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

Eric Walberer

• About this site

• About this site

James Dyck

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Jim Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is it correct to say that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them as we know it?

(see Galatians 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:8).

Did Abraham know when he offered up Isaac, that his son was a type of the Son of God? or did Isaiah know when speaking of the sufferings of Christ, that He was the Son of God? or again, did Job know that his Redeemer was the Son of God?

It is not possible, it seems to me, for anyone to search the hearts and understandings of these Old Testament saints, and define the exact extent of their spiritual apprehension of the Person of whom they spake. Spiritual truths are spiritually apprehended.

Certainly the Gospel preached to Abraham was not the Good News as we know it, but it contained it, for its promise of salvation was alone through Christ. Probably the apprehension of Patriarchs and Prophets was much greater than we might naturally suppose. For instance, would it not be difficult to define the limitations of our Lord’s words in John 8:56" TARGET="_blank">John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This seems to refer to a special occasion, as the verbs are all in the aorist and speak of a point of time in the past, probably to the great deliverance on Mount Moriah. Abraham might have called the name of the place “Jehovah-rahah”__the Lord has provided, had he thought all was over. Evidently he perceived that what had just taken place was the figure of a greater deliverance and so he called it “JehovahJireh”—the Lord will provide. Whether Isaiah and the prophets knew that the Messiah about whom they wrote was to be actually the Son of God, it seems profitless to enquire. They knew they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ testifying in them, and that they were speaking for us, concerning “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). Their difficulty was not to know of whom they spake, but of what manner of time. As for Job’s wonderful words, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” he would be a bold man (which boldness I neither share nor desire to share), who would undertake to limit this prophecy. It seems to me that in these words God gave His tried servant to understand a bit of “Romans” truth—”My Redeemer”; a bit of “Corinthian” truth —“He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth”; a bit of “Thessalonian” truth—”In My flesh I shall see God”; a bit of “Colossian” truth—”My Redeemer is God”; and a bit of “Timothy” truth—”I know.”

W.H.

• About this site

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.

• About this site

The question of women serving as church leaders is one of the most read debated questions in Bible-believing churches.  In business, government, sports, science and other fields, women have proved themselves able and intelligent in every way.  Why do some churches retain old ideas then and keep them out of the preaching role?  The answer is that a church is not guided on the same principles as other areas of society.  While some church groups may feel free to treat the Bible as only one several of their sources of authority, the Holy Scriptures should the main purpose of a church is to put into practice the word of God (1 Timothy 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:15).  The question of whether women should preach is not a question of personal preference or ability, but whether it is in line with the teaching of the Bible.

Relevant scriptures

Some relevant scriptures in regards to this question include 1 Timothy 2:11-14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13.  The way we understand these words from God will guide us.  A similar question in regards to women in the church is to the question of the silence of women.  These scriptures are 1 Corinthians 11:5;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and are answered in the question “Should women speak in the church?”

1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 – Authority is male

 1 Timothy 2:11-14" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:11-14  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  (12)  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  (13)  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  (14)  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

 While in a church gathering, there are distinct roles given to men and women as a result of (1) creation “Adam was formed first, then Eve” and (2) the results of the fall “the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”.  Teaching the scriptures, according to this passage, is a male role.  Exercising authority over man is also not permitted for women.  This would include leadership roles and public teaching roles in the church.

Having stated the clearest interpretation of this passage, it should be noted that there are attempts to nullify this primary meaning by applying other interpretations.

 Women had a lack of education?

The first objection to this statement in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2 is that women were not capable in their culture to teach the scriptures to men because of their limited experience, education and lack of opportunities from centuries of male-dominated traditions.  However the verse does not say “due to lack of education, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority”.  Formal education did not factor into Christ’s decision to choose the disciples / apostles and it was not a factor in excluding women either. 

Only for the wives?

Another argument against this passage is to say that the passage only applies to women who are married.  Some translations of the passage say “wives” rather than “women” in general.  However, the passage is teaching about men and women. The references to men and women in the surrounding verses make clear sense for both married and single people.  For example in 1 Timothy 2:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.” Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer?  A second example in 1 Timothy 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:9  say “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”.  Are only wives to dress modestly? Of course not.  The passage is talking to people both married and single.

Examples of women ministers

Another argument used against this scripture is the mention of women who served as deaconesses in the Bible.  Service is a godly work for both men and women.  However, the service of godly women would not have contradicted Holy Scripture in that of taking a leadership role or in public teaching of men.  One example of woman who served was the couple Aquilla and Pricilla.  In Acts 18," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18, they work as tent makers with Paul.  At the end of the chapter, in verse 26, Apollos was invited to their house to learn more of the way of God.  This threesome Bible study resulted in that Apollos became a better public teacher.

Act 18:26" TARGET="_blank">Act 18:26  “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

The women mentioned in Romans 16" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16 are referred to as “servants” and “helpers” and “workers” including Phoebe, Pricilla, Mary and Junia.  It is not necessary to think of these women as part of any special religious class of leadership. Any sister who serves can be a “deaconess” or “servant” or “worker” without being a teacher or exercising authority over a man. 

1 Timothy 3:1-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-13  and Titus 1:5-9" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5-9 – Elders and Deacons are Men of Respect

Among the list of requirements for both elders and deacons in the assembly is the reference to a man with his family: “husband of one wife and his children are believers”. The words “he” and “his” are mentioned eight times in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3.  The leaders of the church are required to be male. 

Conclusion

The scriptures are the church’s operating manual.  The question of women leadership in the church therefore is not to be based on questions of ability or fairness or from trends in politics or business.  1 Timothy and Titus teach that God has put men in position of authority.  The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching or service, but it is not to be in the context of authority over the man.

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

It is being taught in some quarters that our Lord was “God the Son in eternity,” and became the “Son of God in incarnation.”

Is this distinction scriptural?

I do not know where the phrase, “God the Son,” occurs in Scripture, though no serious objection need be raised to it. As a Trinitarian Person He was God the Son, but THEN, too, He was in the relation of Son to the Father, and was therefore Son of God. There are those who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ, which is a very serious error, but clearly the teacher referred to here admits this important truth.

But I believe it is unscriptural to limit the expression “Son of God” to incarnation. To the Son He saith, “Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever,” and to the Son also, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth” (Hebrews 1:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:8-10)—uttered to the Lord centuries before His incarnation. I doubt if the Sonship of Christ is ever made to depend on His incarnation. He was CALLED the Son of God’ in incarnation, because He was the Son of God before incarnation (Luke 1:35)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35), just as the “Son given” is called “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God,” because He was all this before being “the child, born” of the virgin (Isaiah 9:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6). The above teacher has been referred to as to the phrase this question is based on, and he replies that what he intended to be printed was, “Christ was God the Son in eternity, and became the Son of God as Man,” which seems only to mean that personally He was unchanged, but now as Son of God He entered into Manhood and became changed in condition.

W.H.

• About this site

DEPARTED SAINTS AND EARTH

Do saints with the Lord “look this way” as the hymn says?

Are they cognisant of what is taking place on earth, as the hymn puts it, “Some one in glory LOOKING this way”?

I do not know any Scripture, which shows that those with Christ are cognisant of what is going on on the earth, or are “looking this way.” Samuel, when called up from beneath, as I believe he undoubtedly was, did not know why, but had to be told the circumstances by Saul (1 Samuel 28:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15). He was not “looking this way,” he called it being “disquieted.”

The rich man in Hades did “look this way,” as far as remembering he had five brethren still alive, who, though he could not see them, he instinctively felt were on the wrong road. Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom, and gave no indication of “looking this way” (Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16: From Ecclesiastes we learn that “the dead know not anything” Ecclesiastes 9:5)," TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5), that is, of world happenings; not that they are unconscious, but as v. 6 tells us, they have no more “a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”

If we take our ideas from hymns, we may get some strange ones; but if we disapprove of a hymn, it is better not to sing it, or else to omit the offending verse, than to tamper with it. It is a serious matter to tinker a hymn, without the author’s permission.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site