Menu•SiteMap | Guests




My Stand: No. 4

• Gordon Rainbow     § and † Guest

Wrong Attitude towards Women: By 'modern' exclusives
Paul and Peter: The Spheres of their Commissions
Unsolicited Email: Abuse of the Internet
• § S. M. Anglin re Baptism and Circumcision, and 'Baptism' by S. E. Hesterman






 



PLEASE NOTE: For the security of our readers, all @ signs have been changed to 'AT' in order to prevent unsolicited email. If you wish to contact any of our guests please remember to replace the @ sign in the address line of your email.


WRONG  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  WOMEN
By Modern Exclusives
The following comments were originally in a letter of
Mon, 22 Jan 2001, to Sarah Clarke.

Dear Sarah,

… Certainly there was and is a wrong attitude towards women in general and single women in particular among modern so-called 'exclusives'.

Such women had always been respected and valued by the brethren.

Most if not all younger than I am – brothers and sisters alike – will not have any personal, or other, knowledge of the position of women among the brethren prior to 1959.

Besides yourself, MB has had a number – too few relatively – of single and married women as guests.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

PAUL  and  PETER
The  Spheres  of  their  Commissions
A reply to Richard Willoughby.

Mon, 27 May, 2002

Dear Richard,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. Yes, I do have some comments on your remarks.

For literalness, I too prefer the translation of ethnos, in its various cases, by JND as 'nation(s)'.

Paul's commission, as the Lord explained to Ananias, was as

However, he was not "sent out by Jesus of Nazareth", but he and Barnabas were "sent forth by the Holy Spirit".

In the synagogue at "Antioch of Pisidia … many of the Jews and of the worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas", Acts 13: 14, 43.

Paul's ministry of "the glad tidings … both to Jew first and to Greek", Romans 1:16, would doubtless be supported by his great affection and concern "for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to flesh", Romans 9: 1-5.

If, as you suggest "Paul's apostleship should be seen as one in which he was sent out to the Jews of the Dispersion, rather than to Gentiles",

Matthew 28: 16-18 clearly does not limit Peter and the others to the nations, i.e. non Jews.

Time available does not allow further exploration of this interesting matter, but I trust you will find the above of value in your considerations.

In the Lord, Gordon.

UNSOLICITED  EMAIL
Abuse  of  the  Internet
A response to Gary Cuccia who says
"I have been writing devotions on the Internet for some 2 or 3 years".

To: Gary Cuccia
Wed, 21 Aug 2001

Dear Gary,
Thanks for your reply and explanation.

'My Brethren' has received earlier complaints from some guests because they believe they are the target of unsolicited and unwanted email as a result of their email addresses appearing on MB.

In the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

S. M. ANGLIN
Re  Baptism  and  Circumcsion
1. A response to Stephen Hesterman who disagrees with Mr. Anglin's position.
2. A response to Stephen's subsequent booklet on Baptism'.

Sat, 1 Apr 2006

Dear Stephen,
On March 7, 2006 you wrote, "I have had some correspondence with a brother about Anglin's baptism article ... Anglin likens New Testament baptism to Old Testament circumcision in the manner of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1562, and I don't believe this is supported by Scripture ... nor by the Biblical ministry of Godly men which we appreciate.

In answer to your second paragraph. As noted on 'My Brethren':

The article 'What Baptism Is And Who Should Be Baptized' on the Doctrine: Baptism page is from the fourth edition of an old booklet (no date) published by Geo. Morrish, 20, Paternoster, Square, E.C., London.

Information as to Mr. Anglin is scant, but he was evidently an able and valued teacher in the 1890's. In addition to the article on Baptism, this is borne witness to by four papers on the Ministry: S. M. Anglin page.

Your suggestion that "Anglin likens New Testament baptism to Old Testament circumcision in the manner of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1562"

In the doctrinal portions of the New Testament 'circumcision' is referred in various passages in two distinct ways":

  1. "circumcision in the flesh done with hand", Ephesians 2: 11 – and elsewhere – the literal act and public bearing of circumcision to which S.M.A. refers.

  2. "circumcision not done by hand … in the circumcision of the Christ", Colossians 2: 11. Your quotations from J.B.S. and J.T. appear to only refer to the spiritual sense of circumcision for us as in Colossians and do not bear on the point you raise.

As to "the Biblical ministry of Godly men which we appreciate" – on that same Doctrine: Baptism page Mr. C. W. Wycherley in his well known 'Letters on Baptism', published by Stow Hill Depot, says:

And Mr. J. Taylor, in 'Spiritual Formation for Assembly Service (5)' Glasgow, July 1-3, 1947, on Colossians 3: 1-17 says:

We believe the above answers your objection to S.M.A.'s position as to which you say that "baptism in New Testament times is not analagous to circumcision in Old Testament times and does not 'supersede' it".

The following dictionary definitions show that these words leave room for a general likeness of terms without claiming absolute exactness:

From the above we trust you will understand why we cannot accept your conclusion that "it is clear that Anglin's traditional teaching as to circumcision and baptism is not Biblically sound and should not be relied on as a basis for the baptism of infants in a believer's household".

But lest anyone, from your statement above, should think that Mr. Anglin is espousing 'infant baptism' as practised among the sects we repeat his remarks to clarify his position:

All arguments considered, Mr. Anglin's article will remain on 'My Brethren' without qualification.

Despite having to disagree, Stephen, be assured that we do appreciate both your brotherly interest in what appears on 'My Brethren' and the fact that, as we believe, there is a great body of teaching which we all value and hold.

Affectionately in our Lord Jesus, Gordon and Jeff.

Page Top   Article Top

'Baptism' by S. E. Hesterman

Wed, 5 Apr 2006

Dear Gordon,
I received your email reply, and I would like to send you and Jeff a booklet with several articles concerning baptism, including one by C. H. Mackintosh.

I would be thankful for your impressions after prayerfully considering these articles.

Love in Christ to you both. Your brother in Him,

Stephen Hesterman.


Mon, 1 May 2006

Dear Stephen,
Dear Stephen, We received your booklet 'Baptism' which you asked us to consider "prayerfully". We have both carefully reviewed the articles and offer our comments.

Jeff was brought up in an Anabaptist type group and baptised eight full years after his confession.

We believe that you are mistaken in your interpretation and the position you have now taken, but in view of your definite rejection of what we believe is sound ministry on the subject there does not appear to be any value in answering all of your remarks point by point.

It is interesting to note that when Gordon left the legal sect in the early 1970's, in his disillusionment he sought various points of doctrine to attack, seeking to justify both his position and the state of things.

We note that you only lightly object to J.N.D.'s views of textual matters –

Also, there are several remarks you make which cause us serious concern:

Page 9: "F.E.R.'s teaching shows the influence of unbiblical Anglican church teachings and practices as to baptism."

Page 11: "Here J.T. downplays the importance of infants … And when J.T. says that it is not infant baptism that is being advanced, is he not playing with words?"

Page 11: "it is also sobering to consider J.T.'s household conditions and the evil influence which arose out of it …"

Page 12: "… cleverly worded statements in the Wycherley letters",

Page 13: "C.W.W.'s clever use of the phrase 'strict letter' … tends to unfairly bias the readers' mind to devalue the authority of Scripture."

What saddens us is that your tendency to use such pejorative remarks – in the manner of those we have left – serves to discredit the ministers personally not just their ministry – servants whose commitment, devotion and service, we believe, far exceeds ours and yours.

Having published your position, as you have, tends to make it unchangeable but, nevertheless, we hope and trust that you will "prayerfully" reconsider your views.

Andrew Robertson, to whom you also sent your booklet, shares our concerns.

Affectionately In our Lord Jesus, Gordon and Jeff.

Page Top   Article Top


Your guest entries and messages will show that
the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.

Page Top