Menu•SiteMap | Guests







My Stand: No. 4

• Gordon Rainbow     § Jeff Kuns     † Guest

§ The Testimony and Religious Holidays
§ A Response and Reply
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.






THE  TESTIMONY
and  RELIGIOUS  HOLIDAYS
In this letter to his family, Jeff Kuns sets out his convictions.
See also Doctrine: Religious Holidays

October 2001

Jeff Kuns

My Dear Family, and Brethren in the Lord Jesus,

I have written some difficult letters in my recent history but I expect that this letter will perhaps be the most difficult I will ever have to write,

It has been over two years, by God’s sovereign grace alone, since I took up considerably serious study of the Scriptures and sought to have what I was studying in practical ways.

So I would request that each one keep in mind Who it is with whom we have to do. I ask all of you to go before the Lord with what I will say here; I ask that you all would be patient in meditation on them.

1. The first reason this must be now delivered to you all is that, if the Lord has not yet come, you may be wondering why I have said or done certain things.

2. The second reason is that I can no longer participate in the Christmas holiday, among other things, when they are taken up.

I have had a small problem with Christmas for many years because of the gross materialism connected with it – a common enough complaint, I think –

But for information only, in case anyone is unaware, I will provide these few details:

The facts appear, to my mind, little more than a case of the deceived trying to deceive the deceived.

Please do not think that I blame all of the ills of Christendom on Christmas – it would be a mistake because I do not.

Therefore, Christmas is symptomatic of larger problems before us as Christians in this day and it would be

‘Well, can’t we celebrate it without the paganism?’ and ‘Doesn’t Christian liberty enter into the equation?’ were things I asked myself for a long time.

Second, to say that Paul proposed liberty toward practice of pagan ritual under the pretense of doing honor to the Lord Jesus is nonsense.

I can only say one thing more, that there is not a whisper of a suggestion in the Scripture for us to commemorate His birth and it is simply not possible for us to proceed beyond that without causing division.

The holidays are not for us to celebrate but are carried on by those having no hope and without God in the world, and even we were of that order, but are no longer. I encourage each one to search the Scripture on it.

No doubt, the giving up of mere forms does not automatic-ally secure blessing, in fact, without the Lord in your view it would be a sad thing having nothing with which to replace them.

These are frightful times we’re in and I did not take this up to restate what is obvious to anyone with even a little spiritual intelligence, but there is a final reason this letter has been written.

This general blindness, of necessity, comes from a misunderstanding about the difference in Scripture between the ‘body’ and the ‘house’.

For example, in 2 Timothy 2: 19-22 we get:


This, in part, is describing the difference between two kinds of vessels in the same house. They manifest themselves to honor or to dishonor.

But what is this ‘great house’? It appears to me that this house is filled with those who make a profession

Now a mustard tree is not normally a great tree; it only grows to 8 feet or so. So what we have here is something that is abnormal,

What we ought to be thinking now is that what we have in these last days in the churches, simply even in terms of organization, is not of God but of the adversary.

Now what I mean when I say the testimony is just what I said above, that “God has made this Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”.

Continuing with this line, the most obvious thing at all in scripture is the way the Lord in the gospels and the apostles in their letters describe and warn, not only of the condition of things in the world,


I won’t recount church history, there’s no need to recall the murders and tortures, the inquisitions and crusades in the name of Christ, such things are unusually conspicuous.

Along these lines we have in part –again, please search the Scripture:


These things cannot be made light of, yet some may say, ‘We admit the problems. But, there is nothing we can do, so we must continue on and do the best we can with the situation’.

I wouldn’t let anyone say that there is no light to be had in some of the systems; if there was no light at all none of us would be saved; God in His mercy allows some little light to get through.

We know of the times before the man of sin is revealed. We know that he will not come until there is first apostasy


And that this is promoted by false teachers who were going to come in early; and there were going to be many of them and they would continue their work up to the end:


Scripture has no other thought but that things will be in confusion, terrible denial of the Lord, and apostasy – and it began almost immediately after the apostles went to be with the Lord.


It cannot be reformed; the churches and systems are to be used as the tool of Antichrist and simply must be given up, and this, I’m afraid, means reproach.

I am fully aware of the difficulties of presenting this, both yours and mine –

I really hope everyone takes time with these things and please do not phone me to argue about it – I beg you all to wait and take it to the Lord.

Ezra, who lived in a broken day similar to our own, also knew the sorrow we need to become familiar with over the liberties taken in joining with the peoples of the nations and their things.


Now the ‘nail’ spoken of is Christ, He is the nail in a sure place – see Isaiah 22: 23 – and upon him hang all of the vessels, and all of the vessels are to be filled with the testimony – large or small – but all are to hang on Him separate from all the mischief we have been a part of.


So you see it is not only the holidays we must re-think, it is all that we are accustomed to and all that we may very well have a genuine affection for.


Yours in our Lord Jesus, Love, Jeff.

Page Top

A  RESPONSE  and  REPLY
Re:  The  Testimony  and  Religious  Holidays
Jeff Kuns replies to a response from a member of his family.


January 23, 2002

Dearest —,
I want you to know that I appreciated your comments on the phone very much. The fact that you took the time to write some of your thoughts down is also nice.

I have quoted portions of your letter below so you don’t have to go back and forth reading the reply to your various statements.

Rejecting everything merely because you find it in this world is beyond what I was trying to express in the first letter, and rather extreme.

There are found in the Scripture principles of separation both from evil and also of sanctification to God – we might say, that there is what we are saved from and also what we are saved to.

I don't see how eating meat sacrificed to idols is comparable to taking up pagan religious practices – because that’s exactly what was taken up by Rome, and I’m very glad you admit that.

Don’t get me wrong your personal motive is good. I don’t wish to dampen any zeal to glorify God. But motives must always be kept in company with the Spirit of truth.

Some offerings to God are unacceptable, but we are not left wondering over that because He has expressed His feelings about it so that His mind can be known.

When Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac, another typically priestly service, Jehovah said,

Nadab and Abihu, priests, were slain by Jehovah after they “presented strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them”.

Following Israel’s captivity, Haggai’s question to the priests was,

All this leads us to the priesthood of believers, the members of the body, ‘My assembly’ – Matthew 16: 18 –

I understand what you call ‘negative righteousness’ and your use of the Pharisee and Sadducee to explain it, and as far as your observation of their behavior, I would also agree.

Where does one read of the Pharisee or the Sadducee or Zealot before the gospel accounts? Where do you hear of a synagogue as a place of gathering for Israel in all the books of Moses? or the remainder?

In the Pharissee and Saducee you have a full-blown religious establishment, and I believe that is where most christians have been for a very long time now.

We can’t simply say all of Paul’s letters are of the same character because he wrote them,

I strongly believe that the Scripture is full of examples of men and women who did indeed ‘go it alone’ in faith, and it’s plain that the concept is not foreign to Paul. But you are right in saying that Paul did not reject the church.

Now I speak more for myself when I say that the time is far past when we ought to be grown men, ‘for by this time you ought to be teachers’.

We are not under law, but legitimate subjects of Christ, going as far as we can with all brethren with inexhaustible patience – some of whom are snared, opposing themselves, 2 Timothy 2: 25-26.

In regard to your comment on marriage you will no doubt find other features of responsibility due to your wife …

In our Lord Jesus, Love, Jeff.

P.S. These link to further reading which you may find helpful. Essays: Separation, grace, unity; JN Darby 'Woollen and Linen', JG Bellett

Page Top

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