Martin Prins

“I-I-I don’t know,” I answered, “Nobody knows.”

“I do,” she said confidently. "Sixteen years ago, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior and I received eternal life.” She then got out her Dutch Bible. Together we read...

• About this site

James Dyck

• About this site

Aric Stickfort

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

The Music of Glorybound

• About this site

Anthony Elliott

• About this site

Should a pastor scare his congregation by preaching about Hell?

That depends on why he is doing it and what he is preaching.  Hell is definitely worth preaching about, because it is real.  God's great salvation made possible through the death of Christ on the Cross is a salvation to rescue guilty sinners from going to hell.  If there is no hell to preach, then salvation has no meaning. Thank God that the awfulness of hell is balanced by the wonder of God’s love for us and the miracle of Jesus’ sacrifice for us on Calvary.  Preach one without the other and you have heresy.

Some preachers like to promote their own agenda using the fear of hell to bring their point home.  A great crime is committed by anyone who, for example, would suggest that not attending a certain church or not paying a certain amount of money, or even committing a certain sin the preacher does not like will guarantee that a person will go there.  

When a person says, “Go to hell!”, they are doing exactly that, seeking to make whatever bothers them about someone else worthy of God’s ultimate judgment.  This is called “taking the name (authority) of the Lord in vain”, and God says in the 10 Commandments that that sort of carelessness will not go unpunished (Exodus 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20:7).

The fear of the Lord who can “destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 8:28)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:28) should sober us up so much that we are most afraid to misrepresent God in the matter.  So let us preach it faithfully, but also fearfully, with reverence and balance and complete biblical accuracy.

Alfred Corduan

• About this site

• About this site

Is there anything wrong, when seeking to defend the real Deity and true humanity of our Lord, in making use of the statement, “He is very God of very God, and very Man of very man?”

The words, “very God of very God” were inserted in the creed of the Nican elders and teachers at the council of Nica in A.D. 325," TARGET="_blank">D. 325, for whose faithful contending for the faith we may well thank God. They were intended to safeguard the true Deity of Christ, in opposition to the soul-destroying heresies of Anus, which denied it. They affirmed that the Son, though truly said to be the only begotten of the Father, is no less truly God—co-equal, co-substantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit. The creed, like every human writing must be tested by the Word of God. In this case, I judge, the expression in question to be quite legitimate and laudable. But the expression, “very Man of very man,” stands on other footing. It does not, for one thing, occur in the Nicene creed, nor, as far as I know, in any other, and in my judgment ought to be avoided. It is an attempt to express “the secret things” of the Incarnation, but seems to ignore the part the Holy Spirit had in the conception—”That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” We must and do insist on the true humanity of our Lord, but without attempting to define how it was produced.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Some hold that there is a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, and that only those who are born again are in the former, while all who profess are in the latter. If such be the case, how can they explain Matthew 5:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:20 and Matthew 18:3" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:3? I was under the impression that both were the same, and that conversion and regeneration also were the same. Am I correct?

Some, I believe, maintain that the Kingdom of God is the real thing and the Kingdom of heaven inclusive of all profession. But does not the first Beatitude seem to refute this? “Blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5. 2)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5. 2). A comparison of Matthew 13" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: and Luke 13" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13: shows that in the two chapters the same parables—of the mustard seed and of the leaven—are referred, in the former to the Kingdom of heaven, in the latter to the Kingdom of God. This would seem to indicate that the difference cannot be vital. In the one phrase, the seat of the authority exercised is emphasised. It comes from “the heavens”: In the other, the one who exercises the authority is the predominant thought—it is God Himself.

I believe both are real. How could it be otherwise when both belong to God? It is dangerous, however, to shuffle Bible terms. But in the Kingdom of Israel remnants of the Canaanites, e.g., the Gibeonites remained, but were not subjects of the Kingdom. In the Kingdom of this land, foreigners, enemy spies, alien communists, ever hostile to our king, may live and lurk; they must recognise the law of the land, but they are not recognised as British subjects and they can be repatriated at the will of the Sovereign. So there are doubtless some who profess the name of Christ who are not really subjects of the Kingdom. They will be purged out, but it does not follow they were ever included in the Kingdom.

As regards the terms, “conversion,” and “regeneration,” they may coincide and I believe do, but they are far from being synonymous.Conversion is the turning of the sinner to God and represents the man-ward side of things; regeneration is the new-birth wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit, when conversion takes place. This represents the God-ward side.

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

• 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

OXFORD GROUP
What do you think of the Oxford Group movement?

Much has been written for and against this religious cult. It ought not to be difficult for anyone who has experienced true conversion to God and found peace with Him by faith, on the ground of the precious blood of Christ, to form a correct view of a movement in which, no doubt, as in Freemasonry, Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc., some true children of God are entangled. But the crucial question is, what place has Christ and His atoning work in it? It is the Sermon on the Mount, vaguely grasped, not the Atonement of Calvary, which is the favourite watch-word. It is “the Spirit” as a sort of “familiar spirit,” whispering in the ear, rather than the Holy Spirit of God testifying to Christ through the Scriptures. As far as we learn, no questions are raised to aspirants as to their doctrinal belief. A Unitarian is just as welcome as a Trinitarian; a Roman Catholic, as a Protestant; an Anglo-Catholic, as an Evangelical. It is as though the prodigal son had staged a homecoming scene, with confession, reconciliation, best garment, shoes, fatted calf, etc., all complete, but remaining the while in the far country. It is Cain offering the fruits of the earth and making himself believe it is he, not Abel, who is accepted. It is a building without foundation, but ‘best hotel accommodation’ provided for all. It is assuming the name and privileges of the family without being born into it. It would indeed be surprising were such a system anything but attractive to decent woridings.

William Hoste

• About this site