Andrew Musch

• About this site

 George Müller Biography - George Müller was one of the early brethren in the United Kingdom who is known for his work of faith among orphan children by running his organization by faith to provide for their needs.

"May it not be the will of God that I should establish schools for these children, asking Him to give me the means?"

• About this site

Creation - A series of ten messages by Norman Crawford on what the Bible says about the origins of the earth.  In the series, Mr. Crawford examines the definitions of "science", assumptions about uniformity, the basis of faith, the Gap Theory, fossile dating.  This series was taped at a weekend conference in Canda.

• About this site

• About this site

John Brokaw

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

How are we to reconcile the truth that Christ is God and Christ is Man, in one Person, or rightly to estimate what belongs to each?

Again, how could our Lord be tempted in all points, like as we are, sin apart, if, as we believe, sin had no appeal to Him, as it has to us?

It is noticeable that when our Lord affirms that “no one knoweth the Father save the Son,” He at once adds, “and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Why did He not, when affirming as he had just done, that “no one knoweth the Son but the Father” add “and he to whomsoever the Father will reveal Him”? Is it not that there are mysteries in the Union of the two Perfect Natures, Divine and human, in the One Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Father nowhere promises ever fully to reveal? Not only are they too deep for us (we do not even understand our own tripartite being), but it is unnecessary for us thus to analyse His Being. One thing we aught never to forget, our Lord was not a dual personality, that is two Persons, Divine and human, but ONE DIVINE Personality, in equal relation to His two perfect natures. “The Word was God. . . the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:1, 14).

The Modernists, and alas, they have their representatives everywhere to-day, will not brook to be told that there are things their highest powers cannot grasp, and they so attempt to reconcile what has never been out of harmony, and explain what they ought rather to believe.

To some persons a glib bad answer, seems preferable to saying “I do not know.” As we read the Gospels under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is not like chemists, with our test- tubes and reactives analysing all the mysteries of Christ, or like physiologists with our instruments dissecting His Personality, but as disciples and as worshippers.

The human sympathy of Christ is not a mere theory, which we must make real to ourselves by a certain manipulation of His Person to satisfy the logical deductions of some shallow minds, but a blessed reality, which He makes true in our experience when we embrace Him by faith. The effect of this wrought by the Spirit in our souls, will not be some philosophical demonstration that after all “He is altogether such an one as ourselves—sin apart,” but the adoring cry of Thomas, “My Lord and my God.” The question of the temptation of our Lord is not after all so far beyond our grasp, if we remember that temptation is used in two distinct senses in the New Testament: of allurement—’ ‘Every man is tempted when he is drawn aside of His own lust and enticed” (James 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">James 1:14), and of testing —“He was tempted (or tested) in all points,” according to the similitude, “apart from sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:15).

When we read that “God did tempt Abraham” (Genesis 22:1)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:1) it was in this latter sense. He put him to the test. So Christ was tested by Satan in the wilderness, and proved to be the Son of God; but He was never tempted in the sense of being “drawn away of lust and enticed,” for He had none—He was “holy, harmless and undefiled” (Hebrews 7:26)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26). “He did no sin” (1 Peter 2:22);" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:22); “He knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21); “In Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:5).

I am sadly Convinced that the attempts of modernist teachers to emphasise the humanity of our Lord, on the plea of establishing His power of sympathy with us, is for the most part quite unreal; for, taken as a class, they are a self-sufficient, self-satisfied type of man; but rather, unconsciously to themselves it may be, and we trust it is, they “cast Him down from His excellency,” through undermining His Divinity.

W.H.

• About this site

Help will be valued upon Genesis 4:4, 5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:4, 5, where we read that God had “respect” to Abel and his offering and not to Cain and his, and Romans 2:11," TARGET="_blank">Romans 2:11, where it is said that there is “no respect of persons with God.”

We can be quite sure that this latter verse is ever and absolutely true. The Greek word, “to have respect of persons,” means, “to receive the face of a person,” i.e. to look at the outward appearance—at the gold ring and the gay clothing, at the feature and the stature, etc., whereas we know that “God looks, not at the outward appearance, but at the heart.” When, therefore, we read that God had respect to Abel and his offering, we must divest ourselves of any idea of favouritism or unfair preference on His part. In fact, the Hebrew word in Genesis 4," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4, “to have respect,” has no thought of respect of persons, but of looking to someone, or something. The word is used in Psalm 119:117" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:117—”I will have respect unto thy statutes continually”; again in 2 Samuel 22:42" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 22:42—”They looked but there was none to save,” and also in Isaiah 17:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 17:7—”In that day shall a man look to his Maker.” We may be sure that had it been righteously possible, God would have accepted Cain as well as Abel. The key to the verse is in Hebrews 11:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:4—”By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain . . . God testifying of his gifts.” It was not that Abel was “more excellent” than Cain, though very likely he was, but that his sacrifice was more excellent; so that God simply had respect to Abel because of his sacrifice. The expression, “by faith,” shows, I think, conclusively that God had revealed how his creatures were to approach him, “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” No doubt, Cain’s sacrifice was beautiful enough, but it was Cain’s way, not God’s. It was merely the work of his hands-of the same vegetable kingdom as the fig-leaves of which Adam and Eve had made themselves aprons. Abel offered from the first-fruits of  the flock and of the fat thereof, i.e. the slain lamb. In Abel’s offering there were two things : there was something which spoke of his repentance, it was as though he admitted that he deserved the death of the victim; and there was something, too, which spoke of the lamb of God, without blemish, slain before the foundation of the world. How far Abel apprehended the truth we cannot say; he obeyed and allwas known to God. We are blessed according to His appreciation of the infinite Person and work of Christ, not according to ours, which, however, does determine our enjoyment of our blessings.

W.H.

• About this site

Ought we to interpret Genesis 1:1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1 as referring to the original creation of the universe quite distinct from the rest of the chapter, or is it the summary of what follows?

I certainly believe it is the former. If it were the latter, should we not expect the creation of both the heavens and the earth to be enlarged upon in the rest of the chapter, whereas the “heavens” in the sense of v. i are not mentioned again, nor is it the creation of the earth which is brought before us after Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, but the refurbishing of its surface conditions to prepare it as a habitation for man. The verb, “to create,” occurs only twice in the body of the chapter, at the start of animal life and at the start of human life, vv. 21, 27. Does not the fact that the earth alone is described as “without form and void” (tohtI wãbhohü) indicate that something had happened to it, which had not happened to the uni.. verse at large? There is nothing in verse i to suggest that the original creation was not perfect. That the earth was created a scene of desolation, is distinctly negatived in Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18: “He created not the earth a waste” (tohü) (R.V.).

These Hebrew descriptive words for “without form and void” occur together in only two other places, i.e., Isaiah 34:11" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 34:11: “the line of confusion (tohü) and the stones of emptiness”(bohü) ; and Jeremiah 4:23" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 4:23 “I saw the earth and lo, without form and void” (tohü wabhohü), and both describe scenes induced by judgment. We are not called to speculate as to why the earth, created as we believe, so perfectly (Gen 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 1:1) that “the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 38:7), became so imperfect. We cannot imagine them doing this, if the creation they witnessed was a waste of desolation, covered with waters and pitch darkness. Between verses i and 3 may occur a period of untold millions of years, sufficient for the laying down of the stratified, fossiliferous and cretaceous, rocks, the coal measures, etc.
But is this division of the chapter a mere arbitrary device, or is it justified by the form of the Hebrew employed? I will cite as a reliable witness Dr. E. B. Pusey, for many years Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford. He discusses the question in the Preface to his “Lectures on Daniel the Prophet,” p.p. xvii.-xxiv. He writes, “Of the forms of speech which could have been chosen, to express past time, that has been chosen, which least connects the date, when the earth was one vast waste, with the time when God created it.” Both were in past time, but there is nothing to connect “those times together.” “Had Moses intended to say that the earth was waste and desolate when God created it, the idiom for this would have been “and the earth without form and void” (without the verb) (page xviii.)—What Moses does write “has no force at all, unless it be used to express what was the condition of the earth in a past time previous to the rest of the narrative, but in no connection in time whatever with what precedes.” Dr. Pusey also points out that the “and” by which verse z is also united to v. i, shows that v. i does not stand as a mere summary of what follows. There are two distinct facts—the primal creation in v. x, and a subsequent condition of the earth “without form and void.”

W.H.

• About this site

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

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;

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.

• About this site

• About this site

THE HOUR — THE BREAD

Ought we not to observe the Lord’s Supper only at night, and only with unleavened cakes, seeing this was the case at the institution?

Of course all admit that the Lord’s supper was instituted “the same night that He was betrayed,” “while they were eating,” that is, as the passover meal was drawing to its close. This was in the evening by a definite direction of Jehovah, but no direction was given that the Lord’s supper should be observed at any special hour of the day. Acts 2:42" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42 and 46, where the “supper” is, I think, certainly in view, makes no mention of the evening, but simply states that “they broke bread at home” (R.V.), in contrast with the daily public meeting in the temple.

In Acts 20:7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7 the first day of the week is specifically mentioned, but we are left to gather incidentally that the observance was in the evening. There is, moreover, a very simple reason, quite apart from any spiritual significance, which I have never heard attached to the hour, why the evening was probably the time usually chosen in those early days, because it was the most convenient or the only time free in the day.

The observance of a “Sunday” on which shops were shut, and work closed down as to-day among men of all creeds or no creeds, was then quite unknown. For those who stickle for an exact imitation of the institution, one wonders why they do not celebrate the feast on the Thursday, the original day of its institution. We certainly only have custom rather than direct command for the first day of the week, though I do not question that this is the right day. Christianity is not like Judaism, a religious system of “days and months and years,” worked on a time-table, but a life to be lived on spiritual principles in the power of the Spirit, and governed by the Word, but not by inferences or deductions merely. Of course believers are perfectly free to break bread in the evening, if convenient, but it is not the only time, for the Word is “as oft as ye do it,” which cannot be limited to any particular hour of the day.

As for the necessity of using only unleavened bread, there is not a hint in Scripture for making this a sine qua non. Christians, no doubt, may use it if they see fit, but they have no right to impose it on their brethren. It is mere ceremonialism. The word, “artos,” used for the bread or loaf, simply stands for any mixture of flour and water, baked. There is nothing wrong about leaven itself, though, in the Scriptures typical of evil, but its anti-type is not leaven (to interpret a type by itself is not very helpful exegesis), but “malice and wickedness” or some such defiling sins (1 Corinthians  5:8). What we are called to do, is, not, like a company of Jews before the Passover, to search for literal leaven, but to examine ourselves for unjudged sin. To be occupied with the hour of the day, or the exact components of the bread and wine is to substitute the accidents* for essentials, and human inferences for Divine commands. I would close with the following weighty words of the well-known  servant of Christ, John Wesley: “What the Bible commands is good, what the Bible forbids is evil: what the Bible neither commands nor forbids, either in plain words or in undeniable inference, is a thing in itself indifferent, and neither good nor evil. The Bible is our sole guide and our adequate guide in faith and conduct.”

Matters on which the Bible does not legislate are left to the judgment of believers. The course good for one, may not be so for another. We are “by reason of use to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil.” If the above principle were understood, it would help us to distinguish between things commanded, things commended, and things left entirely open, like the hour of the breaking of bread, or the exact kind of bread to be used, and it would prevent the harmful habit of judging one another on matters where even an apostle would confess he had no commandment from the Lord.

W.H.

* A property or quality of a thing which i not essential to it, aa whiteness to paper, the texture of cloth, the exact composition of bread.  

• About this site

• About this site

Highfield Road Gospel Hall Toronto has been in the news for a video that was posted online from a conflict between a group of neighbors and a group of people from the church.

Incorrect Assumptions

The street preaching was interpreted by some neighbors as "an attack", "a protest" or a "method to drive out gays from their neighborhood".  "Messages of hate" and "homophobic" as other descriptions appeared on blogs across the internet. Predictably comments from Christians and gays alike condemned the group for its perceived attacks.

Corrections

To the credit of journalists Daniel Dale and Jesse McLean, from The Star, interviews were conducted with people from both sides of the street to try to shed some light on what the two groups were saying. In the article Viral video in Leslieville is not what it seems , the reports show that the church was not, and never has used its sermons, singing or prayers as weapons in the culture war.  

 ----- quote from article -------------

“I don’t like how the whole issue is being distorted,” said Blair Chiasson, a civil servant who lives with his partner, Paul Collins. “Nothing happened. Nothing happened.”

Christine Oddy was on her porch when she heard a sermon which featured, she said, “something about blood running down the street, souls going to purgatory.” She approached the parishioners. “You are hateful people, that’s what you are,” she can be heard saying on the video.

Online, hundreds of others joined her in condemnation. Prominent U.S. sex writer Dan Savage, who is gay, called the parishioners “Christofascists.” Another gay blogger called them “Christian terrorists.”

To Chiasson, however, they are the unthreatening “church people” — and they did not do anything wrong.

Chiasson, 45, said he believes Highfield parishioners only choose to read the Bible from a spot near their house because a fire hydrant prevents cars from parking there.

He said the parishioners preached on the street long before he and Collins, 47, arrived 13 years ago. Moreover, he said, he and Collins have never felt personally targeted by the parishioners, have never heard them say anything homophobic, and have not even been present for three years on the summer Sundays when the infrequent sermons occur.

He said the parishioners are “a part of the neighbourhood” with the right to speak freely. The neighbours who confronted them, he said, “overreacted.”

“We don’t even know the people that started this,” he said. “So the people who are apparently our defenders, we don’t even know who they are.”

--------------- end quote --------------

Some churches try to target gays with provocative statements that are meant to enrange and belittle their opponents.  Churches like Westboro Baptist are well known for proudly display signs saying hurtful and provocative things.  However, the churches that meet in Gospel Hall buildings are careful to refrain from political involvement or name calling.

The debate now has turned to whether or not preaching on the street is a right or an annoyance.  In a follow-up article, reporter Jessica McLean asks the question - A righteous disturbance or a democratic right?

• About this site

• About this site