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

Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

Eric Walberer

• 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

Tom Bentley

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

• About this site

No.

Despite news stories about a Gospel Hall in Leslieville (Toronto, Canada) public preaching of the gospel is not a protest or an attack on any group or individual.

The message of sin and salvation, if understood correctly, is not about a call to bring our nation back to traditional values.  Instead, defining sin as God sees it should cause one to look for salvation in Christ Jesus.

For a fuller picture on the events behind the story see -  Viral Video in Leslieville Neighborhood Not What it Seems

For what is preached about homosexuality in the Gospel Hall, see the question What should a church teach about homosexuality?

• About this site

Is the discipline exercised on a brother in Matthew 18:17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17 equivalent to that exercised in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

Let us see what these passages say. In 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 the sinning one is to be “put away from among yourselves,” and the saints are not to have fellowship with him in any respect whatsoever. In Matthew 18:17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17, when the offender has refused to “hear the church,” it is said, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Our question therefore appears to mean, “Is this man also put away from the assembly as is the former?” and if so, the answer can only be that he is. For how could I be said to treat another “as an heathen man and a publican,” if he is still breaking bread with myself and others every Lord’s Day? And if the church has not put the man away at v. 17, why should it be said in the following verse, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?

But it may be asked, why is the expression, “Let him be unto THEE,” and not rather “unto YOU” or “unto THE CHURCH”? I suggest that it is because the passage in Matt. i8 is not dealing directly with church procedure at all, but with the attitude of an individual towards one who has sinned against him. The assembly is only introduced incidentally as having to take action in certain circumstances which are mentioned. All the way through from v. an individual is being addressed, and it is not to be wondered at that the same should be the case in v. 17. Yet at the same time, since the matter has now reached a stage where the offender has refused to hear the church, each member of it by that refusal has been practically put into the same position with regard to him as the one first of all concerned, and must act toward him in the same manner.

W.R.

• About this site

ELECTION
Some have become concerned as regards their unsaved relatives and the doctrine of election; they cannot understand how the difficulty of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is to be met.

That, however, is a poor reason for not believing them both. We do not need to range ourselves in men’s categories and take sides with Arminians, those who hold the responsible freedom of man’s will, or with Calvinists who believe equally firmly in God’s sovereignty; we believe in both, not as a mixture, but as entireties.

If our gospel is limited or hampered by views of God’s sovereignty, we may be sure that we hold it wrongly.

As has been said, we pray as though all depended on God’s grace; we preach as though all hinged on man’s faith. Really the difficulty need not trouble us. It meets us, if we think of it, in every action of our life. Certainly God is Sovereign; “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15: 18)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 15: 18). God knows what will happen; He forsees; He chooses; He disposes. What can we do therefore? What is to be, will be. “We must wait for Him” to do all. On the contrary, we know we have a responsibility to fulfil and no accusations of Arminianism need turn us aside.

Let us take a simple illustration:—Supposing we have friends returning to the homeland from U.S.A.; but within sight of land the ship catches fire and everyone on board is in great peril. Now nothing is more certain than that God knows all, who will be saved and who will not be, but will that deter the most convinced Calvinist from seeking to bring help to those in danger and straining every nerve to reach them in time? We ask God’s help, and we thank Him when our friends are brought safely to land, but if everyone sheltered behind the purposes of God, and sat down and did nothing, then most probably those in danger would be lost. Now, if we would not act like this in temporal affairs, why do so in spiritual things? We are not called to examine the book of God’s decrees, but by prayer and effort to bring our relatives under the sound of the Gospel. The Lord did not send His disciples to preach election to every creature, nor the Gospel to all the elect (for we do not know who they are), but the Gospel to every creature. When Paul thanked God for the election of the Thessalonians in chap. i. 4 of the first Epistle, he did not cite some wonderful vision or spiritual experience through which they had passed, to justify this conviction, but he based it on: (1) the way they received the Gospel, and (2) the effects of the Gospel on their lives, summed up in verse 9 as “turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven.” Generally when man’s responsibility and God’s electing grace are mentioned on the same page of Scripture, it is the former that comes first. Thus in John 5:40" TARGET="_blank">John 5:40 the Lord said to the Jews, “Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life” (not ye cannot), and in the following chapter (v. 44) we hear His words, “No man can come to Me, except the Father, which hath sent Me, draw him.” See also Acts 13:46," TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:46, “Seeing ye put it (the Word of God) from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles”; and then two verses on, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” In Acts 18: 8," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18: 8, “Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized,” and in v. 10, “I have much people in this city.”

We must not limit the Gospel message as a bona fide proclamation of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as the means of salvation, available for all, for “God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” and “Christ gave Himself a ransom for all,” that “whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”; and the last message in the Scriptures to the unsaved is, “Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will let him take the water of life freely.” Those who have believed the Gospel and who have the humble confidence that they are amongst God’s chosen ones, give glory to Him alone, and seek to make their calling and election sure. Perhaps there was never a more direct and specific promise from God of safety to any company than to Paul’s ship-companions: “There shall be no loss of any man’s life among you.” “God hath given thee all them that sail with thee”; and Paul added, “I believe God.” This was God’s sovereign act (Acts 27:22-25)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:22-25), but in verse 31 —when the sailors were about to flee out of the ship—Paul uttered the warning words, “Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” This gives the human responsibility side, to which both saint and sinner should give good heed. It should be understood that this reply is limited to the subject of the question before us, and hardly touches on the great subject of the eternal counsels from the believer’s standpoint.

W.H.

• About this site

• 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

Why is it some assemblies will not admit believers to the Lord’s Table, until they have been baptized? Is this scriptural?

The question ought, I judge, to be reversed. Why do some assemblies admit believers who have not been baptized? It can hardly be questioned that baptism was ordained by Christ Himself as the initial rite in the Christian life. “Go, disciple the nations, baptizing them (i.e., the disciples when made), in (or into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19). “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:15-16). Accordingly, in the Acts a profession of faith in Christ in one form or another was always followed by baptism, e.g., “Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:8).

The twelve disciples of Ephesus, having been wrongly baptized, were re-baptized in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus. There is not a single case mentioned of an infant being baptized. Baptism ought undoubtedly to be put before all candidates for fellowship. With young converts there is rarely any difficulty, but when we come to older Christians seeking fellowship, who have perhaps formed part of some evangelical denomination for a number of years, the case is more complicated. Many such firmly believe they have been truly baptized, either as children before faith, or by sprinkling after faith.

The question then arises whether it can be right altogether to refuse fellowship to such undoubted believers, who seem unable to see the need for “rebaptism.” I judge that such passages as 2 Chronicles 30:18;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 30:18; 1 Samuel 21:6;" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 21:6; Numbers 28: 9," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 9, etc., with our Lord’s comment on the last two passages in Matthew 12:3-7," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:3-7, shew that there are cases where God’s strict order may be modified by special circumstances. “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” Each case, however, must be judged by spiritual men, who will surely have wisdom from God how to act; but certainly there should be no reception into the local fellowship without this question being raised.

W.H.

• About this site

Should a Christian celebrate Halloween?

 

The celebration of holidays for a Christian is addressed in Romans 14:1-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-33." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:1-33.  The controversy of special food and special days may have had different names in the times of the apostles, but the principles of how to handle them is still relevant today.

 

The final decision for a Christian’s participation in Halloween will ultimately lie with the individual believer, but there are a number of factors one should consider.

 

Dressing a child in a cute costume as a cowboy, princess or a favorite sport’s hero and asking people for candy is of course, an innocent activity.  On the other hand, dressing as a witch, vampire, evil spirit or murderous villain is another idea altogether.

 

The origins of almost all holidays are with national events or Christian-related ideas even if their precise dates are not known.  Halloween, on the other hand, is a purely pagan and spiritually dark celebration of the gods of pre-Christian Europe with no association with anything from God.

 

Christians may choose to avoid any associate with Halloween based on the Old Testament’s prohibition of any form of demon communication or witchcraft

(Exodus 22:18;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27).  In the New Testament as well, the apostles spoke strongly against fortune telling and mixing with evil spirits  (Acts 8:9-24;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:9-24; Acts 13:6-11;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:6-11; Acts 19:19)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:19).  

 

A Christian who chooses not to celebrate any form of Halloween has legitimate concerns and honors God by avoiding any association with a demonic-influenced holiday.  There is clearly something to avoid in Halloween.  Horror movies, occult practices and haunted houses are grotesque perversions of anything good, moral and godly.  However, a parent who encourages his child to dress as a clown or a football player can hardly be faulted for enjoying an innocent party.

 

Some believers use the opportunity to communicate with their neighbors with gospel tracts or have fall parties in order to share the gospel.  Some countries have more drastic demon-influenced traditions than others.  Some believers have friends who are more likely to be offended by Halloween celebrations than others.  The final decision as to participate in fall parties lies with a well-informed believer who wishes to not cause offense to neither Jew, gentile nor to the church of God.

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

Is it safe to use Weymouth’s Translation, since it contains such error as is found in the note upon Hebrews10:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews10:27 (page 560)?

It has been pointed out that the notes in this version are not by Dr. R. F. Weymouth, but by E. Hampden-Cook, M.A., who is said to have “Edited and partly revised” the work. In my edition of 1910 the very unsound note on Heb. 10." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10. 27 referred to above is on page 6i6; and it is by no means the only one of the kind; the notes on this subject always being in the interests of what is known as, “Annihilationism” a very serious and growing heresy to-day. This teaching, however, is not confined to the notes, but occurs in the text. Wherever, apparently, the translator (or do we owe these touches to the “part revision” of Mr. Cook?) comes upon the question of the future of the wicked, the same influence can be noted: e.g., Matthew 25:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46 which is translated, “And these shall go away into the punishment of the ages, but the righteous into the life of the ages,” which is the ordinary meaningless and erroneous language affected by the Annihilationist teachers. How this book found its way into my small library, I have no idea; but I neither use it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do so. The Lord’s words apply here, “Take heed what ye hear,” and I am convinced that all this talk about “onian” and “the ages” is everywhere a danger-signal for those who desire to hold fast the whole revelation of God and the
doctrine of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

What will be the nature of the Jewish sacrifices offered at Jerusalem during the Millennium?

They cannot, of course, in any way be connected with sin since Christ has died and “their remaineth no more sacrffice for sin.” Will they be sacrifices of praise and adoration or of remembrance?

Here again we see the importance of dispensational truth—according to the oft-quoted words of Augustine: “Distinguish the dispensations and the Scriptures will agree.” Here, what is quite out of place in the present Church era, will evidently from Ezekiel 43:26" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 43:26 once more be in vogue. After the measures of the altar are given (chap. 43. 13), the ordinances of the altar are laid down, and the sin offering is mentioned again and again (e.g., vv. 21, 22, 25, and Ezekiel 44:27-29)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 44:27-29), but certainly not in the sense of taking sin away. The Old Testament dispensation was characterised by an altar on which typical sacrifices (a shadow of good things to come) were offered, the present is characterised by a table, on which the memorial symbols of bread and wine are presented, and partaken of, in remembrance of the One Sacrifice of Christ, the only and sufficient ground for the atonement and taking away of sin. But the future millennial age, when the earthly people are once more restored to the place of testimony and blessing, will be characterised once again by an altar of remembrance—on which literal sacrifices will be offered, no longer pointing forward, but backward—and that by earthly priests—the sons of Zadok alone (chap. . 15). So that we see that what is a Satanic delusion to-day:—the pretended offering up again and again of the sacrifice of Christ, will in a future dispensation be renewed in a figurative and memorial sense.

W.H.

• About this site