Dale Robbins

• About this site

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

• About this site

 Sketches of Jewish Social Life

• About this site

Grace Taufeek's Story - "...an ultrasound showed a mass around my spinal canal. I was confused, sad, mad, and scared as I was trying to realize what was really happening. I was quite scared – sometimes even to tears – but deep down, I always had a sense of peace..." (more)

• About this site

Sunday School Lesson

• About this site

Elton Fairfield - "I am a Christian."

"I didn't buy that status, nor did I work for it. I was not born into it, even though both my parents are devoted Christians. I am a Christian because there was a moment in my life when I accepted the fact that the death of Jesus Christ was for my sins."

• About this site

• About this site

Can the Sin against the Holy Spirit be committed to-day?

The possibility would seem greater in the present day than in the days of Christ, as the Holy Spirit is now in Person on the earth. This sin seems to be a deliberate ascription, not necessarily aloud, but perhaps in the heart, to Satan of the Spirit’s work. For those who refused the Lord Jesus, as Messiah there was forgiveness, as witness the early chapters of the Acts. But when once the apostolic testimony to a risen Christ by the Holy Ghost was definitely and nationally refused, we hear no longer of such mass conversions, and the blessing moved more and more from Jerusalem to the Gentiles, though the grace of God lingered over the beloved city, as the glory had done in the time of Ezekiel. There may be a point in the experience of many, when they finally resolve to refuse Christ and probably never experience the Spirit’s drawing again. They will henceforward believe any lie, but the truth, never.

Such individual apostacy will become the mass movement of the very last days. They Will believe the lie, and take the mark of the Beast and their eternal doom will be finally sealed. This is apostacy, from which there is no recovery, a.giving up of Christianity, sometimes, as one hears to-day, for Mohammedaflism, Buddism, Hinduism, Spiritism or what not. One thing, however, is, I believe, certain, that such apostacy is never marked by a fear of having apostatised. That is not the sign of apostacy, but rather the belief that the truth has at last been found.

Where a poor soul dreads having committed the unpardonable sin, and still desires to be saved, there is no apostacy, and no doubt there is still mercy in the heart of God to such an one, and a full offer of salvation by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Let such an one come to Christ and he or she will not be cast out.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

According to 1 Kings 15:33" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:33 Baasha began to reign over Israel in the third year of Asa, king of Judah, and reigned twenty-four years, making his death occur In the twenty-seventh year of Asa’s reign. In 2 Chron. xvi. i, however, we read that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, i.e., nine years after his death, according to the chronology in ‘Kings. How can this discrepancy be explained?

The natural way of explaining such a difficulty would be to say that there has evidently been a transcriber’s error—_”tllirty_sjxth year of Asa” in 2 Chronicles 16:1," TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 16:1, for thirty-sixth year. Baasha would then have become king early in the 3rd year of Asa, and reigned 24 years, a part of a year counting a year. Baasha would then have died probably toward the close of Asa’s z6th year, and have been succeeded by Elah his son in the same year. Such an error would in no way affect the inspiration of the Bible, but only manifest the carelessness of the transcriber. I once found in a new French Bible the following sentence:
“God resists the humble and gives grace to the proud.” I at once wrote to the B. & F.B.S., and far from accusing me of attacking the inspiration of the Scriptures, they thanked me and had a new sheet printed and inserted in the First Epistle of Peter in this French edition. It is certain that, apart from the inspiration of God, by which the chronicler wrote, he, as a man, had access to the Books of Kings, etc., and was quite as capable of noticing the discrepancy as the present questioner and answerer. Besides, if it was a transcriber’s error, why was it left and why did no variety of reading spring up? Again, the numbers “thirty-six” and “twenty-six” are very distinct in the Hebrew, and are given not in numbers, but in words, “twenty” being “‘esrim,” and “thirty,” shelöshim,” which are not easily confused, so why should we not seek some other explanation? There are good authorities who believe that the thirty-sixth year of Asa in Chronicles really refers to the year of the division of the kingdoms, which would be the i6th year of his reign. This fits in much better with the time necessary for the wars between Asa and Baasha, the building of Ramah; and this mode of reckoning was, in all likelihood, in general use at the time. In any case, if we knew all, all would be plain, and we can fall back with confidence on the words of the Apostle, “All Scripture,” (or Every Scripture) is given by inspiration of God.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Why is it said of Abram in Genesis 15:9-10," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:9-10, “The birds divided he not”?

Why were the animals divided, but not the birds?

We see in verse 9 that, preparatory to making a covenant with Abram, the Lord God directed him to take certain sacrificial victims—a heifer of three years old, a she-goat of three years old, a ram of three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. On the slain carcases of these the covenant was to be made. Evidently God had given general directions as to sacrifices and the clean animals to be offered up, as we gather from the knowledge of such things displayed, for example, by Noah, who knew the animals that were clean, that is, fit for sacrifice, and unclean— unfit (see Genesis 7:2, 3);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 7:2, 3); and the same with the fowls—of the unclean two would suffice, but the clean were to go in “by sevens”—as these latter would be needed for sacrifice (Genesis 8:20)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8:20). No doubt, too, the order to be followed was divinely revealed. The very word for covenant, “berlth, from an unused root, “barath” means “to cut, to hew”— that is, the victims were divided—he who made the covenant had to pass between the Victims. In Jeremiah 34:19," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 34:19, those who made the covenant passed between the calves—all typical of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

According to Hebrews 9:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:17 the covenant is always made on the ground of dead things (i.e. sacrifices). I am convinced that the idea at the back of this whole passage is that of a covenant, not a testament or will in our modern sense, as the next verse seems clearly to show. If we turn to Exodus 24" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 24: , there is no thought of a will being made, but of a covenant being established between Jehovah and Israel. How then could the second covenant be a testament? The R.V., although somewhat hesitatingly retaining “covenant” up to verse 15, translates verse i: “For a testament is of force where there hath been death” (margin, “over the dead”). The word, “dead,” is plural, and therefore must, one would judge, refer to the covenant victims, rather than to the testator of a will—who is a single individual. I suppose that the reason Abram did not divide the birds is that they formed one offering in two parts-_one of which was placed on each side, representing a cut victim. To those who have a deeper appreciation of the work of Christ, the Word divides the victim even between the . . . joints and
marrow (Hebrews 4:12)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:12).

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is it so that “Immortality in God’s Word has no reference to the soul”? If this be so will you kindly explain Matthew 10:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28 “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul”

Immortality is immunity from death. Clearly man did not then possess immortality in that sense, when created, for he was warned he would die, if he ate the forbidden fruit. But what is death then? It certainly is not “annihilation” or a cessation of existence, for Adam and Eve Continued to exist after the fall. In fact no external change apparently took place in them. But a marked spiritual change occurred, for “They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden. . . and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God” (Genesis 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:8). Death therefore is not cessation of existence, but separation of existence, that is existence out of harmony with God.

This spiritual death has been the condition of the whole human race ever since. When a man believes the gospel “he passes from death unto life” (John 5:24)." TARGET="_blank">John 5:24). He now possesses eternal life and has the assurance from God that “he will never perish” (John 10:28)." TARGET="_blank">John 10:28). This is immortaiity in the spiritual sense, “Verily, verily I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death” (John 8:51)." TARGET="_blank">John 8:51). But the fall did not kill the body. To assure this, man was shut off from the tree of life and flow “it is appointed unto men once to die” (Hebrews 9:27)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:27). Even the body of the Christian “is dead, because of sin” (Romans 8:10)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:10). If he dies, his corruptible body will put OR incorruptibility at the Lord’s return, if he survives till then his mortal body will put on immortality. He has the immortality of the spiritual side of his being already included in the gift of eternal life, for that immortality is not only a bodily attribute is clear from the Words, “God Who only bath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:16) —that is in Flimseff, though, of course, He does communicate it. The special verse referred to, Matthew 10:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:28, merely states that the soul survives the body. Man may kill the latter, but cannot kill the former. This would be equally true of an Unconverted man, who will never cease to exist away from God, as of a converted man who will never cease to live with God.

W.H.

• About this site