moved the note on the Gap Theory from its place in the old edition (Genesis 1:2)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2) to Isaiah 45:18," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18, since this verse seems to offer stronger proof for the theory than any other. Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 states that God did not create the earth "without form" (tohu), but Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was "tohu." Thus it would seem that the earth became formless some time after the initial creation. But to understand Isaiah's meaning, we must look at 45:18 in its context. The last phrase of the verse explains the point. Isaiah is speaking of God's design in creation. God did not create the world to be an empty place, but formed it to be inhabited. It was never God's purpose to have an empty world, so He filled it with inhabitants. In Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, therefore, the formless and empty state of the earth on the first day was simply the beginning, not the goal of creation. During the five days of creation that followed, God progressively finished the earth's shape and filled it with creatures. By the end of the sixth day, the earth was no longer "tohu." God had achieved all that He intended, and rested on the seventh day. Further, the context of Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18 shows why the prophet discusses this truth here. What God starts, He finishes (see 55:11; 66:9). Israel's salvation is guaranteed, because (according to 45:17) it is eternal. It was planned "from the foundation of the earth," and therefore must come about-despite present appearances. Just as God accomplished His creative purpose for the earth in six days, so He will perform His saving purpose for Israel in due time.

D. Vallance
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do Christians drink wine at the Lord's Supper but at no other time?

Am I right in refusing to take the cup at the Lord’s Table because it is not “non-alcoholic”?

That the wine used by the Lord at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was the ordinary wine of the country, nothing but special pleading can deny. The vintage was then long past, so that any idea of fresh grape juice and water is ruled out. At Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: ), the erroneous idea had crept in that the Lord’s Supper was to be a meal, and each brought his or her provisions, and “one was hungry and another drunken”! How does the apostle meet this scandal? Not by advocating the use of some substitute for the ordinary wine used, but by showing that it was not a meal, but a memorial act, for which a morsel of bread or a sup of wine sufficed. I am not advocating the habitual use of wine as a beverage; on the contrary, but for anyone to refuse to partake of the cup, which the Lord Himself instituted, because it contains wine, which some have abused, seems like setting up himself to be wiser than God, and to incur a serious responsibility.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu