Peter Orasuk - "Does life have any real meaning or purpose? Why are we here? In my search for the answer to these questions, I turned to drugs...

• About this site

• About this site

Brian Crawford

• About this site

  I speak in tongues more than you all - A biblical exploration about the gift of tongues. Two pitfalls are pointed out: The dangerous error of counterfeiting the truth and the chilling error of a dead orthodoxy.

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• 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

• About this site

Does God ever refuse to forgive in this life?

If one is COflSCIOUS of having resisted the call of God, may not that make it impossible for Him to forgive?

It is quite certain that God will never refuse forgiveness in this life to anyone who comes to Him as a sinner in the Name of the Lord Jesus, pleading in faith His atoning work. No other plea can suffice, but that will always reach the ear of God. “To Christ give all the prophets witness, that through His Name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:43). “We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:7). This is the forgiveness of God as Judge. Then to believers, the Father’s forgiveness, for the restoration of communion, is granted on confession. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9).

As to Divine forgiveness, there may seem to be an exception in Matthew 12:31," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:31, where the assurance of “forgiveness of all manner of sin and blasphemy” is qualified by the Lord with the words, “but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” the reason of His saying this being, “because they said He hath an unclean spirit.” I know this is usually taken as proving that the Pharisees had actually committed the “unpardonable sin;” for myself I feel more and more persuaded, taking other Scriptures into consideration, that the Lord was rather warning them of the terrible danger of refusing the future testimony of the Spirit, at and after Pentecost.

The rejection of Christ did not shut the door of forgiveness, for the Spirit was poured forth; but if His testimony were rejected there could only remain judgment. No one who finally rejects that testimony will ever, I believe, feel the need of forgiveness, much less ask for it. How many there are who did at first resist the offers of God’s mercy, and the pleadings of His Spirit, but who afterwards were led to repentance. Was not Paul’s “kicking against the pricks” a case in point? But it is not poor, timid, anxious souls who have finally resisted the appeal of the Spirit, but hardened and impenitent sinners like the murderers of Stephen.

W.H.

• About this site

UNFERMENTED WINE

Are not Christians who believe that unfermented or nonalcoholic wine is nearer that used by Christians in the early days justified in using such at the Lord’s table?

It is well not only to have beliefs, but also to be able to justify them from the Word of God or from real facts, admitted as such. Otherwise our “beliefs” may degenerate into personal opinions or even fads. I have never heard any proof that the wine used in the Scriptures was not ordinary fermented wine, as is produced in all wine-producing countries today. Fermentation is an ordinary process of nature and cannot but occur when wine is made. The wine used in the Bible made persons intoxicated, if taken in excess, and that used by the Corinthians, when they came together ostensibly to keep the Lord’s supper, was of the same character, as 1Corinthians 11:21" TARGET="_blank">1Corinthians 11:21 (“another is drunken”) shows. It was indeed a sad state of things, but the apostle did not solve the difficulty by changing the liquid used, but by changing their ideas of the Lord’s supper from a meal to an act of remembrance.

Really “unfermented wine” is a contradiction in terms. If it is not fermented, it may be a red liquid, it may be even a concoction of raisins, but it cannot be wine. The late W. Hunter of Manchester, used, I believe, to say that “unfermented wine,” was on a par with “unfrozen ice.” This being said, the wine need only be of such a strength as will preserve it sufficiently, so as not to necessitate the opening of a new bottle every week.

W.H.

• About this site

As passages such as Deutonomy 13:12 Deutonomy 17:4 -7; Deutonomy 19:17-18 teach that it must be the whole assembly that shall exercise discipline, does not the same apply in 1 Corinthians 5:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4 and Matthew 18:15-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15-20?

Is it not the cause of much division inside assemblies, that this is not carried out? (1 Corinthians 1:10-12)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:10-12). If there are divided opinions as to discipline, is it not more godly to wait on God till all are of the one mind and heart, even though the evidence may seem very plain?

The Lord is with His people at all times, with the two’s or three’s or the many, as well as with individuals, but the special presence of Matthew 18:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20 is conditioned on their being gathered together to His Name—”eis to onoma”—that is, not promiscuously or for some social end, a meal or conversation, etc., but around His Person for prayer, or worship, or the remembrance of Himself. The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 5:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4, though the name is not actually mentioned there as the gathering centre (eis to onoma) but as their authority for gathering (en to onomati). They were not coming together as an assembly to investigate the case, that had already been done by the Apostle and those responsible, with the help of any immediately concerned, but to carry out the discipline enjoined.

There is nothing to lead us to suppose there had been any canvass of the brethren or sisters before this, much less that such was contemplated at their meeting. Nor do I know of any Scripture for a parallel proceeding. Such an idea would imply that all in the assembly are qualified to judge the “pros and cons” of the matter,
which is quite contrary to the fact. If all were qualified to be overseers, then there need be none. In the case before us, how could the sad and sordid details be laid bare to all? In the same way in the case of Reception; all who are present hear the name announced for fellowship, and if they know any “just cause or impediment”, they should inform the elders, but otherwise they naturally trust in those who have the case in hand.

In cases of discipline, there are at times two or three who side with the evil-doer. I know of no Scripture which enjoins that everything must be held up, until these come round to the united judgment of elder brethren. The Apostle puts it in 2 Corinthians 2:6" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2:6: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many” (or as R.V. has: “by the many”—margin; Greek “the more”). As Alford suggests, it was very unlikely that the anti-Pauline party were unanimous in the action of 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. When once disciplinary action has been taken, it is very important that all should respect it.

It is indeed grievous when the reverse is the case. It is a curious phenomenon, but there are those who seem automatically to take sides with any who have been dealt with. It is a misplaced charity and a misnamed impartiality, and such only succeed in bolstering up evil-doers, and in undermining the confidence
of brethren in themselves.

W.H.

• About this site

Does the reference to “the sword” in Psalm 22:20," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20, find its fulfilment in John 19:34" TARGET="_blank">John 19:34 where one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side? and to what does the expression “dogs” refer?

The words referred to in the Psalm are, “Deliver my soul from the sword!” I cannot think that there is any reference here to the soldier’s spear! For one thing, the Lord did not pray to be delivered from the spear-thrust, for He was already dead, nor could He be said to be delivered from it, seeing it pierced Him, and was necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10," TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12:10, “They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced.” No doubt, this was permitted for a secondary reason, as an ocular demonstration to all of the reality of His death in the outpouring of all His blood. The water coming out visibly after the blood would indicate that the fountain of that life-blood was entirely exhausted: “He poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12). Then what could the sword be to which reference is made in verse zo, and from which the Lord prayed that His soul might be delivered? It was something terribly real, the pressure of which our Lord felt to His innermost soul. There was only one sword at Calvary, and that was the sword of which Zechariah spake----the sword of Jehovah—”Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Zechariah 13:7)." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 13:7). This was the sword of Eden that turned every way (Genesis 3" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3: ), “the sore and great and strong sword” of Isaiah 27:1," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 27:1, with which “Leviathan, the piercing serpent” will one day be punished—the sword of divine justice meted out against sin, and with which the Holy Victim was smitten, “when He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” and was treated as the sinner deserved.
As to the second part of the question, the expression “dog” refers, I think, to the Gentile element among those who crucified the Lord. It was they who administered the physical sufferings of the cross. “For dogs have compassed me, they pierced my hands and my feet”—clearly refers to the Roman soldiers, the crucifiers; and then follows v. 18: “They part my garments among them.” The moral sufferings of our Lord at the hand of Israel are depicted in vv. 6-8. But the sword of Jehovah surpassed them all, and it was being brought through that judgment unto the resurrection ground, which constituted the “deliverance from the sword” prayed for in Psalm 22:20." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20.

W.H.

• About this site

Can a company claim to be an assembly of God, where Church truths and fundamental truths are not taught?

Of course, we understand that such truths are not denied, but simply neglected for others, such as exhortation, or prophetical and dispensational teaching. Where fundamental truth is generally denied in a company, such loses its character as an assembly, just as the individual does his character as a Christian. But what constitutes an assembly, is a company of true believers who seek to gather to the Name of the Lord, know no other Centre than He, and no other Leader than the Spirit of God (while welcoming those whom He has called to rule, or qualified to minister the Word), and no other rule than His Word.

But why should not these truths be taught? Are there not elders among the saints, who though not exactly “teachers,” in the sense of possessing a distinct gift, are nevertheless “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2) and able to explain both church and fundamental truths? There is a call for prayer that the Lord would raise up “gifts” in His churches able to instruct the saints. But it is not “light” which constitutes an assembly, but life in Christ of those composing it.

On the other hand, we need “all the counsel of God” as revealed in His Word, not merely certain favourite truths, for “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

What is the significance of the terms “Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 32)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 32) and “Kingdom of God” ("1 Corinthians 15:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24)?

The expression “Kingdom of God” does not actually occur in 1 Corinthians 15:24," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24, but I believe the Kingdom there referred to is the same to all intents and purposes as that proclaimed by John the Baptist. Any godly Jew, versed in the Old Testament Scriptures and especially Daniel’s prophecy, knew that God had transferred the Kingdom from Israel, for their sins, to the four great Gentile Powers—Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece and Rome, the last of which was exercising its sway at the time of the Baptist’s mission. It would also be known from Daniel that the next event on the divine programme was to be the smiting and total destruction of the great-powers, regarded in their integrity as an image, by the stone cut out without hands, to be followed by the “setting up of a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed,” and “which shall not be left to other people,”—”it shall stand for ever.”

What else could a godly Jew understand then by John’s proclamation, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” but that God was about to introduce His, the fifth Kingdom, upon earth? For that, God had His King ready, but the King was also the Lamb of God—for atonement must be made, the only ground on which the Kingdom could ever be set up on this sin-stained earth. Had the Jewish nation received the post-pentecostal testimony to the resurrection of the Lord, God would have sent back the Lord Jesus to destroy His enemies and set up His millennial Kingdom.

It is that Kingdom to which reference is made in 1 Corinthians 15:24," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:24, at the close of which the Lord will put down all His enemies—human and angelic—and then deliver up the Kingdom to God, purged of every “evil concurrent.” This will not be as is so often mistakenly asserted, in the sense of ceasing to reign, for the millennial reign will only be the first stage of the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but in the sense of restoring it to Him. Then no less than before, God will be (not become) All in All, and the Lord will reign as universal King. God’s throne will for ever be the throne of God and the Lamb.

W.H.

• About this site

Can you give any Scripture for the “silencing” of a brother? For what “crime” is he to be “silenced”? and who is to do it?

This is an important enquiry. I suppose the questioner does not mean literally a “crime,” for surely no one guilty of a serious moral offence against the law could be allowed to preach or teach, even if he were allowed for the time being to remain in the assembly, which could hardly ever be the case. But I suppose what is meant is some brother, against whom, perhaps, no real accusation can be made, but who has been requested not to minister the Word.

Now, of course, we cannot judge of any particular case without knowing the details. I believe in general that no one would be silenced, unless there were good reasons—some manifest lack of gift, some recognised inability to edify the saints, some habit of too lengthy and unprofitable ministry, which had wearied hearers, or some clear moral defect. Sometimes a man may insist on reading and commenting on long chapters of the Bible, or always the same chapter, as we have known in one case, or always the same disputed doctrine, which in an unruly way he persists to inflict upon the saints.

Perhaps Paul refers to some such men in Titus 1:10" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:10 as ”unruly and vain-talkers and deceivers . . . ,“ and then adds, “WHOSE MOUTHS MUST BE STOPPED.” It is not necessary to fill every line of this indictment, to deserve the form of discipline here prescribed. A man would seem to fall within it, who is known as an unprofit able talker, or as pushing some doubtful or controversial teaching. I do not think this silencing ought to be done by an individual acting on his own responsibility. It is a case where “two are better,” and they should act only as representatives of the assembly.

The phrase, “the liberty of the Spirit,” is sometimes quoted to show that the Spirit gives liberty to anyone who likes to teach, but in their context the words only refer to seeing Christ without a veil. Certainly the Spirit does not give liberty to those whom He has not qualified to speak. However, it does not always follow that the one silenced will never again be able to minister, for sometimes it may be that a young man may have been too quick to come forward into this service, and may develop a true gift later. I know of one such case, where the one silenced (and he submitted himself humbly to the ruling of his elders) became afterwards universally recognised as a true minister of the Word.

W.H.

• About this site

Does the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Divine Trinity involve inferiority or subsequence to the Son?

It is on such strange affirmations that the deniers of the Eternal Sonship of our Lord rest their theories, and is exactly what the arch- heretic, Anus, rested on to deny the deity of the Son. But what is eternal cannot be subsequent to anything, and what is divine cannot be inferior to anything, and the Son partakes of the whole Divine Essence equally with the Father and Spirit. Really Anus was more subject to the Scriptures than the present-day deniers we refer to, for he saw that the Lord’s Sonship, as prior to His incarnation, was so clearly revealed in the Word of God that it could not be denied. His only escape from the dilemma he had manufactured for himself was then to deny the Lord’s deity. He was exceedingly exalted, but because He was clearly said to be the only-begotten Son, and that long before He came into the world, there must have been a time when He was not begotten, and therefore did not exist.

By the mercy of God the followers of Mr. J. Taylor do not, up to now, deny the deity of the Lord; therefore they must invent another loop-hole of escape: the Lord was only Son as the result of incarnation. It is really fortunate that Anus is not still in the flesh, for one would tremble for this whole company in face of his sophistries, to which they seem to have some strange affinity. It is hard to conceive of men, with any pretence to weighing the words of Scripture, being satisfied with the reasonings they allege, involving as they do the modelling of the Divine and Eternal relations in the Godhead on the human and temporary expedients of earthly relationship. The human relations of any father and son, involve, so they assert, inferiority in the son, therefore the Divine relations of Father and Son must also involve inferiority in the Son, as though anyone thought of the eternal generation of the Son in terms of the human. It is a complete reversal of the true order of things.

Sonship in its highest possible human development, that is where all thought of even a conventional inferiority of the son has passed from view, is only a faint shadow of the Eternal and Divine Sonship, where neither subsequence nor inferiority could have ever existed. When the Lord claimed in John . 17, to have worked also, as the Father (“My Father worketh hitherto and I work”), the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because such words could only mean that, by speaking of Himself in the same breath with God as His Father, He did clearly assert His equality with the Father, and our Lord accepted the inference, while asserting that such equality did not preclude subordination for mutual purposes. If the Lord was only Speaking of a relation established on the earthly plane at Bethlehem, then, according to these teachers, He would not have been equal to His Father and proves by their own showing that He was speaking of Divine relationships existing before His birth. It is surprising that any Christian teacher should fail to differentiate between eternity and the divine on the one hand and time and the human on the other, and try to import into the former, ideas attaching to the latter.

W.H,

• About this site