• About this site

 The Old Nature

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• 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

Albert Hull

• About this site

 Dennis Stickfort

• About this site

• About this site

THE SEALING
Is the sealing of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation, a sealing on the forehead, seen outwardly, or is it experienced inwardly?

Does not John Bunyan refer to an outward sealing in the Pilgrim's Progress?

The sign of the old covenant was circumcision, an outward mark in the flesh. It is said in the case of Abraham to have been the “seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised” (Romans 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 4:9), which was of course exceptional, as infants of eight days old have no righteousness. The Lord seals His people as His own by giving them His Holy Spirit. “In whom having believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13 R.V.; see also Ephesians 4:30;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:30; and 2 Corinthians 1:22)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:22). This is not an experience subsequent to conversion, but at conversion; nor is it an outward mark on the flesh, but a spiritual reality, which no doubt will come out in life. John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” is an allegory: that is, a spiritual truth conveyed under the form of a literal story. We should get into no end of difficulties, if we interpreted the figures literally.

Are all sinners, for example, to wade through a literal “Slough of Despond” on their way to the wicket gate? Besides, even Bunyan must be checked by the Word of God, and no less, “experiences” that pious persons claim to have passed through. There is no such thing taught in the Bible, as a Christian “being sealed on the forehead,” and for anyone to claim such a thing is a mistaken pretension, which he should seek grace from God to abandon.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Could we support the thought of a paid overseer, who “labours in the Word and doctrine,” from 1 Timothy 5:17, 18;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18; 1 Peter 5:2-4" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4? and why the mention of “filthy lucre,” if the pastorate were not a paid office?

The word translated, “honour,” (time) in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, is in forty occurrences, out of fifty, so translated; in eight others, “price”; “sum” in Acts 7:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:16, and in 1 Peter 2:7," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:7, “precious.” It is always, “honour,” in the Epistles to Timothy (see 1 Timothy 1:17;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy  6:10, 16; 2 Timothy 2:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:20, 21). There does not appear any necessity to change the word here: “honour,” “respect,” “consideration,” are quite adequate. However, even if we adopted the sense of monetary payment, it would only be in recognition of spiritual services rendered, not as a fixed salary.

The form of the exhortation seems to preclude the idea of money due, whether the services have been well done or perchance left undone. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who LABOUR in the word and doctrine.” The principle that a teacher or evangelist has a right to “live by the gospel” is clearly taught in the Scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 9:7-14)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:7-14), provided he teaches or evangelises.

There is no idea of a “living” or ecclesiastical title or office. Assemblies which utilise their brethren’s gift are quite right to remember these adequately, and not to take too easily for granted that the preacher does not need anything beyond his bare expenses. As for the “Peter” passage, we can see no hint that what the questioner calls “the pastorate” was to be filled by a salaried official.

The elders, in the plural, are addressed here, as in the other passage, nor can we find the idea of the “presiding elder” or of “the pastor” of a church in this or in any other Scripture. Here the exhortation, “not for filthy lucre,” seems to preclude a stated salary. A servant of the Lord truly looking to Him for his support, is not serving for filthy lucre. The man who is receiving so much salary according to an arrangement, is bound, if he is a conscientous man to give a good money’s worth. The only man that I can find in the Scriptures, who agreed to do so much spiritual work (in this case as “a priest”) for so much pay, was Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (though not of the family of Aaron), and his salary was ten shekels of silver per annum, a suit of clothes and his meals (Judges 17:10)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 17:10). He broke the contract, only when a better living was offered him (Judges 18:19)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 18:19).

W.H.

• About this site

In Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 does the Rock represent Christ? Or does it mean Truth? Or does it mean the Word of God? If it is Christ, can you give Scripture to prove this?

No doubt, our questioner is aware that this is a much disputed passage; though personally we believe the true meaning is not far to seek, in the light of the context and of the general analogy of Scripture. The disciples’ answer to the Lord’s question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” led on to His second question, “But whom say ye that I am?” The Lord desired to hear from their own lips their confession of Him. All were addressed, but one—Simon Peter—replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” And the Lord pronounced him—”Simon Bar-jona”—blessed (lit, happy), for this had not been learned in the schools of men, but direct from His Father. Not only so, but as Simon Peter had confessed his Lord’s Name before His fellow-disciples, now on the principle of Luke 12:8," TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:8, the Lord confesses his name—”And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter.” In other words He confirms to him the name of Petros or a Stone, which He had conferred on him at his introduction by his brother Andrew (John 1:41)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:41).

Moreover, the Lord has something more important to dwell on, namely, the noble, God-given confession by Peter of His true Messiahship and glory as the Eternal Son—something bigger than a “Petros,” a stone,—a “Petra,” a rock. This distinction is common in classical Greek, and though in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord usually spoke, the difference is not shown, both words being Cepha, the fact that the inspired evangelist, in translating, brings out the classical difference, seems to show clearly that the Spirit of God intended the difference to be preserved. Peter is never certainly spoken of as a rock (petra) in any other place of Scripture, but he himself speaks of Christ as the rock (petra) of offence, and this is the word used in 1 Corinthians 10:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:4—”They drank of that spiritual rock (petra) that followed them, and that rock (petra) was Christ.”

Peter was “a living stone” along with his fellow disciples, but Christ was the living Rock. Our Lord’s words accordingly are not, “Thou art Petros, and upon thee I will build my church,” but “Thou art Petros and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Perhaps we shall be told this is only Protestant and heretical doctrine. But was then Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in the 4th century, heretical? and yet he writes, “The rock petra is the blessed only rock faith—confessed by the mouth of Peter.” Was Jerome heretical, who writes, “Christ has founded His church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the Apostle Peter has been named”? Chrysostom whom we cannot admit was a heretic, says, “On this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession of Peter,” and so Ambrose of Milan, Basil of Seleucia, and indeed over forty of the early fathers and ecclesiastical writers (not all, we presume, Protestants or heretical teachers) held that the rock was Christ Himself as revealed in the confession of Peter. So Augustine of Hippo: “On this rock (petra) I will build my church, not on Peter, the stone that thou art, but on the rock that thou hast confessed, I will build thee, who in this reply standest for the church.” We may thank God that we have something more stable than vacillating Peter upon which to build for eternity.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

SeedSowers Videos are memory books from the Mexican short missions trips by the Seed Sowers Organization. 

There are two locations to find these videos online:

• Yahoo videos for SeedSowers 2009 Veracruz  and 2010 Obregón

• YouTube videos for SeedSowers 2004 Chihuahua, 2005 Hermosillo, 2006 Hermosillo, 2007 Guadalajara . 

You can see the detials about upcoming trips at www.seedsowersonline.com

• About this site

How could the Lord Jesus and Lucifer both be the Morning Star?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

Let there be no misunderstanding:  the Lord Jesus did not step into a place that Satan lost through his pride. Christ Jesus was without measure both higher in rank and his being than Satan. Christ's plan to come as the Morning Star was made before creation (John 17:24)" TARGET="_blank">John 17:24) and before Satan was created.

Perhaps there could there be some irony in the reference to the Old Testament’s morning star as compared to the New Testament’s Morning Star? The morning star seen from the Earth is more brillant that all others. In the same way Satan excelled among all God’s creatures; he was the "anointed cherub that covered" (Eze 28:14)." TARGET="_blank">Eze 28:14). He was given the highest place of all created beings, but he wanted to climb above the place that God had given to him. He was cast down from heaven (Luke 10:18)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:18) and eventuall will be consigned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:10). Jesus Christ along has the capcity to occupy such an exalted position without being overcome with pride.   He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:6, English Standard Version). The pathway that God designed for Christ led Him to the very lowest of the low, "even the death of the cross" (v 8). The Father lifted him to the highest point of honor and glory.  He is both Morning Star and Sun. He is "far above all" (Ephesians 1:21)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21) and will remain so for all eternity.

D. Oliver

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site