How are deacons recognized and acknowledged?

How are deacons recognized and acknowledged?

Paul addressed all the saints, the bishops (overseers), and deacons at the opening of his letter to the Philippians (verse 1). Perhaps the murmurings and disputings (2:14) and the friction between former servants (4:2, 3) necessitated this reminder that God entrusts deacon service to some saints. Each serves in his sphere without jealousy, not aspiring to recognition and a title, but serving with a focus on his work entrusted to him by the Lord. Deacons are known by their work.

Overseers guide the assembly to entrust particular service to those who are proving themselves (1 Timothy 3:10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:10) by doing public deacon work (as in verse 1, the word "office" is an unsupported and unfortunate addition). This includes those responsible to preach the gospel, open Bible Readings, and minister at assembly ministry meetings. These serve as deacons. Likewise those whose full time is devoted to such work are deacons of their assembly.

Keep all officialism outside the assembly! "Deacon" is not a badge to be worn; deacon service is a responsibility to be fulfilled (Colossians 4:17)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 4:17).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the deity of the Lord Jesus somehow limited in His humanity?

Was the deity of the Lord Jesus somehow limited in His humanity?

By definition, God is spirit (John 4:24," TARGET="_blank">John 4:24, ESV), infinite in His duration (Isa 57:15)," TARGET="_blank">Isa 57:15), ability (Luk 1:37)," TARGET="_blank">Luk 1:37), and attributes (1Jo 1:5)." TARGET="_blank">1Jo 1:5). Limited deity is an oxymoron. Being in one place and "becoming flesh" (Joh 1:14)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 1:14) did not limit His omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence; He was without beginning (Joh 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Joh 1:1) or end (Heb 1:12)" TARGET="_blank">Heb 1:12) and He was holy (Luk 1:35)." TARGET="_blank">Luk 1:35). The Pharisees balked at His forgiving the paralyzed man (Mar 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">Mar 2:5), since only God has this power (v 7; Psa 130:4). The Lord Jesus had and has that power that belongs solely to God (Mar 2:10)." TARGET="_blank">Mar 2:10).

Nonetheless, His Father told Him what to say (Joh 12:49" TARGET="_blank">Joh 12:49b) and the very words He should speak (v 49c). The Father showed Him each act He did (5:19). These truths do not indicate that He was limited, but that He was subject to His Father. This affirms that the Father and Son have different roles in the Godhead. The Father directs and the Son carries out the direction, while the Spirit enables.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should I buy clients alcoholic drinks through a business expense account?

My business expects me to entertain clients for meals. At times they order alcoholic drinks. I feel as though I am paying for this although it comes out of an expense account. What should I do?

As a representative of your employer, you cannot dictate what a person may order from the menu in a restaurant unless your employer has made limitations. Your abstinence and your manner of conduct can often open an opportunity to explain why you do not take alcoholic beverages. Your paying - as a representative of your employer - is not an indication that you condone the practice. If, however, your work requires you to take clients out for the express purpose of visiting bars, clubs, or places of entertainment characterized by drinking or betting, you would be well advised to request to be relieved of this responsibility or to look for another job. You cannot maintain a clear testimony with this practice. "Let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that I they be not unfruitful" (Titus 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:14).

W. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

No. The Scriptures teach that "cultural head coverings" are part of the testimony when the assembly comes together. Weddings and funerals are not assembly meetings. If a sister chooses to wear a hat, it is unbecoming for any believers to belittle her for her ostensible failure to grasp that this occasion is not an assembly gathering. Nor is the sister who wears this covering indicating that, because of this, she is more spiritual than those who choose not to wear a head covering.

A case can be made that it is advisable for sisters to wear head coverings because the reading of and speaking from the Word of God at these social occasions is related to the assembly’s testimony. Also, a sister may see the value of letting others who do not attend the assembly gatherings know that the assembly still carries out the Bible’s teaching about head coverings, although many other congregations have discontinued that practice. On the other hand, some make the case that sisters with their head coverings unnecessarily alienate unbelievers by making them feel uncomfortable. In either case, the choice is personal. A sister may make either choice with the purpose of honoring the Lord. Romans 14:6" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:6 is relevant to this issue.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should Christians fast?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What Old Testament books are the most important keys to the Bible?

What Old Testament books are the most important keys to the Bible?

Every Bible book is necessary (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16, 17), but some seem more central.

Genesis, often called "the seed plot of the Bible," lays the foundation for all God's revealed works, indicating the purpose of matter, man, and marriage. Without the Fall, the rest of Scripture unravels. Gods plans for human government and Israel flow from Genesis. Many Bible doctrines are first mentioned in Genesis.

In the relatively short book of Daniel lies the "backbone of prophecy" (Daniel 9)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9). It unfolds the "Times of the Gentiles." The prophetic material in Matthew and the Revelation is closely related to Daniel.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the expression "the whole assembly receives and the whole assembly puts away" scriptural?

Is the expression "the whole assembly receives and the whole assembly puts away" scriptural?

Reception to and removal from an assembly are not merely earthly decisions; they are administrative actions. The assembly administers on earth the will of God in heaven. The Lord teaches this in Matthew 18:18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The assembly administers a case by either applying heaven's discipline or releasing from it. The assembly thus acts in its character as the "House of God" (1 Timothy 3:15;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15; Genesis 28:17)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 28:17). When the assembly carries out the Word of God, His will in heaven and the assembly's action on earth are the same.

God views the assembly as a unit when it prays (Acts 4:24)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:24), responds (11:22), worships (1 Corinthians 10:17)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17), and acts (Matthew 18:17)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17). Whether or not every believer in the assembly moves in harmony with the whole, the assembly has the character of a body (1 Corinthians 12:27)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:27) and moves as a single unit. Therefore, administering for God, the assembly receives and the assembly puts away. Seen by God as a unit, "the whole assembly receives and the whole assembly puts away."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Shouls someone "break" the loaf before distributing it during the Lord's Supper?

BREAKING THE BREAD

Is it right to take the loaf, that which answers to the Body of our Lord and break it in two, and then hand it round the Assembly?

In Matthew 26:26;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19, we read that the Lord took bread and gave thanks (or blessed) and brake and gave unto His disciples saying, “This is my body,” and Luke adds, “which is given (not broken) for you.” In 1 Corinthians 11:23, 24, the Lord Jesus is said to have followed the same order, with the words, “which is broken for you,” but this, R.V. changes simply (and with sufficient MS. authority) to, “which is for you.” Now, compare this with Luke 24: 30," TARGET="_blank">Luke 24: 30, where a simple meal was about to begin (for it can hardly be maintained that the two disciples had spread the table of remembrance that evening at Emmaus, in the condition in which they were of unbelief and ignorance of the true meaning of all that had taken place), and where we read that the Lord took bread and gave thanks, as he sat down to the meal, and then brake it. I do not, therefore, think we must put undue emphasis on the breaking of the bread even by the Lord, though far be it from us to affirm that any act of His was not significant. However, the brother who gives thanks in the Assembly for the bread or the cup, would shrink from any pretention to be taking the place that the Lord rightly took. His giving thanks is no official act, but only as representing the Assembly, and his breaking the bread is only for the convenience of distribution. The true breaking of bread is done by all, each one for him or herself, as we read in 1 Corinthians 10:26" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:26: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? What is important is that the giving of thanks should take place before the loaf is broken for distribution, for the loaf is one, and this must be maintained, for it not only represents the one holy Body of the Lord given for us, but His mystical Body, the oneness of which is thus witnessed to. “The bread which we break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? seeing that there is one bread, we who are many are one body” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16-17, R.V., margin).

To pass a whole loaf around would be very inconvenient, and would necessitate its being divided in some way by the one who received it first, which would come to the same thing as that to which the questioner objects. The breaking of the bread by the saints is not a dividing of the Body of Christ, but a communion in it (“Him we all in common share”), a remembrance of Him in the act, and a proclamation of His death.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were the Old Testament saints born again?

I should think there could be no doubt that all the Old Testament saints were born of God, for how else could they have had communion with Him? The carnal mind (or the minding of the flesh) is enmity against God. How could David then have had the “desire to dwell in the house of the Lord,” or “thirst for the living God” unless he had received a new nature? The Old Testament saints were saved on the principle of faith, and no doubt God was revealed to their souls according to the measure of light bestowed. Our Lord speaks of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob sifting down in the Kingdom of Heaven with many from the east and the west (Matthew 8:11)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:11), and in John 3:3," TARGET="_blank">John 3:3, he lays down to Nicodemus the law of entrance into that Kingdom, namely, th reception of the new life: “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

Surely this shews conclusively that Old Testament saints will only enter the Kingdom as born of the Spirit. 01 course, we make a difference between that—the bestowal of new life, and the indwelling of the Spirit or the baptism in the Spirit; these belong uniquely to New Testament saints. Nor do the Old Testament saints belong to the church, but they were undoubtedly individually regenerated. As for us, it seems safer and more practical to confine ourselves to what the Word reveals. No doubt the Spirit does work on men’s souls. It is just here that the mistake arises. It is to assume that the first work of the Spirit is to communicate life, whereas it is rather to create a sense of sin or at least of need. The natural man is dead in trespasses and sins, but this does not mean that he has no conscience or responsibility or capacity to listen.

I have heard it said that the 3000 at Pentecost in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2: were “born of God” when they cried, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” and, if I mistake not, that Nicodemus to whom the Lord uttered the words “Ye must be born again,” was already born again, or he would not have come to the Lord. That a theory should entail such conclusions suffices, I think, for its refutation. The reception of the new life is connected with the reception of Christ, or the revelation of God proper to the dispensation. “As many as received Him, to them gave He the power (or right) to become children of God.” John 1:11-12" TARGET="_blank">John 1:11-12 There the order seems clearly_faith first, then life, because the new words are “even to as many as believed (not “had believed”) on His name”—"believing” is only another way of saying “receiving.” I think Hebrews 6" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: , for instance, shews us how far men may go in the things of God, and yet never have been born again, and so with other passages. Alas, how many have evinced some interest in the things of God, and even like the stony ground hearers have received the Word with joy, but it has proved later to have been in appearance rather than in reality. How solemn the call to each is, to make our calling and election sure!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do people in Hell go insane?

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

Main Menu