Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

Ron Mills' Story - At the age of 22 I started to consider suicide as an answer to feelings of hopelessness. By the time I was 23 I would get brief periods of wondering “is this all there is to life?" I remember going to night clubs after drug use and drinking and just standing amongst hundreds of people and feeling very alone and tired of life. There had to be more to this Life (more...)

• About this site

Peter Ramsay - I thought... “Yes I have done some wrong things, but I am not bad enough to go to Hell. There are many people who really deserve to be there – but I don’t."

The very last thing I wanted to do was to let go of the things that I thought earned me favor with God and gave me a special status.

• About this site

Albert Hull

• About this site

Ann Wielenga

• About this site

• About this site

Is it scriptural to appoint Elders and Deacons in our assemblies by a system of voting amongst the brethren and sisters, the number of votes being counted up and determining the result?

Surely such a question only needs to be asked, to be answered in the negative, for what possible basis could be found for such proceedings in the Scriptures? If there be an instance or direction for such a thing in the New Testament, we do not know it, and should value the citation of chapter and verse.

The nearest approach to such a thing that could possibly be alleged would be the words of the apostles to the multitude of the disciples in Acts 6:3," TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:3, and yet even here, there is not a word about voting by the saints or even appointment by them—the word of the apostles was to the brethren: “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”

It is to be noted that it was a question here of the appointment only of a certain kind of ministers, namely, managers of the daily distribution of monetary help to the widows in the assembly. They are usually called “deacons,” though the word is not actually used except in the substantival form, “diakonia,” in verses 1 and 4 (“ministration,” “ministry of the Word”). In verse 2 we have the verbal form, “diakonein”—to serve—(from a verb “diökein,” to pursue a course).

These seven were chosen to distribute the gifts of the saints to the needy widows, as the givers of the gifts had a right to a little part at least in looking out suitable men, to act as their almoners. But when it is a question of spiritual “deacons” (v. 4, “ministers of the Word”), such as evangelists, pastors and teachers, who are the gifts of the Risen Christ, only He, the Giver can “look out” and “appoint” such men.

As for elders, they come under a different category. They are quite distinct from deacons, it not being a question of exercising gift, in the technical sense, but of godly care, oversight, feeding and guiding the flock. In Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: Paul exhorts the elders, “Feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”

We never read of a church appointing its elders, any more than of a flock appointing its shepherds. But we do read in Acts 14:20-23," TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:20-23, that when the Apostles Paul and Barnabas returned on their second visit to Lystra, Derbe, Iconium and Antioch, then and only then, “they ordained (or pointed out) elders in every church.” Why was this only on the second visit? were they not needed on the first? Surely, but it naturally took a little time for these men to come to the front, whom the Holy Ghost was fitting and calling to the work. The apostles, I take it, only recognised His work and endorsed it. In writing later to Timothy and Titus, the apostle gives the description of men called to the work of oversight or eldership. These chapters (x Tim. 3, and Titus i) form part of the sacred canon, and are to-day for the guidance of men, themselves leaders, who are to be on the look out for younger men, who are aspirants to eldership work, and encourage those who manifest the divine calling and qualification.

It seems clear, however, in all this that there is not the smallest precedent or direction for canvassing a church and registering the votes of the saints for certain men who are to take the place of “elders” and “deacons” of the church. Such a church will never fall “from its excellency,” it has already fallen. It has exchanged dependence on the Lord to give the needed gifts to His Church, for the carnal methods of a degenerate Christendom. May the Lord so encourage us all in the path of faith as that such devices of the flesh should not be so much as once named among us, as becometh saints!

W.H.

• 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

• About this site

• About this site

THE “FLESH” AND THE “BODY”
Explain the difference between the terms “flesh” and “body”? What is meant by the “redemption of the body”?

If the inquirer can examine, in any good Lexicon of New Testament Greek, or better still, in Mr. Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the great variety of meanings which each of the two words “sarx” (flesh) and “soma” (body) may bear, according to the context in which they occur; he will realise that it would be difficult to reply to his question adequately, within the bounds of this page. And if he can avail himself of a Young’s or Wigram’s Concordance to go through all the occurrences of each word, he will probably glean more help in that way than he would from any formal answer.

The fact is that, as used in some passages, there is little or no difference between the two words; and yet in certain other passages a clear distinction is made between them. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 4:10" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:10 we have the phrase, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our BODY”; while in the parallel statement of the next verse it is, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal FLESH.” Here the two words are practically synonymous. The opposite extreme may be seen in Colossians 2:23" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:23 (R.V.), where one can show “severity” to the BODY, and at the same time be showing “indulgence” to the FLESH.

Taken in its most literal sense, the “body” is the physical or material part of man, viewed as an organised whole (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:23). The “flesh” is the substance of which this body is to a large extent composed (see Luke 24. 39)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24. 39). But either word may be used to represent the entire man, as “body” in Luke 20: 36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20: 36, and “flesh” in Luke 3:6." TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:6.

It is when the thought of evil, either in state or in tendency, is suggested, that a deeper distinction is at times made between the two words. For example, the expression “in the flesh” may be employed as in Romans 7:5" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:5 and 8:8, , of the moral standing of the unsaved, but “in the body” is never so used. The latter phrase may refer to one’s bodily presence in some particular place, as in 1 Corinthians 5:3," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:3, or to the present earthly life of man, as in 2 Corinthians 5:10;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:10; but this is not distinctive of it, for “in the flesh” may also have either of these meanings, as in Colossians 2:1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:1 and in Philippians 1:24." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:24.
Again, “tendency to evil” may sometimes be signified by the term “the flesh,” especially in such phrases as “after the flesh,” etc.; but “the body” is not so used, except in a few remarkable expressions, “the body of sin” (Romans 6: 6)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 6), “the body of this death” (Romans 7:24)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:24), “the deeds of the body” (Romans 8: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8: 13), and “the body of the sins of the flesh” (Colossians 2:11)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:11).

The body is frequently spoken of as capable of being used for God (Romans 12:1)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:1), and so are its members (Romans 6: 12, 13);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 12, 13); but this is never predicated of the flesh (see Rom. 7. 25)," TARGET="_blank">Rom. 7. 25), the members of which seem rather to be those named in Col. 3. 5." TARGET="_blank">Col. 3. 5. Moreover, the body of the saint is called a temple of the Holy Ghost and a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15, 19)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:15, 19), but it is his “flesh” that lusteth against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:17). Finally, the saint’s body, having been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:20), awaits its full “redemption” when our Lord Jesus comes again (Romans 8:23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:23). Then He “shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory” (Philippains 3:21 R.V.); and when He has done so, “WE (not merely our bodies) shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:2).

W.R.

• About this site

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM
Are those who teach what is known as “household baptism” justified in using the crossing of the Red Sea, referred to in  1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: as a type of Christian baptism, and in asserting that,  as undoubtedly infants were carried across the Red Sea by their  mothers, they therefore were baptised unto Moses, and so infants  now should be baptised? 

Certainly these friends must be hard put to it to find authority for  their practice of baptising households to-day, if they have to go back  to this far off Old Testament event to justify it. We are asked, moreover,  to believe that had Moses and the elders held Believer’s Baptism, they  would have been obliged cruelly to leave all the infants on the west bank  of the Red Sea to the mercy of the pursuing Egyptians, on the plea that  such were not fit subjects for baptism. I remember one well-known  clergyman in Brighton (the “Reverend” H. B.), who wrote a tract to  justify the sprinkling of infants, and he built his argument on the  probability of the wind sprinkling the Israelitish infants, as they were  carried through the Red Sea. It seems hard to believe that fancy could  go further. We may be sure that no-one from Moses to the youngest  Israelitish mother had the slightest idea that a figure of Christian  baptism was being carried out during the crossing of the Red Sea. 

But if for the sake of argument, all who shared in the crossing were  baptised, then this was true of “the mixed multitude” and of the flocks  and the herds. Perhaps those who christen bells and ships rely on this  passage. We see, however, from Numbers 4" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 4 that the children did not  count, but only those of Israel who were numbered “from twenty years  old and upward,” for in verses 29 and 33 a difference is made between  those who were numbered (v. 29) and their children (v. 33). Whereas  the former (except Caleb and Joshua) would be excluded for good, all  the children would be brought in when their fathers’ carcases were wasted  in the wilderness. We may be sure that the infants no more shared in  the baptism of the Red Sea, than in the daily eating of the manna and  drinking from the rock that followed them. No doubt it is legitimate  to see in the crossing of the Red Sea a figure of the death and resurrection  of Christ and of believers’ association with Him, but it is not,  properly speaking, a figure of Christian baptism, for that would be a  case of a figure representing a figure. Rather what is set forth is what has already taken place for all believers, namely, their baptism in the Spirit. Christi n baptism is in no way in view in 1 Cor 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 10 and it is a great mistake to think that wherever the slightly different word, “baptismos” that occurs in our Authorised (e.g., Mark 7:4, 8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:4, 8; Hebrews 6: 2;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: 2; Hebrews 9:10)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:10), The reference clearly is to the ceremonial purifications of the Levitical service.

William Hoste

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site