What does being "in Christ' mean?

Occurring 39 times in the New Testament, the phrase "in Christ" means a believer partakes in all that Christ has done, all that He is before the Father, and all that He ever shall be. The moment a person is saved, God views that individual as being "in Christ" (Ephesians 2:13)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:13). He stands before God in all the acceptability of Christ Himself (1:6). This is positional truth; the believer's spiritual condition can never alter this.

2 Corinthians 5:17" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:17 states, "If any man be in Christ he is a new cre ation" (JND). Here the immediate context links this statement with the work of Christ, "He died for all," thus describing our position at conversion. Ephesians 1:3" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:3 says we are "blessed with all spiritual blessings... in Christ." These are inexhaustible, yet possessed by all "in Christ." However, our spiritual condition affects our enjoyment of these. I Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 3:1 shows that, in spite of such blessings, believers can become carnal and careless, thus stunting spiritual growth. Even in this condition, nothing can change our position "in Christ." The truth of 1 Thessalonians 4:16," TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:16, "the dead in Christ shall rise first," encourages us that, even if we "fall asleep," we will be raised at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that being "in Christ" will only bring us into further blessings. Thus, being "in Christ" is a precious truth that is unchangeable; it commences with conversion, continues throughout life, and finally transports us into His glad presence to be "with Christ" forever.

S. Wells
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is Confirmation?

Confirmation is one of seven sacraments performed in some churches including Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches. In some instances the sacrament of confirmation is a ritual where a youth becomes a full member of the church. Sometimes a person is given a special name, often of a saint. Confirming one’s faith is a way of declaring that the person is a Christian who understands and accepts the beliefs of the faith.

One would look in vain to find anyone in the Bible practicing the ritual of confirmation as seen in many churches today. We don’t begin life as a Christian and then confirm it at a ceremony. Instead of CONFIRMING someone as a Christian, the Bible’s message of salvation begins with CONDEMNING us as sinners. Romans chapter one two and three making it quite clear that nobody is righteous – that is nobody is a Christian as they begin life, regardless of how religious of a heritage they may have. Therefore, the only fact that can be confirmed in a person is that they did NOT begin life as a Christian – they are sinful and need to be saved.

Romans 3:9-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:9-23 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, (10) as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; (11) no one understands; no one seeks for God. (12) All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (19) Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (20) For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin… For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There are plenty of people found in the Bible who declare their faith in Christ receiving Him as their savior. These people acknowledge their guilt and then trust Christ as a Savior. The confirmation of one’s salvation that is Biblical is found in the fact that trusting Christ is sufficient to know that one has eternal life.

1 John 5:9-13" TARGET="_blank">1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. (10) Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. (11) And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (12) Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

How are we to relate to an overseer and his authority?

How are we to relate to an overseer and his authority?

The Lord takes believers from their culture to maintain Christian testimony within that culture. However, testimony has always suffered when Christians borrow the mores of their culture. Rejecting God’s authority, our society is anti-authoritarian and casual. We are in the world but not of it (John 17:11, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 17:11, 14). Rejecting society’s thinking, we recognize that God establishes authority; that authority is not our enemy but our ally. Submission to elders is a Biblical truth (Hebrews 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17), therefore it is for our good (Deuteronomy 6:24)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 6:24).

Saul was anointed by God through Samuel to be king (1 Samuel 10:1)," TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 10:1), sadly reflecting the people’s sinful desire to be like the nations (8:19, 20). (Solemnly, God may allow among His people leadership that reflects their poor spiritual condition.) Despite this and Saul’s unreasoning oppression, David would not lift the sword against Saul, the Lord’s anointed (24:6). The same principle is evident in the New Testament. Gaius was part of an assembly in which Diotrephes exercised leadership (3 John 1:10)." TARGET="_blank">3 John 1:10). Diotrephes rejected truth communicated by John, an apostle (v 9). When he came to the assembly, John intended to deal with Diotrephes because the issue was God’s truth. Notably, instead of hinting that Gaius should "dethrone" Diotrephes, John encouraged Gaius to continue in truth and love, to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:21). Those two cases are worse than assembly believers face today, but the principle is clear: we are to respect authority established by God.

An authoritarian demeanor, however, is unbecoming to those who lead God’s people. Their mind set is to be that of a servant (Philippians 2:3-8;" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:3-8; Mark 10:42-45)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:42-45). Shepherds take their character from the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:1-4). He was approachable, so that even the outcasts of society felt free to come near and converse with Him (Luke 15:1;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15:1; John 4:27)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:27). What a wonderful condition when the sheep and the shepherds in an assembly enjoy a free, open, mutually-edifying, accepting, and harmonious relationship!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "fellowship" mean in regards to the church?

ASSEMBLY FELLOWSHIP

Would it be correct to say that there is only one Fellowship in Scripture, into which alt believers are brought upon accepting Christ as their Saviour? If this be so, how are we to understand the Fellowship of 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2? Again, does not the New Testament teach Assembly Fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away? and are letters of commendation necessary? Further, does the local church in any district include all the Christians in that district? and should a professed believer who belongs to a sect, but who comes to our Lord’s Day Morning Meeting and expects to get breaking bread, be received, though he has no intention of severing his ecclesiastical association?

The statement that “There is only one fellowship in Scripture, into which all believers are brought on accepting Christ as their Saviour,” is absolute nonsense. The particular kind of fellowship implied in any passage where the word “Fellowship” occurs has to be gathered from the context there; and an examination of this will reveal that there are various “fellowships” spoken of in the New Testament. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Greek word “Koinonia,” which is usually translated “fellowship,” in the N.T. is also rendered, “communion,” “communication,” “contribution,” and “distribution.”

The first occurrence of the word is in Acts 2:42," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42, where it is said that the new converts “continued steadfastly in the . . . fellowship.” Here we have a “fellowship” in which one may “continue” or not continue; and to apply it to the fellowship of life in Christ, in which all true believers cannot avoid continuing, is to make the statement in the verse meaningless.

It is next found in Romans 1:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26 (where in our English Version it is rendered “contribution”). Could it be said that every saint of the present dispensation, or even every saint then living, had fellowship in the gift which the saints of Macedonia and Achaia sent to those of Jerusalem?

The epistle to the Philippians supplies perhaps the most interesting examples of the various uses of the word “fellowship.” In Philippians 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:5 we read of their Fellowship in the Gospel. Are all saints in this? In Philippians 2:1 we have mention of Fellowship of the Spirit. If all have this, why does Paul say, “If there be any”? In Philippians 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10 he speaks of the Fellowship of His Sufferings, which he himself desired to know. But could saints who never had the least experience of persecution for Christ’s sake, claim to be in that fellowship? Lastly in Philippians 4:15 (see R.V.) we get the

Fellowship of Giving.

As to the passage in 1 John 1:3-7," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:3-7, in which we have the last four occurrences of the word “fellowship” in the Scriptures, the expression in verse 3, “that ye also may have fellowship with us,” implies a fellowship which they might or might not have, according to the extent of their knowledge of Christ and His Word; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, of which they might have more or less, according to whether they knew more or less of Christ and His Word. The further references in verses 6, 7, are clearly to a fellowship in which we can only claim to be, so long as we walk in the light. The man who says he is in it, while yet he is not walking in the light, is described as lying.

As to the next question—whether there is such a thing as “Assembly fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away”—only a person of warped mind would deny this. When Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” and the Corinthians obeyed him, was the one who was so “put away” to continue in the circle and insist on breaking bread, as being a member of the so-called “local church?” And if, while yet in the position of having been “put away,” he goes to reside in another town, must the Assembly in that town also set him down at the Table, because since he now has his home there, he is a member of their “local church?” If these things are so, we may leave the first epistle to the Corinthians out of future editions of our Bibles.

With regard to the meaning of the word “church,” when used locally, I have to say what already I have said about that other word “fellowship.” What it includes or does not include in any particular case must be judged from the context there. In 1 Corinthians 10:32" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32—it evidently takes in every saved person in the district, just as the other two terms in the verse, “Jews” and “Gentiles,” take in all the others in the district. But in the same epistle at 1 Corinthians 11:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35, it just as plainly means none but those who come to the Meeting; and this is made even clearer by 1 Corinthians 14:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:23, in which, after the whole church has come together, there may still come in one who is spoken of as “unlearned,” yet who is distinguished (by the little word “or” that follows) from an “unbeliever.” In other words, he is a saved man, but not yet in the “local church,” in the sense in which the term “church” is used in this verse.
Moreover, not only can a person be put out of a local church when he deserves it, but according to 3 John io, he may be “cast out of the church” even when he does not deserve it. One might well ask, Who were still “in” this local church after Diotrephes had cast these brethren “out” of it? Or were the cast out brethren “out” and “in” at the same time?

As to “letters of commendation,” is it not clearly enough stated in 2 Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:1 that some needed them, though Paul, being well-known to everyone, did not? How often would some require a thing to be stated in Scripture, in order to feel themselves bound to act accordingly?

With regard to the other matter—the case of a professed Christian who belongs to some sect, but comes to our meeting and expects to get breaking bread for one Lord’s Day only, and then returns to his own company—I would need a good deal of convincing that the one who wished so to act was an honest man. If he believes that we are right, why should he not come to stay with us? If he believes us to be wrong and his own sect right, why should he want to do wrong even for one Lord’s Day? And if he can do without “breaking bread” on fifty-one Sundays in the year, why should he be insistent on being allowed to do so on the remaining one?

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What do the phrases

What is the meaning of Isaiah 33:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 33:14?

Most Gospel preachers use it in warning the unsaved but some Bible students hold differently.

I have heard an attempt to interpret “the devouring fire,” and “everlasting burnings,” as God’s burning love, on the ground that the words in v. 15, “He that walketh righteously, etc.,” are an answer to the question of the hypocrites, but it is not an answer at all and the interpretation is purely fantastic. “He that walketh righteously,” etc., describes those who will not dwell “with everlasting burnings,” but “on high” as in v. x6. Why should the sinners in Zion be afraid or the hyprocrites surprised with fearfulness, if they are intended to understand that all that awaits them is the eternal enjoyment of the love of God? No, they get a glimpse of the terrors of a lost eternity and of what awaits them if they pursue their path. It is to call darkness light and light darkness to make V. 14 mean something good and pleasant. I should think only Bible students of the shallowest “Universalist” type could extract such a meaning from the passage. Certainly let evangelists continue to use it as a warning to the ungodly, for that is its legitimate use.

The word “‘akal”—here translated “devouring”—_means literally “to eat,” and is constantly used of devouring or consuming in judgment (Numbers 21: 28;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 21: 28; Isaiah 24: 6;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 24: 6; Isaiah 29:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 29:6). The word for “burnings” is from “yaqad”—and is used in Deuteronomy 32:22;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22; “and shall burn to the lowest hell,” see also Isaiah 10:16" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10:16 and Isaiah 65:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 65:5; Jeremiah 15:4" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 15:4 and Jeremiah 17:4." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 17:4. It is also used of the burnings of the fire on the altar (Levticus 6:9, 12, 13).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is remembering the Lord a privilege of the Church?

Is remembering the Lord a privilege of the Church?

This is an instance where it is essential to distinguish between the "Church, the Body" (Ephesians 1:22, 23)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:22, 23) and the "Church of God" (Acts 20:28;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13;" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:13; 1 Timothy 3:5, 15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:5, 15). Although the Church of God expresses truth about the Church, the Body, it is not its local expression. They represent distinct truths. A few of many distinctions should demonstrate this: the Body has one Builder (Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 vs. 1 Corinthians 3:10);" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:10); the Body has one Shepherd (John 10:16" TARGET="_blank">John 10:16 vs. Acts 20:17, 28);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17, 28); the Body is indestructible (Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 vs. 1 Corinthians 3:17;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:17; Revelation 2:5; 3:16);" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2:5; 3:16); being in the Body is irreversible (John 10:28" TARGET="_blank">John 10:28 vs. 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13);" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:12, 13); the Body’s testimony and visibility is future (Revelation 21:9-11" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:9-11 vs. 1:12, 20). 1 Corinthians 14:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:25 states clearly that some believers in Corinth were not in the "whole church." The unbelievers were neither in the Body nor in the "whole church" which met in Corinth; the unlearned are in the Body, but not the Church of God (they are not unbelievers, but not part of the "whole church"); "the whole church" describes those in both the Church of God and the Body (presumably).

"Assembly" is an alternative translation of "church." Referring to a church of God as an assembly is an easy and common way to distinguish it.

In the New Testament, remembering the Lord is always associated with an assembly. It is therefore clear that remembering the Lord is not a privilege of the Church, the Body, but is a privilege of a church of God, an assembly. Remembering the Lord is a responsibility for all in the Body, however (Luke 22:19);" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19); to the degree a believer fails to obey what the Lord ordained, he disobeys the Lord.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Matthew 18, verses 15 to 20 deal with an interpersonal problem?

Does Matthew 18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18, verses 15 to 20 deal with an interpersonal problem?

"If thy brother trespass against thee" clearly seems to involve a trespass against an individual. However many translations and most of the manuscripts from which our translations come either omit "against thee" or note that it may not have been in the original writings.

Rather than leaving us in confusion, this calls for greater care in understanding the passage. If "against thee" belongs in the passage, the Lord is instructing an individual who has been injured by another's sin. If "against thee" was not in the Lord's teaching, the teaching is more general and addresses one who is concerned about his brother who has strayed. Actually, the context, an important aid in interpreting any passage, supports either possibility.

Consider the first possibility ("if thy brother trespass against thee"). At the beginning of the chapter (vv. 1-4), the Lord states the requirement for entering the kingdom. Apart from the simplicity, lowliness, and dependence that characterizes a child, no one will enter the kingdom. These who thus enter are like the One Who is meek and lowly (v. 4; 11:29); He identifies them with Himself. They are of inestimable worth to Him. Unbelievers who harm them face severe judgment, for He came to save them (vv. 6-11). As dependent as children and defenseless as sheep, His own have His protection against unbelievers who wrong them. But what if another believer wrongs his brother (not now pictured as a child or sheep)? The Lord has given full administrative authority to His own - to the assembly - to protect such a wronged brother.

Consider the second possibility ("if thy brother trespass"). In verses 11 through 14, the Lord shows that both He and His Father have shepherd hearts in their concern for these "little ones." How suitable that one who belongs to this family should be like the Father and His Son and should persistently seek the recovery of his sinning and straying brother!

This second possibility flows more smoothly since it fits the context of the verses immediately preceding it. Furthermore, this second view includes the first view. The straying brother's sin may be an interpersonal problem, but it is not limited to that. It includes other kinds of sins.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does worship "in spirit" and "in truth" mean?

What is the Lord contrasting in John 4" TARGET="_blank">John 4: 23-24?

The Samaritan woman mentioned worship, pitting "this mountain" against Jerusalem, essentially saying, "That’s your religion; this is mine." The Lord then contrasted the revelation of God entrusted to the Jews with its absence among the Samaritans. Humanity must be enlightened by God in order to worship Him fittingly. "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship" (verse 22). But the second movement of the Lord’s response addresses a void in both systems. Externalism, formalism, and ritualism must yield to worship from the spirits of men. Since God is spiritual in essence, He has been leading men from formal worship, as instituted under the Law, to the ultimate of His purpose, "true worshipers." In this age, the Father achieves an ultimate purpose in redemption: worshippers who worship in spirit and in truth. Believers now worship in the heavenly sanctuary and, by the power of the Spirit, their redeemed spirits ("in spirit") offer worship in keeping with the full revelation of all God is, as revealed in the Word ("in truth"). This transcends sacrifices and means of worship that are neither rational (able to know God) nor spiritual.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the relationship between railing and physical abuse?

What is the relationship between railing and physical abuse?

Railing is verbal, therefore it is not physical abuse. Railing, which is verbal abuse, can be as harmful as physical abuse. It may incite a violent response or it may precede physical abuse. The Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:21," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:21, 22 shows the relationship of derogatory language to murder. Railing and murder have the same mother: hatred in the heart. In the Lord’s eyes, they are of the same kind. The degree of punishment differs for each, but they both are alike condemned as deserving hell fire.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should one assembly judge errors in another?

DISCIPLINE
What should be our attitude to a neighbouring assembly, where moral or doctrinal evil is allowed to go on unjudged?

I presume what is meant by “moral or doctrinal evil” is something grave and fundamental, and not merely differences of judgement as to such questions as the exact rules to be followed at the Lord’s table, or regulations as to ministry. We have no authority in God’s Word as far as I can see, for cutting off an assembly, but we are not obliged to have fellowship with every assembly.

The Lord in His messages to the Seven Churches of Asia (Revelation 2" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2: and Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: has to reprove Ephesus for “leaving her first love”; Pergamos for allowing among them those holding the doctrine of Balaam, or the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes; Thyatira for “suffering that woman Jezebel.. . to teach and seduce God’s servants”; Sardis for dead-alive profession; and Laodicea for luke-warmness and self-satisfaction. Yet, though in each case appeal is made to him “who hath an ear to hear what is said unto the churches,” in no case is one church, or alliance of churches, instructed to deal in discipline with some other church.

Not even in the case of Smyrna or Philadelphia, with which no fault was found, is any such instruction given. Is there then nothing to be done? Clearly the exhortation “to hear” what is said to the churches, shows that no church should be indifferent to the state of other churches. Prayer for the erring church must be ever in season, and godly exhortation by word or letter always permissible. But what should be done if all prove abortive? Then all direct contact with the assembly as such must be avoided. It is she who is morally responsible for shutting her doors against those who stand for truth and righteousness. Can we imagine Smyrna having practical fellowship with Pergamos, or Philadelphia exchanging platforms with Thyatira? But the modem method, if we rule out “inferences” and “logical deductions”, of excommunicating churches or groups of churches, is profoundly foreign to Scripture.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu