My Answer: No. 1

INTRODUCTION
"Let your word be always with grace, seasoned with salt, so as to know how ye ought to answer each one", Colossians 4: 6.

My Answer replies to questions as to the Scriptures and as to matters referred to on 'My Brethren' – rather than to the somewhat controversial matters dealt with in My Stand.

• From time to time we hope to be able to feature an 'answer' by one of our guests.

• If you have a question you can send it to MB on the
  Guests: Sign Guest Book Message form.

• If you haven't signed in before, your name will be entered in the Guest Book.

G.A.R.

Page Top

"NOT  THAT  WE  RULE  OVER  YOUR  FAITH"
2 Corinthians 1: 24

From: Daniel Soukoreff
WesternNameplatesATbigfoot.com
Vancouver, BC
Fri, 5 Feb 1999

Dear Gordon,
How do you understand 2 Corinthians 1: 24 "Not that we rule over your faith". What would an example of this be?

Your brother in Christ, Daniel.

Mon, 08 Feb 1999
Dear Daniel,

2 Corinthians 1: 24

Regarding your question: "Not that we rule over your faith" is an integral part of verses 23-24

• which allude to the implication earlier in the chapter that he had been criticized for not coming as he had proposed.

• Coming he would have had to use his apostolic authority to deal with the situation in Corinth but he desired to "spare" them, no doubt hoping his letter would be used to correct them.

• "Not that we rule over your faith" seems to be brought in to soften what may have been criticized by Paul's opposers there – 10: 9-10 – as a harsh approach, as also the use of "fellow-workmen".

• In this Paul was demonstrating the character of Christ – "ministers of the new covenant", 3: 6, and "your bondmen for Jesus' sake", 4: 5 and contrasting his service to those he would expose in chapter 11.

Paul was labouring to bring the brethren back up to the level from which partisanship – 1 Corinthians chapters 1-3 – had dragged them down.

• His statement was an advance preparation for his condemnation of the actions of – as his manner was in contrast to – some locally who were "false apostles … who transform themselves as ministers of righteousness", 11: 13-15.

• The brethren at Corinth were being ruled over by "fools ... For ye bear if any one bring you into bondage …", 11: 19-20.
  • This is what brethren have experienced since 1959 – and some are groaning under it still.

• Peter supports Paul, exhorting the elders, "not as lording it over your possessions, but being models for the flock", 1 Peter 5: 3.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

APOLLOS  –  TWELVE DISCIPLES
Acts 18: 24-28; 19: 1-7

From: Karl Paluga
kpalugaATsparak.com
Pelican Rapids, MN
Tue, 23 Nov 1999

Dear Gordon,
I have a question about Acts 18: 24-28 and Acts 19: 1-7, where Apollos is apparently justified and preaching and teaching in Ephesus.

• Since, he is "being fervent in the Spirit", and "he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord", Acts 18: 25.
  • But it also says in the same verse that he knew "only the baptism of John".

Aquila and Priscilla heard his preaching and teaching and "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly", Acts 18: 26. Then Apollos moved on into Achaia.

Thereafter, Paul arrives in Ephesus and finds twelve "disciples" and is confused, because of their lack of spiritual power.

• He then questions them about receiving the Holy Spirit and "unto what then were the baptized?", Acts 19: 1-3.

• When Paul finds out that they were baptized "unto John's baptism", by hearing it from their own lips, he then baptizes them "in the name of the Lord Jesus", Acts 19: 5,

• correctly identifying them with the Lord Jesus and His death, the person of the Lord Jesus and His finished work as we know Him in this dispensation,

• not according to John's baptism, which identified the baptized person with Christ – the Messiah – of the Kingdom of Israel – a total different aspect of His person and work that is in the future, when He rules and reigns on David's throne in the millenium.

My questions concerning this word are:

• Note: The questions appear at the end of the answer.

Secure, accepted, and complete in Him, Karl.

Thu, 25 Nov 1999
Dear Karl,

Acts 18: 24-28 and Acts 19: 1-7

• On his way to Jerusalem Paul stopped in Ephesus, leaving Pricilla and Aquila there. On his brief visit, according to his custom, "entering himself into the synagogue he reasoned with the Jews" promising to return again. Acts 18:19-21.

• Subsequently Apollos came to Ephesus, "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue".

• After Apollos went to Corinth Paul returned, "And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly during three months".

The "assembly" was a distinct entity in Jerusalem and in Antioch, and there were acknowledged assemblies as the result of Paul's earlier ministry. Acts 14: 23.

• However at the time, there was no assembly, as such, in Ephesus,

• The assembly, though not so designated, could only be considered to be taking form publicly when Paul "left them and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus", Acts 19: 9.

Into this synagogue setting came "a certain Jew, Apollos by name", identified similarly to Aquila. Acts 18: 2.

• Apollos was "an Alexandrian by race". There was a large and well-established Jewish community in Alexandia,
  • perhaps originating with those who went down to Egypt in an attempt to escape the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah 43: 1-7, etc.

• Apollos would be born anew, but there is no evidence that he had believed in the Lord Jesus as preached by the apostles, had received the Spirit or was "justified".
  • It is doubtful that being "instructed in the way of the Lord" refers to the Lord Jesus, but rather to the substance of John's preaching. Luke 3: 1-20.

  • and "being fervent in the Spirit" is rendered by JND as "being fervent in his spirit".

• As "Aquila and Priscilla … unfolded to him the way of God more exactly", Apollos would, no doubt, believe on the Lord Jesus, receive the Spirit and be baptized – although the Spirit saw fit to omit such details.

The powerful ministry of John the baptist had a great effect on Jerusalem and Judea, and he had made many disciples. John 3: 25; 4: 1.

• It is possible that, after John was beheaded some of his disciples – Matthew 14: 12 – may have feared for their own lives and fled to Alexandria and other places where the Jews were in dispersion. John 7: 35.

• They – and any disciples they later made by John's baptism – would have missed the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and the testimony to Jesus as "glorified". Acts 2: 33; 3: 13; John 7: 37-39.
  • This would explain the answer to Paul, "We did not even hear if the Holy Spirit was come".

• Through such means, John's call to repentance and his baptism may have reached Apollos, so that
  • "he spoke and taught exactly" i.e., 'accurately' as Luke 1: 3 "the things concerning Jesus," not the Lord Jesus, Acts 2: 36 "knowing only the baptism of John". Luke 3: 1-22.

Now as to your specific questions:

Does this situation still apply and if so when? why? for whom?

The exact situation could not be expected today, but a parallel exists in Christendom:

• the synagogue: the established religious system – John 9: 22, 34; Revelation 3: 9,

• Apollos: devoted but not fully enlightened preachers,

• Aquila and Priscilla: "tent-makers" who do not "mind earthly things" – or earthly religion – but understand Paul's heavenly ministry. Philippians 3: 19-20,

• the twelve men: immature believers as a result of incomplete or defective teaching,

• Paul: the separating and sanctifying power of a complete gospel.

Certainly, both publicly and privately!

• Paul's gospel and "all the counsel of God" is needed. Acts 20: 20-21, 27. Romans 1: 1-5 and 16: 25-27.

The antichrists are "deceivers" – the preachers – not the subjects of the preaching but those who spread error.

• They "do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh", i.e., they deny the reality of the incarnation, "the Word became flesh", a Divine Person come in Manhood.
  • Some such deceivers are still around in the cults, but there are other forms of error abroad.

• The "right person" – the Lord Jesus Christ – may be preached but not according to truth of His Person.
  • Some deny His sinlessness, or His full Deity.

  • Some say Christ was united to humanity to renew it; this is the root error of modern theology.

  • Some claim to preach "Christ crucified" but allow the first man in their preaching and manner of life.

In "Galilee of the nations" – Matthew 4: 15 – the Lord told the "eleven disciples" to

• "make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", Matthew 28: 20.

In Acts they went to the circumcision and so did not fulfil this commission to the nations – as it will be later in "the completion of the age" – but they no doubt would use the words of the commission.

• Paul was sent to "the nations" – Galatian 1: 16 – and, with others who served with him, would also doubtless use the words of the commission.

In the few instances in Acts where other words are connected with baptism they seem to express something peculiar to the situation:

• Acts 2: 38: "in the name of Jesus Christ" – in the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ –
  • their Messiah – who had been announced to them as "both Lord and Christ";

• Acts 10: 48: "in the name of the Lord" – used with "commanded" to emphasize the authoritative introduction of the nations;

• Acts 8: 16 and 19: 5: "to the name of the Lord Jesus" – to separate both Samaritans and John's disciples from earthly hopes and link them with the heavenly One.

We can be sure that Paul presented the full gospel of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus to John's disciples for "the Holy Spirit came upon them".

In the two notable instances of baptism of households – Lydia's and the jailer's in Acts 16 – there is no mention of either to whom or to what they were baptized.

• But it is said of Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul",

• and Paul said to the jailor, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house" and of him it is said in the singular, "having believed in God".

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

A  CHILD  BORN  –  A  SON  GIVEN
Isaiah 9: 6

From: Joseph Stephen
joeflorenceATdove.net.au
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Tue, 28 Dec 1999

Dear Gordon,
I have a short query on eternal sonship, after reading your article: I quote:

• "It is certain that our Lord Jesus is the Son in Manhood, and that He will remain Man and Son for eternity. 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28. There is, however, absolutely no Scriptural basis for saying that He was the Son before the incarnation".

  Quoted from Studies: Vital Truths

My comment: Isaiah 9: 6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given": and

• A son is given in comparison to a child is born, does not this imply the Lord of Glory was the Son before he was manifest in the flesh? – i.e. it doesn't say a child is born and he became the Son of God.

• Perhaps this just reflects my ignorance and I'm sure there are far more important topics to discuss, but you know there is a lot of weeding to do to eliminate the huge amounts of falseness passed down from generation to generation.

Thanks. Joe.

Tue, 28 Dec 1999
Dear Joe,

Isaiah 9: 6

• It appears that it is actually an extension of thought rather than a comparison, just as you may refer to Caleb as your child but you also refer to him as your son. "Son" does not imply pre-existence.

Isaiah 9: 6-7 is either the words of Isaiah personally or, more likely, as speaking representatively for the future remnant of Israel.

• In the context the reference to "a son" would refer to Israel's hope for the Messiah, the son of God and son of David. John 1: 49; 11: 27; Matthew 22: 41-46.
  • This is confirmed by the reference "upon the throne of David" in verse 7.

• In this sense, "son" is applied to Solomon as taken up by God to represent Him in the kingship of Israel.
  • "I will be his father and he shall be My son", 2 Samuel 7: 12-16.

While there are clear typical references to the Father and the Son – Abraham and Isaac, David and Solomon – they neither imply nor necessitate sonship before incarnation.

• But there is no justification for taking concepts which have not been proved in the New testament and carrying them back into the Old Testament.

In my judgment, there really aren't "far more important topics" than those connected with the Person of Christ.

• As a young man, Joe, I found that the truth of our Lord's Sonship resulted in the clarification of other matters, especially the way in which God has been pleased to be known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • I hope you will find this so as well.

  For further comments see: Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ Guests: My Stand 1: The Sonship of Christ 1 and 2

Yours in our Lord, Gordon.

From: Joseph Stephen,
Wed, 29 Dec 1999

My comparison was not with child and son but born and given. Given implies pre-existence while born implies beginning.

Joe.

To Joseph Stephen,
Wed, 29 Dec 1999

Dear Joe,
You furnish no proof that "given implies pre-existence" by which you appear to mean pre-existence as a son before the incarnation.

• This is simply "begging the question" i.e., assuming the point which has yet to be proved, and ignores the context of your quotation.

A simple check of a concordance shows that the giving of a son is commonly used in Scripture to refer to birth of a son or to the son reaching responsible manhood.

• See Genesis 30: 6; 1 Kings 3: 6; 5: 7; 1 Chronicles 28: 5; 2 Chronicles 2: 12.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

EASTER  or  PASSOVER
Acts 12: 1-4

From: Joseph Stephen,
joeflorenceATdove.net.au
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Tue, 28 Dec 1999

Dear Gordon,
Another comment re your site. I quote:

• "… except Easter, which was the Jewish Passover, and Pentecost, and perhaps some more recently added saints' days".

  Quoted from Doctrine: Religious Holidays: The Origin of Christmas, by J. N. Darby. The remarks and question – not reproduced here – relate to the implications of the use of "Easter" in the AV (KJV) translation of Acts 12: 1-4.

We are lapping up your material. Joe and Florence.

To: Joseph Stephen,
Wed, 29 Dec 1999

Dear Joe,
Mr. Darby's remarks refer to the conversion of the Jewish Passover and the death and resurrection of our Lord into a so-called Christian feast.

• The heathen name "Easter" was added later in agreement with Rome's policy of absorbing heathen practices to gain converts.

• JND is using the common ecclesiastical name and is not referring to Acts 12: 1-4.

Let me make it clear that I agree that the celebration of "Easter" – however it is understood – should have no place among Christians, nor should any religious or secular holiday.

• The nature of the assembly and the Christian's distinctive heavenly calling as not of the world preclude any involvement in the practices of the worldly public church or the world's political system.

• Our commitment is to the weekly memorial of a once dead but now living Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Whatever Herod Agrippa I – the Herod of Acts 12 – was in his heart he is said to have been "an observer of the law of Moses" and "a studious patron of the Jewish faith".

• Therefore he can hardly be described as "a pagan" who would "not be in the habit of celebrating Jewish festivals".

• And it is unthinkable that the Jews would have allowed the observance of a pagan feast in their holy city.

Acts 12: 1-4 in the AV has an inaccurate translation in v. 4.

• The original word is not "Easter" but the usual word for "passover". Most, if not all, later translations including JND correctly translate it as "passover".

While it was the days of unleavened bread, "passover" was commonly used to cover the feast of unleavened bread, which which it was intimately and indissolubly connected.

• "Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the passover, drew nigh", Luke 22: 1. Compare John 2: 23; 18: 28.

• Deuteronomy 16: 1-8 and 1 Corinthians 5: 7-8 confirm the intimate connection of the two.

• There is therefore no contradiction in Herod waiting till "after the passover", i.e. the combination of passover and the feast of unleavened bread.

I trust this clarifies both JND's remarks and Acts 12: 1-4.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

REMEMBRANCE  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS
1 Corinthians 11: 23-26; 14: 26, 37;   Deuteronomy 16: 16

From: Karl Paluga
kpalugaATsparak.com
Pelican Rapids, MN
Fri, 7 Jan 2000

Dear Gordon,
I have been meditating on the Lord's Day and His command to remember Him by breaking bread, 1 Cor. 11: 23-26,

• and "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation", 1 Cor. 14: 26.

• I have thought a lot about these scriptures and believe that this is the way that the Lord Jesus would have things done to remember Him, edify His body, keep leaven out of His assembly, and worship God – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

• For these "are the commandments of the Lord", 1 Cor. 14: 37.

And I along these same lines have been meditating on Dueteronomy 16,

• which seems to typify the order of things, for meeting on the Lord's Day. I have been especially convicted by verse 16,

• "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread – the passover – and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty: Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee".

I believe that the Lord Jesus is saying that we are to be gathered together by Him unto His name in the place that He chooses, that we are to remember Him and what He has done,

• that every man is to bring something that speaks of Him the glorified Man – the One who has glorified the Father.

• Every man has been given a gift by the Holy Spirit and according to what we have been given we should bring a suitable offering for God.

• If we obey the Lord Jesus, then He will truly lead us in worship. We will be worshiping God in spirit and in truth, something that is dear to the Father's heart. John 4: 23.

What are your thoughts on these scriptures?

Your brother in Christ, Karl.

Dear Karl,
Sat, 08 Jan 2000

1 Cor. 11: 23-26; 14: 26, 37: Deut. 16: 16

You have brought forward some interesting thoughts and I rejoice that you are exercised about these holy matters.

I understand that "the Lord's commandment – 1 Cor. 14: 36 – covers all that Paul lays down in 1 Corinthians,

• but especially the regulating of the order of the assembly, 1 Cor. 11: 17 – 14: 40.

• It has been likened to "the law of the house", Ezekiel 43: 12.

The Lord's Supper is included in "the Lord's commandment" and is therefore not optional.

• Paul formally places the Lord's Supper in an assembly setting, whereas previously it might have taken place otherwise. See Acts 2: 42, 46.

• That does not preclude the breaking of bread in a believer's household, often used by brethren in the first century and since, but it keeps it at its proper level of dignity as "the Lord's Supper".

The Lord had said as to Corinth, "I have much people in this city", Acts 18: 10.

• "When ye come together in assembly", 11: 18 envisions coming together for the Lord's Supper which would not require that all the saints in the city be together in one place.

• Evidently there were many gatherings in different houses in Jerusalem. Peter after going to Mary's house "where were many gathered together and praying … went out and went to another place", Acts 12: 12-17.

• Large gatherings, which we no longer have, are not suitable for the Supper. Brethren were helped as to that many years ago.

But in 1 Cor. 14: 23 Paul says, "If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place".

• This envisions a different situation from that for the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. 11, "in assembly" – i.e., characteristically.

• It is to this public setting with all the available brethren present to which 1 Cor. 14: 26 primarily applies.

  Of course, the same principles would apply in any gathering

  • but the gathering for the Lord's Supper is not in view of ministry to which 1 Cor. 12 - 14 refer.

Paul does not give any directions regarding the gathering of the saints in his other epistles.

• It would seem that this is because there was in many of them a generally spiritual state – as in Ephesus, Colosse and Philippi – which did not require regulation.
  • While there there some notable exceptions, the Corinthians were not generally spiritual but immature, carnal, divided into parties,

  • misbehaving when they should have been partaking of the Lord's Supper, using gifts like toys for their own gratification and to draw attention to themselves.

  • This required special regulation of their gatherings.

• 1 Cor. 14: 26 may mean that we should all have something as we come together but, in view of the state of the Corinthians and what Paul says following,
  • it appears that they were more concerned with taking part than being under the control of the Spirit and the Lord's direction.

• But certainly as we are subject to Paul's words we will be able to edify each other as together.

Deuteronomy 16: 16 is helpful. For us "the place which He chooses" is the assembly and we are to bring spiritual substance gained during the week.

• To appear "empty" would be an insult to the Lord who gave Himself for us.

The Lord's Supper leading to the service – worship – of God should surely be our prime commitment.

• This involves an understanding of our various relations with the Lord Jesus, the Spirit and the Father, and then with God known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

• If we shall, as I believe, be occupied in worship through eternity, surely it should not be a burden but a joy and pleasure to yield what is due to God in the present time.

Affectionately in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

TO  WHOM  DO  YOU  PRAY ?

To: Leonard Layne
leonard.layneATcwix.com
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Fri, 18 Feb 2000

Dear Leonard,
Thank you for sending your interesting essay 'To Whom do you Pray?'. At the moment I can't make more than a few general comments.

But first – from my conversion, I have never doubted the rightness of addressing the Lord Jesus and have been confirmed in it both from the Scriptures and by practice.

• Indeed as God has been pleased to make Himself known by "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

• I do not doubt the rightness of addressing all the divine Persons, severally or together under that holy Name, in prayer and worship.

I agree with you in the object of your essay, but in view of the lowly and subject position our Lord had taken here in Manhood,

• it does not seem accurate to describe the speaking of the disciples to Him during His life here as prayer.

While I could not disagree with godly brethren of the past – and there were many more than you name – who were rightly free to address the Lord Jesus, it is hardly a sufficient basis for this holy practice.

• This applies also to hymns which address Him; they prove that many saints were thus free but do not prove the point in hand.

• At the same time, the fact that those who reject addressing the Lord Jesus in prayer and worship sing such hymns is quite inconsistent and exposes the flimsiness of their arguments.

If you use hymns to the Lord Jesus as a basis for your thesis – or if only to buttress it – you too are inconsistent.

• There are also many hymns – of the past and present – and some godly brethren who are rightly free to address the Holy Spirit in prayer and worship, with which you disagree.

The objection to addressing the Holy Spirit is often based on the fact that He indwells believers and is therefore only viewed subjectively and never objectively.

• This is a false argument for it makes everything of one phase of the Spirit's present service and completely overlooks – although perhaps not deliberately – the major way He is presented objectively.

• In John 13–16, our Lord speaks largely objectively of the Spirit and His service as "another Comforter" and "the Spirit of truth".
  • While "in you" is said once of the Spirit, "with you" which is objective is said twice. John 15: 16-17.

  • How curious to believe that the disciples could speak to the Lord who was their Comforter while here and yet not be able to speak to their new Comforter and Guide.

• The Spirit as seen Objectively in the book of Acts, readings in Toronto in 1942, fully examines that book. See Ministry by J. Taylor, 53: 61.
  • See also Doctrine: Addressing the Holy Spirit.

• Paul speaks of the saints being the temple of God collectively because of the Spirit dwelling there. 1 Cor. 3: 6. He also speaks of the Spirit operating in 1 Cor. 12: 1-11. And he says "the Spirit speaks expressly", 1 Tim. 4: 1.
  • All these refer to the Spirit objectively.

• This is confirmed by our Lord in the letters to the seven assemblies in Revelation 2–3. "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies".

All this may seem to be irrelevant to the main thrust of your essay – with which I agree,

• but the dismissal of addressing One of the divine Persons is inconsistent with your correct presentation of addressing the Lord Jesus.

• The right and title of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit – along with the Father – to be addressed by the saints in prayer and worship
  • is not related to Their service or relative positions in the mediatorial economy alone, although that would govern the nature of our prayer and praise.

• It is grounded in Their inherent and essential being as divine Persons.

Leonard, your essay has raised some important points.

• This reply will therefore be posted on the 'My Answer' page where it will hopefully receive wider attention than in the 'Mailbox'.

• This may also generate some requests for a copy of your essay, which cannot be posted on MB because of space restrictions.

Thank you for your inquiry. May the Lord Jesus bless you.

Yours in Him, Gordon.

Page Top

THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE
My response is based on the understanding that the question related to the life of the individual Christian. However, it is clear from Scripture that our lives should be lived in relation to other believers and particularly in recognition of the one body, the fellowship of God's Son and separation from iniquity.

To: Kevin Pipes
ExchangedLifeATaol.com
Boston, MA, USA
Mon, 03 Apr 2000

Dear Kevin,
Before I respond to your question, I would just point out something for the information of all guests.

• The ministry of servants who are represented on 'My Brethren', apart from their letters, consists mainly of oral ministry, i.e. notes of addresses and readings
  • given in the fulfilment of their service of edifying the saints and glorifying Divine Persons.

• While some did write articles dealing with specific matters, they did not write the kind of "how to" books which are now so common.

Because of this, Kevin, there are no books that answer specifically to your inquiry for "a good book that describes the Christian life and how it should be lived".

• There are however several articles on MB and some books which contains items which deal with various parts of your subject.

On MB check the Ministry group. I believe you will find the following to be of help:

• H. C. Anstey: several of his articles
• E. H. Chater: God has Changed His Man
• C. A. Coates: Affection for Christ
• G. R. Cowell: Separated from Evil
  
  and Separated to God

  E. H. unknown: Not in Possession only,
  

  but Taken Possession Of

  W. J. Pearce: many of his articles

  T. H. Reynolds: several of his articles.

As to books, there are three books of C. A. Coates which contain relevant ministry:

• The Believer Established
• The Paths of Life
• The True Grace of God.

Also a compilation from several authors for young believers:

• The Way Everlasting.

All the books are obtainable from 'Kingston Bible Trust' in England or possibly from 'Spiritual Food Publishers' in Vancouver.

• Email addresses for both KBT and SFP are in
  Site News: Bibles and Books. For simplicity, I would check with Daniel Soukoreff at SFP first.

I trust the above will be of some help to you and would be interested to hear how you get on.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

P.S. because others may have a similar interest I'll post this on 'My Answer'.

From: Kevin Pipes
Tue, 30 May 2000

Thank you for your words and the time you put into it. I am a seeker of the truth.

• I have been a christian for 15 years, but for the first time I am beginning to learn what it is to surrender, to let go and let God, to rest in Him.

• I am studying the teachings of Keswick and it is changing my life.

God bless you and thanks again, Kevin.

To: Kevin Pipes
Fri, 02 Jun 2000

Dear Kevin,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you feel that you are being helped personally.

• At the same time I'm concerned because certain lines of teaching tend to self occupation, and
  • subtly lead away from occupation with Christ and the great thoughts of God connected with Him.

• Real and permanent change in our lives only comes about through the work of the Spirit who always directs us to Christ.
  • And the Spirit always works in accord with the inspired Scriptures.

• I fear specialized lines of teaching. Paul's concern was to communicate "all the counsel of God".

Perhaps you would check Studies: Christian Fellowship - Part Two: Living in Ascension?.

• It may have some bearing on our correspondence. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top

WHO  MAY  BREAK  BREAD?

To: Don VanWoert
vanwoertATmerr.com
Spring Green, WI 53588, USA
Sat, 15 Apr 2000

Dear Don,
Thanks you for visiting 'My Brethren', and for your question.

If I'm correct, you refer to practice among "Assemblies" known to me as 'open' meetings, and in particular to those who meet in a 'Gospel Hall' rather than in a 'Chapel'.

• As I'm not associated with either group it might seem presumptuous of me to attempt an answer, but I will share my understanding with you.

To the best of my knowledge, there are differing positions as to this from one "open" meeting to the next because, essentially, each meeting takes an independent position.

• Practice may differ based on whether a person is known as a believer, lives in the same locality, is a visitor from another city and/or has a letter of commendation.

• Also, 'Chapels' may not have the same requirements as each other or as those you call "Assemblies".

While still independent in many ways, those who retain the 'Gospel Hall' designation and who are often referred to as 'the Assemblies' seem to try to maintain some common standards.

The requirement you mention that "at Assemblies, in order to partake of the emblems, one must be accepted into fellowship" may be to ensure that any person desiring to break bread with them

1. has been baptized as a believer by immersion – an almost universal requirement;

2. has been proved clear of any associations or personal conduct of which they do not approve and which they consider would be dishonouring to the Lord;

3. will not go back and forth to other 'assemblies' or chapels they do not recognize, or to denominational churches;

4. will comply with other matters peculiar to each meeting.

In saying the above I am not approving any particular process or standards, or even the practice, of accepting persons "into fellowship".

The Lord's directions in the gospels, the practice in Acts 2: 42, and Paul's directions in 1 Cor. 10: 16-22; 11: 20-34, envision a mutually known and commonly committed group of persons.

• There is no suggestion or justification for independent 'assemblies' or for independent and unattached believers who might present themselves on occasion.

While I have no doubt that in obedience I should gather with other believers to break bread in remembrance of the Lord, neither they nor I have the right to set our own terms or conditions.

• The terms and conditions of 'fellowship' have been set out in the Scriptures, as have the qualifications for that fellowship and for partaking in the expression of it in the breaking of bread.

• The Scriptural teaching and position on the above matters are covered in detail on two pages of 'My Brethren' which I suggest you review. They are
  • Doctrine: Fellowship

  • Ministry: C. A. Coates: Present Conditions in the Christian Profession.

I will be looking forward to hearing how you get on.

Yours in our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

EDWARD  DENNETT   1841-1914 ---------------- GEORGE  CUTTING   1843-1934

To: Name Withheld,
Sat, 29 Apr 2000

Dear — ,
It is good to to hear from you again after so long a time, but I regret I don't know what course Mr. Edward Dennett followed at the time of the Glanton division in 1908.

I would be glad to hear anything you may learn as it has been a matter about which I too have often wondered.

It is clear, as you mention, that he remained with those who valued FER, who has a passing reference to ED in 1898, Letters page 142.

• The fact that the present 'Reunion' and 'TW' groups publish some of ED's books might suggest he left with Glanton
  • but, more likely, merely that both groups know little or nothing of his history.

• Strangely, both groups seem to have a regard for another brother, Mr. E. H. Chater,
  • which is odd unless they are unaware of his support of FER, and continuance in fellowship.

I will post this reply in 'My Answer' in the hope that it might attract the attention of some one who can answer your inquiry.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

To: Name Withheld
(the same brother as above)
Mon, 29 May 2000

Dear brother,
Thank you for passing on the following as to Mr. Dennett:

• "After I wrote to you, I sent an inquiry to several brethren and got an answer by two of them independently.

• "They said, that it has been told them by older 'Glanton' brethren, that E. Dennett did not go with Glanton".

In regard to my comments as to the printing of ministry of ED and EHC – both of whom remained in fellowship with FER – by groups which strongly, even vehemently, oppose Mr. Raven,

• you remark: "This inference is not allowed because all of what is known to me by E. Dennett (save some of his magazines) were written before 1900 and even before 1890",

• and "I don't know that these brothers reprinted books of EHC which were written after 1908".

• Not having information handy as to dates of their ministry I do not dispute what you say.
  • But it is curious that those groups would identify themselves in any way with friends of FER.

George Cutting (1843-1934) Mr. Cutting is the author of many booklets and tracts, his best known being 'Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment'. He is co-author of No. 234, in the 1973 Hymn Book. See also a fine poem in Poetry: The Man in the Glory.

You add, "Perhaps you are aware that the same problem is to be seen with regard to Geo. Cutting and KBT.

• "Geo. Cutting went with Glanton but nevertheless Kingston Bible Trust prints most of G. Cutting's valuable tracts".

• The only evidence of which I'm aware that Mr. Cutting went with Glanton is on page 589 of Noel's History, but perhaps you have more explicit information.

• Unfortunately we do not know the context of the quotation attributed to him.

• As it stands, it is unclear whether he is writing as "with" and in support of Glanton,
  • or expressing his judgment of action as to Glanton by those with whom he still walked.

: : : Later Information : : : In my reading I have just noticed that Mr. Cutting's initials – Geo.C., as he was habitually identified – appear several times in readings with James Taylor in London, in October 1914. See 'Ministry by J. Taylor', 6: 327, 354, 356. As the Glanton division took place c. 1908, this seems to prove conclusively that Mr. Cutting did not go with Glanton. GAR, Feb 20, 2002. There is a further confirmation on page 92 of A. I. Kinnear's 'Against the Tide – The Story of Watchman Nee'. In 1933, during his brief association with brethren, AIK records, "On his longer journeys in Britain Mr. Barlow or someone else accompanied him," i.e. WN "as when he visited Aldeburgh to call on the veteran George Cutting …". This visit took place just one year before Mr. Cutting's death. GAR, Jan 22, 2003.

• In any event, the issue was over Glanton's violation of Alnwick's local responsibility.
  • It was not a doctrinal matter, and so would not impugn Mr. Cutting or his ministry.

• Of course, there may have been other underlying issues as well, if WTPW's account is to be credited.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

BELIEFS  OF  'EXCLUSIVE  BRETHREN'

To: Chris Kelly
chrisillesAThotmail.com
Auckland, New Zealand
Sat, 29 Apr 2000

Dear Chris,
Thank you for visiting 'My Brethren' (MB) and for your inquiry.

You wrote, "I am extremely interested to know what the exclusive Brethren believe and what are the Scriptural foundations for some of what I have been told by them; the point is that none of them seem to know. It seems to me that they 'do what they are told'. I have friends (so to speak) of their persuasion and simply cannot understand if they need biblical help or not".

There is no simple or short answer to your inquiry. Please be patient as I attempt to put matters in perspective.

1. Up to c. 1959, the term "exclusive brethren" was commonly applied, by others, to any of the various groups which had their origin in those who, along with J. N. Darby and others, had refused the teaching and practices of B. W. Newton in Plymouth and, subsequently, of G. Muller and others at Bethesda Chapel in Bristol and elsewhere.

2. On this web site, MB, which is sub-titled "the history and ministry of those commonly called exclusive brethren", the term is used more restrictively,
   • as MB deals mainly – but not exclusively – with the history and ministry of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, JT and others who were in practical fellowship with them for the years c. 1827 to 1959, and subsequently.

3. After 1959, from various causes, a strong party emerged – among those referred to in #2.

   While lip service was paid to the Scriptures, and the sound teaching of earlier brethren, an increasingly legal code was imposed on the brethren, coupled with many fanciful and false interpretations of Scripture.

   Many brethren judged this and left in the early 1960's and subsequently.

   The outcome of this legal line and its grievous effects on brethren and their families was that the remaining group came to public attention in the media, especially in Britain, and was publicly labelled "the exclusive brethren".

   This is the group about whose beliefs you inquire.

Their distinctive beliefs, as distinguished from those of earlier pre-1959 beliefs, really have no "Scriptural foundations" but, as indicated above, are based on fanciful and false interpretations.

• Some of their earlier interpretations and resulting rules, during the 1960's, are detailed in MB's History: Decline and Departure.

• Subsequent aberrations and the results are covered on Dick Wyman's [now closed] 'Exclusive Brethren Information' site, especially in the 'Correspondence' section.
  • It is not pleasant or edifying reading.

Fear of excommunication with the loss of family, friends and possible loss of employment and financial problems, are strong, if unworthy, motives for most as you surmise to "do what they are told" without understanding or questioning.

• A strong legal and authoritarian leadership – in stark contrast to earlier years – does not brook any dissent.

Your "friends" certainly do need help but, sadly, are unlikely to seek or accept it because of the various fears noted above.

• From what I know, many young ones may not even have learned the elements of the gospel or know the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

• Certainly, pray for them and look for opportunities to help them.

• There are some brethren in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand – guests of MB – whom, I am assured, would be glad to render any assistance.

• And if, the prohibition against using computers could be overcome, and any were to contact me I would do all I could for any of 'my brethren'.

Thanks you again, Chris, and may you find the Lord's blessing personally and in seeking to help those in need.

• I would be glad to hear of how you get on with your friends, or at any time.

Because this may be of general interest, I am posting it on 'My Answer'.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top

THE  RUIN  OF  THE  CHURCH

To: Ron Gleed
suntrapmanATntlworld.com
Felixstowe, UK
Fri, 09 Jun 2000

Dear Ron,
Thanks for your kind comments as to MB. I trust you will continue to find it profitable.

• You will undoubtedly find some things that are different from what you have been taught. If so, please be patient, search the Scriptures, and ask about them.

• You have made a good start on that already and I will try to answer your questions as briefly as possible.

1. What is the meaning of the phrase "the ruin of the church"?

The church is viewed from two perspectives.

1. From the standpoint of the purpose and counsel of God and the work of Christ and the Spirit – the Ephesian view – it is perfect and will remain so through eternity.

   As our Lord said, "On this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it", Matthew 16: 18.

2. From the standpoint of human responsibility – the Corinthian view – it can be publicly marred by the results of man's building. 1 Cor. 3: 10-17.

   That there would be public breakdown and failure was predicted by all the apostles. The prophetic history of the church in Revelation 2 and 3 bear witness to the decline and failure.

   That which bears the name of Christ publicly is no longer in its pristine state of holiness and devotion to Christ.

   It is marked by a multiplicity of divisions, sectarianism, clericalism, and conformity to the world. As to what it should be publicly, the church is in ruins.

2. Where is this teaching from?

• In the early years of the revival of assembly affection for Christ – c. 1827 and following – many matters long hidden or ignored were brought to light by the Spirit as brethren searched the Scriptures.

• The "ruin of the church" was one of those matters. The servants whose ministry is featured on MB recognized that the "ruin of the church" was based on Scripture.

• There is an excellent 1847 Bible reading with Mr. Darby, Doctrine: The Public Ruin of the Church.

• It covers the subject far more extensively and clearly than I can do. Your thoughts after you view this reading will be welcome.

• You may also find it helpful to read Studies: Building and Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State of the Church.

3. Is it relevant today in brethren type assemblies?

The "ruin of the church" remains and it is relevant and important for all Christians to solemnly consider as to their position.

• Sadly, most believers accept the current public state of the church as normal.

• Many who have heard the term the "ruin of the church" are unfamiliar with the teaching of the apostles and – without justification or investigation – think that an attack is being made on God's work.

• The lack of appreciation of the "ruin" and its implications lies at the root of the assumption that 'New Testament assemblies' can be established today.

• Denominationalism may be conceded to be wrong – as it surely is – but there is not the repentance and the bearing of the sorrow, shame and responsibility for the present state of the church as a whole.

• Indeed, there is often a pride in position – in being "non denominational" – as if the breakdown in Christendom could be escaped.

• The humility that marked Daniel in his prayer of confession – and the identification with the sin of his people – is rare indeed.

Ron, as you have raised questions important for all to consider, I will post my reply in 'My Answer' where it may be more easily come under the notice of other guests.

I trust the above will stimulate a searching of the Scriptures.

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

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

Page Top