Do we pray to the Holy Spirit or only to God the Father?

Do we pray to the Spirit or ask for the Spirit of God?

The Lord Jesus taught the disciples to pray to the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus (John 16:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:23). In the epistles we learn that we should pray in the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:18), who helps us to pray intelligently and makes intercession for us (Romans 8:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:26, 27). Before Pentecost, the Spirit came upon people temporarily to empower them for some special service. From the day of Pentecost onward, the Spirit came to indwell and seal each believer at the moment of conversion (Ephesians 1:13," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13, "upon believing"). We are never told in the epistles to pray for the Spirit, be cause He already indwells, us. We are told to be filled with the Spirit in order to serve God, and to walk in the Spirit in order to please God and not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:16).

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God need to be reconciled or only man?

It has often been stated, and generally accepted, “That God did not need to be reconciled.”

Now Trench, in his “Synonyms,” points out that katallage has two sides :—(ist) God laying aside His holy anger against our sins and receiving us with His favour; (2nd) The daily depositions under the Holy Spirit of the enmity of the old man toward God. Did God need to be reconciled?

No question is raised as to God’s love to sinners, nor as to His willingness that all should be saved (the death of Christ does not make God love sinners. He “so loved that He gave”). But whether EFFECTIVE “reconciliation” is made in Scripture simply to depend on the sinner’s willingness to “make it up” with God, it is certain that our Lord by His atoning death has fully met POTENTIALLY all the claims of God on account of sin. This, however, only becomes ACTUALLY true for those sinners who individually acknowledge their guilt, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and until they do, God’s attitude toward them is not one of complacency, but of righteous displeasure. As the late Dr. Moule puts it—”Reconciliation (katallage) habitually points to the winning rather the pardon of an offended king, than the CONSENT of the rebel to yield to his kindness.” “Be ye reconciled to God,” would then mean, “As the offending party, secure while you can His acceptance through the atoning work of Christ.” This is borne out by Matthew 5:23-24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:23-24, where it is the offender who is told to go and be reconciled to his brother, ostensibly by confession and amends. We, too, are the offenders: in order to be reconciled we must come to God, confess our sinfulness, and believe the Gospel, and then we have peace with God. As Trench (Syn. p. 292) writes of reconciliation: “To make the secondary meaning (that is the breaking down of the enmity of the carnal mind to God), the primary, is based . . . on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against the sinner” (i.e., Psalm 7:11," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 7:11, “God is angry with the wicked every day”).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the offending brother in Matthew 18 execommunited from the church?

Is the discipline exercised on a brother in Matthew 18:17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17 equivalent to that exercised in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

Let us see what these passages say. In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 the sinning one is to be “put away from among yourselves,” and the saints are not to have fellowship with him in any respect whatsoever. In Matthew 18:17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17, when the offender has refused to “hear the church,” it is said, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Our question therefore appears to mean, “Is this man also put away from the assembly as is the former?” and if so, the answer can only be that he is. For how could I be said to treat another “as an heathen man and a publican,” if he is still breaking bread with myself and others every Lord’s Day? And if the church has not put the man away at v. 17, why should it be said in the following verse, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?

But it may be asked, why is the expression, “Let him be unto THEE,” and not rather “unto YOU” or “unto THE CHURCH”? I suggest that it is because the passage in Matt. i8 is not dealing directly with church procedure at all, but with the attitude of an individual towards one who has sinned against him. The assembly is only introduced incidentally as having to take action in certain circumstances which are mentioned. All the way through from v. an individual is being addressed, and it is not to be wondered at that the same should be the case in v. 17. Yet at the same time, since the matter has now reached a stage where the offender has refused to hear the church, each member of it by that refusal has been practically put into the same position with regard to him as the one first of all concerned, and must act toward him in the same manner.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a believer be out of fellowship with God?

Can a believer be out of fellowship with God?

Speaking of losing our enjoyment of fellowship with God may be a better way to express this thought.

John writes his first epistle so the believers will have fellowship "with us" (1:3). He was the last surviving apostle and the apostles doctrine was under attack. The truths of this epistle confirmed believers in what the apostles taught. In this way, believers would have a deeper, more settled enjoyment of fellowship with John and those for whom he testified (1:2). John then affirms that he, the apostles, and all in the family of God are in "the fellowship" with the Father and with the Son (1:3). We can never be out of this fellowship.

In the verses that follow, John clearly indicates that sinning is not characteristic of the believers life, nor is lying or not doing the truth (1:6). Either an individual walks in darkness or in light, because he is either an unbeliever or a believer. The demarcation is clear. All who walk in the light (characteristic of all believers) have fellowship "one with another" (1:8).

Sadly, a believer can fail to enjoy this fellowship. Life is wasted while a believer is not enjoying this wonderful, family fellowship.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What New Testament books are most important as keys to other books?

What New Testament books are most important as keys to other books?

John unfolds truths regarding the Godhead and its interrelationships. He majors on eternal life, faith, and the Word of God. The Lord discloses the Rapture in John; Paul develops this in 1 Thessalonians. The teaching in John 13" TARGET="_blank">John 13-17 lays a basis for most of Pauls epistles. Johns other writings complete his gospels presentation.

Romans develops the foundations of the gospel, introduced in the gospels. Its doctrine and dispensational truths explain Gods ways in the Acts. Its dispensational section argues for Gods dealings with Israel in the Revelation and the Old Testament prophets.

1 Corinthians, "the Charter of the Church," completes the gospel records on the resurrection of Christ and complements 1 Thessalonians regarding the Rapture. Most important, it integrates Matthew, Acts, 1 Timothy and almost all New Testament assembly teaching. It is inseparable from 2 Corinthians.

Ephesians captures Gods eternal purpose for the Church, the Body, and our position in Christ. This relates it to John, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, and Colossians. The Church, as body, building, and bride completes truth from Genesis and climaxes in the Revelation.

Hebrews interprets many Old Testament prophecies and types. It elucidates much of Leviticus. Above all, it unites many Old and New Testament truths regarding Christs person and work.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it wrong to conjure dead spirits?

Please explain 1 Samuel 28:15-19" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15-19 in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Does this give ground for to-day’s teaching of Spiritism?

The story of 1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28 in no way justifies the practice of Spiritism in this or in any other age.

As for Ecciesiastes 9:5, it expresses the general rule, “The dead know not anything”; the above story of the witch of Endor is the exception, by God’s special permission, as I shall seek to show. “The dead know not anything,” i.e., of what is going on on the earth, but they know what is going on where they are, as the story of the ex-rich man and Lazarus shows (Luke 16)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16). The former and Abraham knew each other, and the former recognised Lazarus and remembered his own five brethren.

I have not the slightest doubt Samuel was really permitted by God to respond to the call. This was less, I doubt not, of a surprise to Saul the dupe, than to the witch, the deceiver. To her the attendant spirit was familiar, but she seems to have been completely taken aback by the appearance of the strange visitant that Samuel was, for “she cried with a loud voice,” and did not know him, though by some peculiar intuition she at once became aware of the identity of Saul. Samuel was a true prophet, and could foretell the morrow’s happenings, but we have no justification for supposing that wicked spirits can foretell the future.
That this response to Saul’s evil action does not justify modern Spiritism is clear, from the fact that it did not justify his own recourse to this medium, for it is specifically mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:13" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10:13 as one of the two causes of his final downfall: (i) “his transgression” i.e., in sparing Amalek, and also (z) his “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it. And he enquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him.” He did ask of the Lord (sha’al), as indeed of the witch, but he did so in a merely formal way in the former case and he did not enquire (dãrash) of Him, as he did of the witch; for in her case he put himself to all pains to get information. Saul knew perfectly well the distinct prohibition of Jehovah to any kind of occult practices—consulting spirits, etc. (see Leviticus 19:31;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12)," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:9-12), and had as we know, acted thereon, till he found it convenient to transgress!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can angels sin?

Can angels sin?

Many angels have sinned in the past. Jude 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:6 says

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

2 Peter 2:4" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:4 also says

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Ephesians 6:12" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:12 also mentions these evil spiritual beings…

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

It can be assumed that these fallen angels sinned at the same time as Satan, or Lucifer, sinned and fell. (Isaiah 14:12-15)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:12-15). Some angels therefore have sinned. It appears that some angels, or unclean spirits, or demons still roam freely in the universe, while others are kept in eternal chains.

The Bible says that another class of angels is “elect” (1 Timothy 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:21). The Lord mentioned his holy angels in Matthew 25:31" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:31 and Mark 8:38." TARGET="_blank">Mark 8:38.

The fact that these angels are "elect" and "holy" leads us to believe that they did not sin with Satan, nor will they sin now or in the future. They are eternally chosen to be set apart to serve God. Just as believers are called "elect", and therefore secure of eternal life, angels too, must be eternally holy. Angels have no hope of redemption once fallen. The death of Christ was for the world of humanity. Those angels who are elect are not guilty of sinning.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do people in heaven know what is happening on earth?

What do departed loved ones know of life on earth, particularly about the lives of those they have left?

Departed believers are fully conscious (Luke 16:24-26;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:24-26; 2 Corinthians 12:2)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:2). In the Revelation, the redeemed in heaven (apart from John, the prophet) seem only to be aware of events on earth through what takes place in heaven (Revelation 7:11, 13; 11:15, 16; 19:1-4)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 7:11, 13; 11:15, 16; 19:1-4) In chapter 11: 17, they hear that God has taken the kingdoms of this world. From Scripture they know the accompanying events (verse 18). They are aware of what God is doing. The same is true of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration discussing with the Lord "His decease..." They were not present however when Peter blundered. In Luke 15:7," TARGET="_blank">Luke 15:7, 10 the Lord teaches that those in the presence of God share in the joy of sinners' being saved.

These passages suggest that departed loved ones are fully occupied with events in heaven. Although they don't know the daily events transpiring on earth, they are aware of what God is doing, what brings glory to Christ, and what brings joy to the heart of God. That includes many events in our lives - and excludes many, as well.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does discipleship overrule responsibilities to the family?

Considering Luke 14:26," TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26, does discipleship conflict with family responsibilities?

Disciples must obey "whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:20). Paul states that his writings are "the commandment of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:37). Therefore, Paul’s teaching that children obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:1), that husbands love, cleave to, cherish, and nourish their wives (Ephesians 5:28-31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:28-31), that parents provide for their children (2 Corinthians 12:14)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:14), and that all manifest the affection of brotherly love (Romans 12:10)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:10) cannot conflict with Christ’s requiring His disciples to hate their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters.

Luke’s record of the Lord’s previous use of the word "hate" is in 6:27, where we are to love and express good will even toward those who hate us. Therefore Luke 14:26" TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26 cannot teach absolute hatred toward our closest relatives when we are to love even our enemies. The Lord’s next use of "hate" (16:13) pictures a servant with two masters. If both give him a command, his response will involve either love, holding to one (same word as "holding fast" the faithful word, Titus 1:9)," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9), or hate, being heedless (YLT) of the other. Loyalty and its resulting obedience are the issue. This is relative hatred. The demands of our dearest cannot rival our loyalty and obedience to Christ. The security and comfort of cherished relationships cannot compromise our commitment to Christ. But let us be assured that to act in loyalty to Christ is to do what is absolutely best for our loved ones.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

Does an elder have a more exalted position in the assembly than others?

The Bible teaches that a man publicly sharing in oversight is "exalted" in that he has greater responsibility and accountability, but he serves "at the feet" of the believers in lowliness of mind.

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating the verse, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). Rather than "over the which," more accurate translations of this passage read "in which" (ESV) or "among which" (YLT). Although fellow-believers are to submit to (Hebrews 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17), know and esteem highly (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13), and honor (1 Timothy 5:17)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17) elders, those elders are in, not over, the flock. Their position is not above other believers.

When an assembly recognizes a man whom the Lord has raised up to be an elder, this does not change his heart’s concern for believers or his ability to care for them by means of God’s Word. It does however give him the added responsibility of meeting with the elders when they gather (Acts 20:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17, 18). He has publicly joined others and shares with them an accountability for the spiritual health of each sheep (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17).

The Lord gave a spiritual lesson by literally washing His disciples’ feet (John 13:7, 12)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:7, 12). He was exemplifying loving care for others in removing all that hinders fellowship with Him ("no part with Me," v 8). By girding Himself with a towel and stooping at His disciples’ feet, He was the model of servant-care (vv 5, 6). Thus, those who accept the responsibility of lovingly caring for the spiritual condition of fellow-believers are lowly servants of the Master. He taught that those who lead His people are ministering servants (diakonos) and bondservants (doulos) (Matthew 20:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 20:26, 27).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu