In what ways does a believer's sin differ from an unbeliever

In what ways does a believer's sin differ from an unbeliever’s?

Sin always grieves God, no matter who commits it. However, when an unbeliever sins, a record is kept in heaven in view of the Great White Throne judgment. There, the books will be opened and all unrepentant sinners will be judged according to their works and punished with everlasting destruction in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12,13)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:12,13). When a believer sins, it also grieves the Lord; however, the Lord Jesus endured the full punishment on the cross for the sins of every believer (Romans 8:1)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:1). If a believer's sin is intentional and persistent, the Father in love chastises His child for his restoration. A believer filled with sorrow, repentance, and confession values the provision God has made for us: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:1, 2)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 2:1, 2). "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1:9).

A. Joyce
Other pages in this section

About this site

How long was John the Baptist’s ministry?

The divine historian tells us John’s ministry began "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:1). Secular historians date that around 29 A.D. John mentions four Passover feasts (John 2:23;" TARGET="_blank">John 2:23; John 5:1;" TARGET="_blank">John 5:1; John 6:4;" TARGET="_blank">John 6:4; John 13:1)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:1). The Lord’s ministry began before the first and He was crucified on the fourth Passover. That suggests His public ministry was slightly more than three years. If we accept that the Lord’s crucifixion was in 33 A.D., His public ministry began in the latter part of 29 A.D. when He "began to be about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23), perhaps as much as 6 months after John began to preach. Matthew places the death of John the Baptist before the feeding of the 5000 (Matthew 14:1-13, 21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 14:1-13, 21). John tells us the feeding of the 5000 took place shortly before the third Passover(John 6:4-13)," TARGET="_blank">John 6:4-13), about two and a half years into the Lord’s ministry. John had been in prison for a time before that, so his ministry - before imprisonment - may have been as short as two and a half years. Such a valuable man! Yet he fulfilled his course (Acts 13:25)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:25) within three years. Apparently, the Lord gave neither John nor his disciples an explanation of the divine plan, for "His ways are past finding out" (Romans 11:33)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 11:33).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between the Day of Christ, the Day of the Lord, and the Day of God?

What is the difference between the Day of Christ, the Day of the Lord, and the Day of God?

The Day of Christ (Philippians 1:11; 2:16," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:11; 2:16, also "the Day of Jesus Christ," 1:6) is a "day" of approximately 7 years and includes events in heaven beginning with the Rapture, when God has completed His work in us here on earth (1:6, 11). It continues through the Bema (2:16) until the Lord returns to earth.

The Day of the Lord lasts 1007 years, commencing at the beginning of the tribulation (2 Thessalonians 5:2," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 5:2, with Daniel 9:27)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:27). It culminates after the 1000 year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:6)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:6) when God judges this earth by fire (2 Peter 3:7, 10;" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 3:7, 10; Revelation 20:9-11)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:9-11). It includes events on earth.

The Day of God is unmeasured in duration, commencing at the end of the Day of the Lord (2 Peter 3:12)" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 3:12) and includes events in the new heavens and earth, in which righteousness dwells and God tabernacles with men (Revelation 21:1-4)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:1-4). It is different from "the great day of God Almighty" (Revelation 16:14)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 16:14).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

In what name should a Christian be baptized?

Would not Colossians 3." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3. 17: “Whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,” settle the question that to baptize in “the name of the Lord Jesus” is the correct formula for this dispensation?

While cordially accepting Colossians 3:17," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:17, we cannot agree that it has anything to do with the question of baptizing “in (or “into”) the name of the Lord Jesus” rather than “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Certainly we baptize “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and for that reason we do it as He laid down in Matthew 28." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28. But we cannot in any way accept the theory that in the Acts some new “formula” took the place of the one He appointed then. There are three points which should be prominent in carrying out the ordinance:

(i) The authority on which it is carried out. We all agree it is “in the name (en to onomati) of the Lord Jesus”, that is, on His authority. The only record we have of the Lord instituting baptism is in Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 and Mark i6. If these passages are taken from us, we are shut up to some supposed occasion when the Lord gave other directions, of which we have no shadow of a record. Certainly every baptism in the Acts was carried out “in the name.” This phrase (en tO onomati), (quite distinctbe it noted from that used in Acts 8." TARGET="_blank">Acts 8. i6 and 19. 5, but which the questioner and his friends seem to confuse with it), occurs only twice, that is in Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48. If one of these phrases replaced the usual formula, which is it? or were there two new formul given?

(2) The second point is the confession of faith of the believer. If the servants of the Lord are responsible to baptize believers, the believers are equally responsible to be baptized. (This we have in Mark 16:16)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:16). For that they must confess their faith in Christ. This is embodied in the phrase referred to above as occurring in Acts 8:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:16, of the Samaritans, and Acts 19:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:5 of the Ephesian disciples. This is “into the Name (eis to onoma) of the Lord Jesus,” the Person into whose name the candidate desired to be baptized. This was specially important in the two cases referred to, because the Samaritans had been cut off from Israel and the Ephesian disciples had been wrongly baptised “unto John’s baptism.”

That the apostle Paul did use the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 may, I think, be fairly deduced from the passage. When he learnt that these disciples had not even heard that the Holy Ghost had been given, he asked at once, “Into what then were ye baptized?” He knew immediately they could not have received the right kind of baptism “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” for that would have informed them that the Spirit was revealed. No other form proposed as a substitute for that of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 would have told them anything about it. Into this aspect of baptism very suitably fits the teaching of Romans 6," TARGET="_blank">Romans 6, by which the believer learns that at his baptism he was identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

(3) The third point is the object of the act of baptism. This is not in contrast or opposition to the other two phrases, but in harmony—”Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” The neophyte enters by faith into all that the Triune Name contains and implies. These three points have been for years emphasized by the writer in the act of baptizing—” ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus’ and on your confession of faith in Him, I baptize you ‘into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’.” The idea that Paul intended in any way to set aside baptism, in saying that “he thanked God he had only baptized a few of them” is certainly a mistake. He merely meant he was glad he had not performed the manual act, “lest they should say he baptized in his own name.” As an historical fact he was in the habit of having all converts baptized on confession of faith (see Acts 16:15,33;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:15,33; Acts 18:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:8).

Salvation not by Baptism

It should be noted that baptism is commanded to those who are already saved. It is not the way to obtain salvation or secure salvation. If you are worried that you were not baptized correctly and therefore in danger of losing your soul forever, then you should first accept Christ in order to be saved and then later be baptized.

Ephesians 2:8-9" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (18) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What basic books would you recommend for Bible study?

What basic books would you recommend for Bible study?

Accurate study of the Bible involves several principles: the meaning of a word in the original Hebrew and Greek (1 Corinthians 2:13);" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 2:13); the context of the passage (since words may have more than one meaning, the context even determines their meaning) (words: Galatians 3:16;" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:16; passages: Romans 4:9-13);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 4:9-13); related truth as revealed in the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 1:20)." TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:20). For studying the Bible by these principles, the following books give assistance with word meanings: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words; Unger's Bible Dictionary (more like an encyclopedia); Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or Young's Analytical Concordance (preferably both). These commentaries will help with context and related truth: The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine; What The Bible Teaches; Believer's Bible Commentary, W. MacDonald; Synthetic Bible Studies, J. M. Gray; Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong; Egypt to Canaan, J. Ritchie; The Tabernacle in the Wilderness, J. Ritchie; The Tabernacle, H. Soltau; The Holy Vessels and Furniture of the Tabernacle, H. Soltau. This is a very brief list and could easily be lengthened to include several hundred excellent commentaries and books on Scriptural subjects.

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have His own angels to command?

Are we to believe that God the Father has angels (Revelation 3:5)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3:5), Christ some (2 Thessalonians 1:7)," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:7), and Michael some (Revekation 12:7)?

Or are they all the same?

Though we recognise in the Scriptures that the Divine Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, that is that each possesses the whole Divine essence in the Unity of the Godhead, we equally see distinctions between the Persons, and differences of relation and function; also conditions of subordination between them for mutual purposes, and this not only since the Incarnation, but eternally and necessarily so by the Divine law of their Being. Thus the Father is revealed as Source—the Fountain of all things. He originates, He purposes, He is the Creator of all things. He is the Father of Spirits, and therefore of the angels, who belong to the spiritual creation, so that they may with the utmost propriety be termed “The Father’s angels.” Then on the other hand, the Son was the Agent in Creation—”All things were made by Him,” including “all things that are in heaven,’ and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him” (John 1: 3;" TARGET="_blank">John 1: 3; Colossians 1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:i6). He, too, is said to be “Head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:10). In such phrases are inclusively described “the innumerable company of angels—the general assembly” (Hebrews 12: 22, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12: 22, 23). These may then be equally called Christ’s angels. To say that they are the Father’s and not the Son’s, or the Son’s not the Father’s, is to ignore our Lord’s words, “All that the Father hath are Mine” (John 16: 15)," TARGET="_blank">John 16: 15), or “All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine” (John 17:io). That is, even when the Father is said to give anything to the Son, it does not cease to be the Father’s. In the cases cited above— Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: , the Lord is speaking of His Father and naturally He speaks of the angels in relation to Him (His angels), but in 2 Thessalonians 1: 7," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1: 7, the Spirit is describing the return in glory of the Son, and here the angels are spoken of, as we should expect, as His angels, because related to Him. But we do not for that conceive of the angels as divided into two companies, the Father’s and Christ’s. The case of Michael’s angels is very simple and quite distinct. They are not his in the same sense as above, but they are the angels put under his command for a certain purpose. Michael is five times mentioned in the Bible—thrice in Daniel 10:13" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 10:13 “One of the chief (“the first” of marg.) princes”; v. 21, “your prince”; and Daniel 12:1" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 12:1 , “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Then in Jude 1:9" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:9 as “the archangel”; and lastly, in Revelation 12" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12: 7 as the leader in the war in heaven, when Satan and his angels (those who followed him in his fatal choice), will be cast down. Satan is always the bitter enemy of Israel, God’s earthly people, and Michael, the archangel (he is the only one so named) is specially seen as opposing him, and is, as leader of the angelic hosts, called to fight against him. In this sense they are Michael’s angels, that is, under his leadership. W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Bible ever limit social contact between believers?

Does the New Testament ever advocate limiting social contact with another believer?

Romans 14:1-15" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-15:6 teaches the necessity of preserving unity among believers by receiving one another to eat meals together. If verses 5, 14, 15 in chapter 16 refer to three separate churches in Rome, then social contact among believers also preserves a right relationship among assemblies in an area.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-165" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:6-165 in notably different. The apostle advocates limiting social contact with certain believers. The believers who were not working, using the Lords coming as their reason, were becoming busy-bodies, adversely affecting the heavier of others. If they would not obey Pauls teaching in this letter (verse 14), the believers were to withdraw from them (Verse 6) and have no company with them (Verse 14). This discipline within the assembly could be called "social discipline."

In addition, the words, "have no company," are the same as in 1 Corinthians 5:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:9 and 11. There in verse 11, "have no company: includes "with such an one, no not to eat." Both 2 Thessalonians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3 and 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5 are assembly actions. Social division in the assembly is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, but social discipline is not a decision by individuals, but by the assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

How do we understand the meaning of "only begotten" Son?

The word translated "only begotten" appears nine times in our New Testament. Luke uses it three times in his gospel to describe either an only daughter (8:42) or only son (7:12; 9:38). The term also describes Isaac (Heb 11:17)," TARGET="_blank">Heb 11:17), which is instructive, because Isaac was not the only son born to Abraham. He was the father of Ishmael and six other sons (Gen 25:2)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 25:2). Isaac, however, was uniquely precious (22:2), because God promised to fulfil His covenant with Abraham through Isaac.

The remaining references to "only begotten" are from John’s pen and all refer to the Lord Jesus. The first mention in John is significant. Although the other four references (1:18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9)" TARGET="_blank">1Jo 4:9) have an article ("the") with "only begotten," the first reference does not. "We beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten of a Father" (John 1:14," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, YLT). The absence of an article does not mean He was like an only begotten son. He was and is "the only begotten Son." As Mr. Newberry points out, the missing article indicates character. John saw in Christ every evidence that He was the Son uniquely precious to His Father and every reason why He should be thus treasured by His Father.

Although John never refers to believers as "sons of God," he does tell us that we are begotten (a related word) by God (1Jo 5:1, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1Jo 5:1, 18). Since many are begotten by God, the term "only begotten" cannot refer to the act of "begetting." It cannot therefore imply a beginning of the Son’s existence, or His becoming the Son of God, or His birth into humanity. "Only begotten" expresses the uniqueness of the Son in the essential value He has to the Father and in the central place He has in all that the Father has purposed.

For those who find the expression "only begotten" rather archaic, the words "only Son" convey much the same truth, although "unique Son" may express the truth more completely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should the Scriptures be read at the meeting to remember the Lord?

Should the Scriptures be read at the meeting to remember the Lord?

The Scriptures should be prominent and opened in all assembly gatherings (I Tim 4:13" TARGET="_blank">I Tim 4:13 – "public reading"). The Spirit will dictate what is appropriate on Lord's Day morning, whether continued thoughts about His Person, work, or coming, or a devotional or practical Word. The nature of Paul's discourse after the Breaking of Bread in Troas is not recorded (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). When would we be more likely to respond to ministry that challenges our lives than after being occupied with His body given and blood outpoured? The Lord "expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:27). What an exposition that Lord's Day by the greatest Teacher! He found them with hearts broken and left them with hearts burning! We too need our hearts warmed and zeal renewed to face a hostile world.

Opening the Scriptures before the bread is broken needs qualification: the remembrance of our Lord is preeminently occupation with Christ, especially His death (1 Corinthians 11:26;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:26; Luke 22:19, 20)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19, 20). It is NOT for teaching. Reading the Scriptures about the Lord Jesus with a few brief comments can lead the saints to worship our Lord. As appropriate hymns lead us in worship so likewise do appropriate Scriptures.

A.Hull
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it wrong for a woman to pray with other believers gathered in a home?

Is it wrong for a woman to pray with other believers gathered in a home?

Two primary passages, 1 Corinthians 14:34" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:12, are likely the reason for this question. The first specifically deals with church gatherings, as the context in the chapter makes clear. The passage in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 is likewise in the context of public assembly gatherings. At least three considerations indicate this. First, in the next chapter, Paul clarifies that behavior in the house of God (v. 15) is the focus of this letter. Second, if this injunction in chapter 2 includes the home sphere, this seems to contradict Paul’s statement that older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:3)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:3). If we understand 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 to be public gatherings and the Titus passage, in keeping with its context, to be private instruction, the seeming contradiction disappears. Third, in 1 Timothy 2," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2, Paul insists that the males pray in every place (v. 8). If the context of this chapter is the home, is Paul excluding women from praying in their closet?

The only remaining concern, then, is a woman’s "usurping authority over the man" (2:11). Strong’s Enhanced Dictionary gives the meaning of this verb as "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, . . . to govern, exercise dominion over one." In the assembly where God’s design displays the male’s headship and the woman’s submission (1 Cor. 11:3-16)," TARGET="_blank">1 Cor. 11:3-16), a woman does nothing that detracts from that display. The prayer in Acts 4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4: 24-30 is the assembly’s united prayer. Whoever spoke those words in prayer lead the entire assembly in expressing their desires. Thus, in a special way, praying in the assembly leads the entire gathering in the presence of the Lord. Were a woman to pray, she would be publicly leading and therefore limiting the display of male leadership.

Apart from assembly gatherings, a woman’s prayer more particularly expresses only her own burden. Hannah’s praying exemplifies this (1 Samuel 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 1:11). A woman praying aloud privately, with her husband or children, or with her friends does not affect the public testimony of male headship. She is not leading a united prayer as one does in an assembly meeting. Her praying in the home appears to be consistent with the Bible’s teaching.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu