George Menard

• 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

Gais Goeff

• About this site

Phil Sarlo's Personal Story

• 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

Don Panchito

• About this site

• About this site

Did Jephthah really offer his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord? (Judges 11:29-40)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 11:29-40).

To this one would fain be able to reply, as not a few commentators and others have done, with a definite NO. Their reasons and arguments have been so clearly set forth in a recent article elsewhere, that we cannot here do better than enumerate them in the order given. (1) It is pointed out that human sacrifices were expressly forbidden by the Law (Deuteronomy 18: 9-10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18: 9-10). (2) In verse 31, the marginal reading “or” (of the A.V., not R.V., as stated) is adopted, as showing that two alternatives were in Jephthah’s mind: “Whatsoever cometh forth . . . shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” And it is remarked that, according to Leviticus 27:4," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 27:4, a person thus vowed might be redeemed for money. (3) The daughter’s words, “that I may bewail my virginity” (v. 37), are taken to imply that this was the real outcome of the vow, that she was pledged by her father to perpetual celibacy; and further proof of this is found in the statement of verse 39, “And she knew no man.” (4) At verse 40 the reading, “talk with”, of the A.V. margin, is given preference to the textual reading, “lament”; and it is suggested that for four days in each year the daughters of Israel went to talk with Jephthah’s daughter. We may hope, if only for Jephthah’s own sake, that this view is correct; but there are difficulties in connection with each of the points mentioned which may not be ignored. If we enumerate these also, we shall perhaps put the questioner and others in a position to form their own judgment as to what really took place. (1) While there can be no doubt as to the Lord’s disapproval of human sacrifices, our passage nowhere states that Jephthah’s action met with His approval; and the question is not what the Law forbade, but what a man such as Jephthah, who had lived for some time among the idolatrous Syrians of Tob, might say and might do. (2) The “and” in verse 31 is the common Hebrew particle which is similarly translated some thousands of times elsewhere; and although there are a few passages in which it is employed disjunctively and rendered, “or,” the wording of its context in such instances usually indicates this, which is not so here. Moreover, the statement, “shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” is not very intelligible, because its being offered as a burnt offering did not mean that it was any less “the Lord’s.” Neither is it easy to understand why Jephthah should expect an animal, rather than a person, to be first out of the doors of his house to meet him on his return from the war. () Why should Jephthah’s daughter require two preliminary months to bewail her virginity, if she was going to have years of a lifetime afterwards to bewail it as much as she pleased? As to verse 39, it may be mentioned that the R.V. reads it, “And she had not known man.” (.) In verse 40, the R.V. rendering, “celebrate,” is probably the most exact of any, especially as the only other occurrence of this Hebrew word in the same form is in Judges 5:11," TARGET="_blank">Judges 5:11, where it is translated “rehearse.” If the meaning be that the daughters of Israel, while Jephthah’s daughter was still alive, went to talk with her, why should they have limited their conversations with her to four days in each year? Some may perhaps attach less importance to these difficulties than others will; but they exist, and must be faced fairly before one can confidently assert that Jephthah did not slay his daughter, but merely compelled her to remain unmarried.

W.R.

• About this site

What are we to gather from the scriptural reference to Melchizedek?

Was he a man of God of his time—a priest of the Most High, indeed, or was he actually the Son of God?

In dealing with this perennial question one wishes to recognize the views of some esteemed brethren who take a contrary view to that expressed here. They believe that this was a Theophany or appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead in a temporary human form (all such theophanies being necessarily Christophanies), and that Melchizedek was actually the Son of God. But is there nothing in the fact that he is said to have been made “like unto the Son of God”? You don’t say a man is like himself; he is himself, but he may closely resemble someone else. However, many such theophanies occur to us—the man who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok, the man with sword in hand who appeared to Joshua, the angels who appeared to Gideon and Manoah, etc.

One thing characterises them all. At first the appearance seems only human—an ordinary man, but at the end the superhuman, nay the Divine, character of the appearance is manifested. Note this in each of the cases referred to above. This is entirely absent in the case before us. In no sense are we informed that Abraham recognised Melchizedekas Divine, but he did recognise him as a king and as a priest of the Most High God, who ministered to his bodily needs and was greater than himself, therefore able to bless him and worthy to receive tithes from him. Again, Christ might have appeared as a King, but surely not as King of a well-known place as Salem or Jerusalem. Whoever Melchizedek was, his office as priest only shews that God in calling Abraham for a certain object, had not for that left all the world in darkness, but still had notable witnesses, outside His purpose concerning His chosen people to be. Those who stand for the deity of Melchizedek rely much on the expressions used by the Spirit of him in Hebrews 7" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7: , and make rather “in and out” efforts to shew how each expression applies to Christ. I believe the whole effort is in vain, for these expressions if forced to apply to Christ must be interpreted either of Him in incarnation or of Him before incarnation, and this cannot be done.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is one point and only one which the Holy Ghost would emphasise by His silence in Genesis 14" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14:  concerning the parentage, genealogy, birth and death of Melchizedek, and that is the conventIonal continuity and endless character of His priesthood. The meaning is not that this man was actually without parents nor that he is alive somewhere to-day, but that by the fact that he appears suddenly on the page of Scripture and that no mention is made of his decease, he is thus qualified to be an apt figure of Him Who is Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek and Whose Priesthood can never pass to another.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

In Genesis 6:3," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:3, “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive With man.”

Did this apply only to that dispensation?

The words in question are in close connection with the intermarriage of “the Sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” described in Genesis 6," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6, by which the barrier between the Seth line and the descendants of Cain was broken down. The sons of God did not make the worldly women godly, but the reverse process took place, as is nearly always the case to-day under similar circumstances. A great increase of evil was the result, and the world was filled with violence and corruption. This was foreseen by God, Who gave utterance to the above solemn declaration, adding, “for that he also is flesh.” Man had had at least two thousand years to show what “evolution” could do, if such a principle existed. Surely he would have developed into something supremely excellent. Let verse 11 reply: “The earth also was corrupt before God and the earth was filled with violence.” Is not such a development more consistent with the doctrine of the fall of man, than of his constant and consistent “evolution” toward a higher ideal? We need not be surprised if the Modernists wish to expunge the first ten chapters of Genesis. To believe in the evolutionary hypothesis one must not only deny the plain statements of Scripture, but shut one’s eyes to the facts of history and human experience. However, God adds in grace, “Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years”; that is, I take it, there was to be still a respite of that duration.

There is no evidence to show that the testimony of Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” ceased before the flood. But as far as I know, God nowhere pledges Himself to continue pleading with men till the end of their careers. Indeed, such emphasis is laid on immediate decision, that it would be the height of folly to count on even one more chance. We know that when the Man of Sin will be revealed God will send on those, who will have refused the truth, a “strong delusion that they may believe the lie” (2 Thessalonains 2:10-12). This moment however has not yet arrived, and it would be both unprofitable and presumptuous to attempt to show that the Spirit has ceased to strive with anyone still alive, for this is to invade the divine prerogative, and pretend to “search the heart.”

W.H.

• About this site

What is Ash Wednesday?

Ash Wednesday, also known as the “Day of Ashes” is the first day of the season of Lent.  It occurs 46 days before Easter.  Ash Wednesday and Lent are extra-Biblical holidays, meaning that they are based on traditions from centuries past, but are not mentioned in the Bible.  Lent is often associated with Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran churches along with others.

It is wise to have a Biblical point of view in regards to religious celebrations.  While taking time to remember Christ's work on the cross and the events preceeding his crucifiction is a wonderful activity, Christians are not commanded in the scriptures to celebrate Lent, Ash Wednesday or even to make Easter a special holiday.  God is not impressed by someone practicing a ritual to gain acceptance or forgiveness.  Instead, Jesus warned the Pharisees of celebrations without faith.

Mark 7:6-8" TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:6-8  And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;  (7)  in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'  (8)  You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

The pattern of the scriptures tells us that the Apostles and the first Christians regularly celebrated the Lord’s Supper to commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection on the first day of the week meaning that we should be celebrating Christ's work on the cross 52 times a year in stead of just once.

1 Corinthians 11:26" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:26  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Acts 20:7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7  On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1 Thessalonians 5:22" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:22  Abstain from every form of evil.

1 Thessalonians 4:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:3  For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality

During the period of Lent, some foods such as beef or pork are avoided as a penance for some sin.  This too, is a curious teaching since the scripture teach the exact opposite in regards to forbidding what a Christian may eat.

1 Timothy 4:1-4" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:1-4  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,  (2)  through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,  (3)  who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.  (4)  For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

EVOLUTION
Can a Christian believe in Evolution?

It is sad to think that anyone “naming the name of Christ” should forsake the clear testimony of God’s Word for the fable of “Evolution”— “Science falsely so-called.” The former declares that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1; see also Hebrews 11:3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:3). Later we read, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light” (v. 3); “Let the waters bring forth abundantly” (v. 20); “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “God created man in his own image” (v. 27); and in chap. 2. 7, we have the detailed account of this; “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Of course the most cursory reader of Gen. i, can see that God’s method in Creation was one of progression, from—the inorganic to the organic,— vegetation, fish, fowl, beasts, and lastly, man. We know, moreover, by experience of the things around us, that there is room within the species for the most wonderful variations (e.g., men, dogs, pigeons, etc.).

Ill-informed persons confuse this with “Evolution,” and they profess to be “evolutionists” because of such facts, which are undisputed. But “Evolution” properly so-called is supposed to account for the development of new species of plants or animals, either by mutation or by minute modification. Its teaching is that everything organic began with a cell (possibly more than one, but perhaps only one), and evolved by minute variations, into the myriads of “species” in the world, brought about by “natural selection,” securing “the survival of the fittest” during the course of “a struggle for existence.” Can anything be conceived more wildly improbable? It is only one more proof of “the Fall,” that otherwise sensible men can be found gullible enough to believe it. For such a process has never been proved to have taken place in nature.

Now, Science is something known, so that it is very unscientific to be an Evolutionist, seeing that evolu- tion is not something known; it has not even attained to the dignity of a theory, but is a mere hypothesis. The late Lord Kelvin, perhaps the greatest scientist since Newton, said in one of his last addresses, “I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our universities ‘ and preachers in our pulpits are restating truths in terms of Evolution, while Evolution itself remains an unproved hypothesis in the laboratories of Science” (my emphasis). Not only is Evolution a direct attack on the Creatorship of God, negativing the Scriptural account of the origin of things, but it denies the fall of man, and so inevitably the need of atonement and also, logically, the work of Christ. Shallow thinkers may profess to be able to believe the Scriptures and Evolution, but intelligent believers subject to the Word, and clear-headed agnostics, like Huxley, see clearly that the two are mutually incompatible. Evolutionists in the meanwhile continue to utter discordant cries hardly agreeing upon a single point, except that their pet hypothesis is true. Our choice simply lies between God as Creator and His Word for it, or everything its own creator and man’s word for it.

William Hoste

• About this site