Would the powers of reasoning be lost in the torments of a literal fire?

The implications of the question are so overwhelming that they forbid our answering this in some theoretical or philosophic manner. Eternal realities can only be expressed by the Word of God. The other danger which we must avoid is trying to understand eternal experiences by earthly temporal ones. Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 reveals to us a man in hell. Along with having other faculties, he is evidently able to think, remember, recognize responsibility, and draw conclusions. He remembers five brethren. If he was the eldest, this shows his sense of responsibility for their welfare. He recognizes and logically deduces that if they follow the same path as he has, they will also be in hell. He formulates a plan, "Send Lazarus..." which he assumes will convert them. All of this argues for the preservation of reasoning.

Just as the body was used as a vehicle for sin and therefore must participate in the suffering, so the mind and reasoning, employed to keep God at bay throughout life, must be preserved to suffer. Suffering upon earth frequently dulls the mind and destroys the body. The God who will prevent the destruction of bodies in eternal fire will also prevent the destruction of reasoning.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do women violate the teaching of a woman

Do women violate the teaching of a woman’s silence when they sing in the assembly?

When Paul enjoins the sisters to be silent in the assembly (1Co 14:34)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:34), he supports this from the Law. "Under obedience" denotes submission or subjection to the role God has ordained. The Lord Jesus is the introduction to this in the New Testament, being subject to His parents (Luk 2:41, 51)." TARGET="_blank">Luk 2:41, 51). The ordaining of differing roles for women and men goes back to Genesis 1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1 and 2, which is part of the Law, a literary division of the Old Testament (compare Luke 16:16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:16 with 24:44). As in First Timothy (2:11-15), Paul teaches that the silence of the sisters is a leadership issue. Because of male headship, sisters do not lead in the use of gifts (1Co 14:4, 5)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:4, 5), prayer (v 15), worship (v 16), or teaching (v 3; 1Ti 2:12)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 2:12). In these four activities an individual is the visible leader in the activity.

In singing (1Co 14:15)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:15), although one person leads (therefore a male) in starting the singing, the congregation joins together. It is not a leadership issue, therefore the women sing. The same principle applies to saying "Amen" after a brother’s prayers.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Please explain "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:21

Please explain "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:21" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:21

There is no indication either in Scripture or in historical records during the apostolic period that living Christians were baptized in the place of unbaptized believers who had died. Were this a scriptural practice, it would have been taught in the New Testament epistles. Had it been wrongly practiced, the apostles would have written against it. This practice, however, is being followed by certain modem day cults.

Every reference to death in the chapter refers to physical, not spiritual, death. Paul is dealing with the false teaching of some in Corinth who denied the resurrection; therefore, the primary subject of the chapter is the absolute certainty of the resurrection of all believers who have died. The apostle asks the question in verse 29 that if new converts were not absolutely sure of resurrection, why would they be willing to risk persecution by being baptized, thus publicly stepping into the ranks of believers, in place of those who had died or been martyred. In a parallel question in verse 30, Paul asks why would he be willing to live in jeopardy of his fife every hour if he were not absolutely confident of the resurrection.

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "fellowship" mean in regards to the church?

ASSEMBLY FELLOWSHIP

Would it be correct to say that there is only one Fellowship in Scripture, into which alt believers are brought upon accepting Christ as their Saviour? If this be so, how are we to understand the Fellowship of 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2? Again, does not the New Testament teach Assembly Fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away? and are letters of commendation necessary? Further, does the local church in any district include all the Christians in that district? and should a professed believer who belongs to a sect, but who comes to our Lord’s Day Morning Meeting and expects to get breaking bread, be received, though he has no intention of severing his ecclesiastical association?

The statement that “There is only one fellowship in Scripture, into which all believers are brought on accepting Christ as their Saviour,” is absolute nonsense. The particular kind of fellowship implied in any passage where the word “Fellowship” occurs has to be gathered from the context there; and an examination of this will reveal that there are various “fellowships” spoken of in the New Testament. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Greek word “Koinonia,” which is usually translated “fellowship,” in the N.T. is also rendered, “communion,” “communication,” “contribution,” and “distribution.”

The first occurrence of the word is in Acts 2:42," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42, where it is said that the new converts “continued steadfastly in the . . . fellowship.” Here we have a “fellowship” in which one may “continue” or not continue; and to apply it to the fellowship of life in Christ, in which all true believers cannot avoid continuing, is to make the statement in the verse meaningless.

It is next found in Romans 1:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26 (where in our English Version it is rendered “contribution”). Could it be said that every saint of the present dispensation, or even every saint then living, had fellowship in the gift which the saints of Macedonia and Achaia sent to those of Jerusalem?

The epistle to the Philippians supplies perhaps the most interesting examples of the various uses of the word “fellowship.” In Philippians 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:5 we read of their Fellowship in the Gospel. Are all saints in this? In Philippians 2:1 we have mention of Fellowship of the Spirit. If all have this, why does Paul say, “If there be any”? In Philippians 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10 he speaks of the Fellowship of His Sufferings, which he himself desired to know. But could saints who never had the least experience of persecution for Christ’s sake, claim to be in that fellowship? Lastly in Philippians 4:15 (see R.V.) we get the

Fellowship of Giving.

As to the passage in 1 John 1:3-7," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:3-7, in which we have the last four occurrences of the word “fellowship” in the Scriptures, the expression in verse 3, “that ye also may have fellowship with us,” implies a fellowship which they might or might not have, according to the extent of their knowledge of Christ and His Word; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, of which they might have more or less, according to whether they knew more or less of Christ and His Word. The further references in verses 6, 7, are clearly to a fellowship in which we can only claim to be, so long as we walk in the light. The man who says he is in it, while yet he is not walking in the light, is described as lying.

As to the next question—whether there is such a thing as “Assembly fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away”—only a person of warped mind would deny this. When Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” and the Corinthians obeyed him, was the one who was so “put away” to continue in the circle and insist on breaking bread, as being a member of the so-called “local church?” And if, while yet in the position of having been “put away,” he goes to reside in another town, must the Assembly in that town also set him down at the Table, because since he now has his home there, he is a member of their “local church?” If these things are so, we may leave the first epistle to the Corinthians out of future editions of our Bibles.

With regard to the meaning of the word “church,” when used locally, I have to say what already I have said about that other word “fellowship.” What it includes or does not include in any particular case must be judged from the context there. In 1 Corinthians 10:32" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32—it evidently takes in every saved person in the district, just as the other two terms in the verse, “Jews” and “Gentiles,” take in all the others in the district. But in the same epistle at 1 Corinthians 11:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35, it just as plainly means none but those who come to the Meeting; and this is made even clearer by 1 Corinthians 14:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:23, in which, after the whole church has come together, there may still come in one who is spoken of as “unlearned,” yet who is distinguished (by the little word “or” that follows) from an “unbeliever.” In other words, he is a saved man, but not yet in the “local church,” in the sense in which the term “church” is used in this verse.
Moreover, not only can a person be put out of a local church when he deserves it, but according to 3 John io, he may be “cast out of the church” even when he does not deserve it. One might well ask, Who were still “in” this local church after Diotrephes had cast these brethren “out” of it? Or were the cast out brethren “out” and “in” at the same time?

As to “letters of commendation,” is it not clearly enough stated in 2 Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:1 that some needed them, though Paul, being well-known to everyone, did not? How often would some require a thing to be stated in Scripture, in order to feel themselves bound to act accordingly?

With regard to the other matter—the case of a professed Christian who belongs to some sect, but comes to our meeting and expects to get breaking bread for one Lord’s Day only, and then returns to his own company—I would need a good deal of convincing that the one who wished so to act was an honest man. If he believes that we are right, why should he not come to stay with us? If he believes us to be wrong and his own sect right, why should he want to do wrong even for one Lord’s Day? And if he can do without “breaking bread” on fifty-one Sundays in the year, why should he be insistent on being allowed to do so on the remaining one?

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

About this site

Who manages this web site?

Gospel Hall dot org is managed by Shad Sluiter. He and his family have been part of the assembly that meets at the Marion Gospel Hall, Marion, IA (USA). Currently they are serving as missionaries in Hermosillo, Mexico. Jim Garvin at www.SiteAction.com provides the web server hosting.

Is this an Official Site?

The nature of assemblies who are represented on this site is that each congregation is an independent entity. No official headquarters for the "brethren" exist. However, the materials published represent the beliefs of these assemblies very well.

Why does this site exist?

Gospel Hall dot org began in 1997 as a way to share information about assemblies, to raise awareness of the gospel message and teaching about Christian living in a New Testament Church.

How can I contact you?

Please see the "contact us" section of the main menu.

Where can I find the Gospel Hall Forum?

The ghf is managed at www.gospelhall.org.uk.

Where is the discussion page?

The online forum has been removed. Unfortunately, some of the discussions were counter-productive to the goals of this site.

Do you accept new materials?

Yes. If you have material suitable for publishing on this site, please contact me for details. I am seeking full-text books, mp3 files and other media content that is suitable for helping people grow in their christian life. Look around the site to see what materials have been published to get an idea of what is needed. There is no pay offered for any work submitted. Editorial blogs or opinions are not needed at this time.

If you are a php or Flash programmer, there are unfished projects that also need expertise.

Other pages in this section

About this site

In Isaiah 53:12, who are the

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How would an oversight remove a fellow-overseer from that responsibility?

How would an oversight remove a fellow-overseer from that responsibility?

Human nature being what it is may at times make it seem impossible for overseers to work together. Divine grace being what it is will provide a way to work together in a godly fashion. And where a problem is developing, the sooner it is kindly confronted, the better.

Paul speaks about elders in the last paragraph (vv 17-25) of 1 Timothy chapter five. To be consistent with the flow of the paragraph, we note three initial statements he makes about elders: they should receive becoming respect (vv 17-18); they should be protected from unfounded criticism (v 19); they are particularly accountable to the assembly for public wrongs (v20). This latter teaching relates to the rest of the paragraph. Notably omitted, however, is any reference to his being removed from being an overseer.

If he is factious, he is to be confronted, but within the bounds of the oversight (Titus 3:10)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:10). If he refuses such admonitions, he and his teaching are to be rejected. How he could continue to serve as an overseer is difficult to imagine. However, an overseer whose sins fall within the scope of 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5 is obviously removed from the oversight and the assembly. He is no longer "blameless" (1Ti 3:2)," TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:2), so could not return to that responsibility, even though he will hopefully be restored to the Lord and to the assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why would an elder monopolize the assembly

Why would an elder monopolize the assembly’s ministry and prayer?

This is a two-sided issue. Almost any overseer would prefer a more healthy condition in which he shares the weight of responsibility with others. He is likely concerned about one of two problems: either no one is willing to help or others’ help lacks spiritual character or Biblical soundness.

Part of the solution lies with the believers in the assembly. All service, worship, and prayer is for the Lord and His glory. Therefore, whatever the difficulties or sense of personal inadequacy, all believers (male or female) should prepare spiritually for the gatherings. Each male should seek the Lord’s help to contribute in a way that will honor the Lord. Private prayer where the only ear that evaluates is the Lord’s will help a brother to pray and worship publicly where the most important listening ear is the Lord’s.

A common goal for all believers is to increasingly contribute to the assembly words and thoughts that have a Scriptural truth and weight. The Lord faulted His people for bringing offerings that were merely convenient and lacking in value (Malachi 1:8)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 1:8). God expected their best from His people (Numbers 18:12)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 18:12).

Another part of the solution depends on the overseer in question. Unconsciously, he may make it difficult for others to take part by being overly exacting in his expectations or critical in his manner. In some way, he may have the Elijah syndrome: "I only am left" (1 Kings 19:10, 14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 19:10, 14). It is most gratifying that the Lord reserves for Himself some who are not as outstanding as Elijah and He accepts His children’s faulty expressions and limited thoughts of Himself. Where would any of us be if He accepted only perfection in us? In virtue of the glories of the Priest Who represents us, our God accepts our feeble offerings (Heb 9:24; 13:15)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 9:24; 13:15). An overseer’s responsibility then is to work with the material God provides and to so nurture it that God receives increasing glory from it. Even if the increase seems very small, he continues to do what he can so the smoking flax is not quenched (Isaiah 42:3)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 42:3).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize the title "Son of Man"?

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize this title?

In the Gospels, the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of Man on 53 occasions. In all but one of these, the words could be translated literally "the Son of the Man," a form only used of Christ in the Scriptures. On the other occasion, the form is "Son of Man," the same construction used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament on every occasion "son of man" appears. To give some perspective, in the gospel records the Lord referred to Himself as "the Christ" on eight occasions. He referred to Himself as Lord on ten occasions. We have five recorded incidents when He stated He is the Son of God.

But why this emphasis? In Daniel’s prophecy (7:13), at least three truths are related to the Son of Man: His authority, His coming, His rejection. In contrast to others whose dominion would be taken from them, the Son of Man receives authority that will never pass away (v 14). His coming is with the clouds of heaven (v 13). That His rejection precedes His coming is evident in linking two other Old Testament passages with this prophecy. He is a man Who comes from heaven. This is parallel to the teaching of Psalm 110" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110 (verses 1-3), where the coming ruler has enemies and his own people are unwilling for Him to reign over them while He is sitting at God’s right hand. Add to that verse 17 of Psalm 80," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 80, which appears to be messianic and links "the Man of Thy right hand" (His ascension) with "the Son of Man."

In at least seven of the recorded 53 occasions, He emphasizes His authority: over the Sabbath, the forgiveness of sins, all judgment, and entrance to the kingdom. Comparing Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 (v 4) and Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2 (vv 6-9), we conclude that the dominion over all the works of God’s hands was lost by Adam, the son of man, and now belongs to Jesus, the Son of Man, although all things are not yet put under to Him.

On at least 17 of these 53 occasions, the Lord is referring to His coming again - and always His coming to earth. He is anticipating His coming glory.

At least 26 of the occasions when He calls Himself the Son of Man, the Lord is emphasizing His rejection - including His death, burial, resurrection, or ascension. This is then a predominant thought associated with His title as the Son of Man.

As in Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 and various other passages, the term "son" does not always refer to physical generation, but refers rather to character (e. g., sons of Belial; see also Eph 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Eph 2:2 JND and Mat 23:31," TARGET="_blank">Mat 23:31, JND). The Son of Man embodies all that God ever intended a man to be.

His reasons for using this title so often, then, may be to emphasize His messiahship, coming glory, rejection, authority, and perfection, showing that He was both like, yet distinct from, every other man.

D. 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

Main Menu