My Answer: No. 4

To: Randal W. Kulp
SentinelKulpATjuno.com
Pennsburg, PA, USA
Tue, 16 Jul 2002

Dear Randy,
In regard to your inquiry:

• Pickering's 'Chief Men among the Brethren' has an unsatisfying biographical sketch of Henry William Soltau (1805-75).

• There are several references to him in Noel's 'The History of the Brethren', and

• Neatby's 'A History of the Plymouth Brethren'.

HWS seemed to be a prominent supporter of BWN in the early years at Plymouth.

• Reportedly, he recanted Mr. Newton's errors, but appears to have gone with, and remained with, the 'open' party.

• There is no evidence, of which I am aware, that he was "in fellowship with Darby in later years", indeed quite otherwise.

I hope this is of some help to you.

In our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

SONSHIP  OF  CHRIST
Keith Saare seeks resources to further his studies into 'Incarnational Sonship'

To: Keith Saare
KSaareATcs.com
El Paso, TX, USA
Wed, 17 Jul 2002

Dear Keith,
Welcome to 'My Brethren' and thanks for your generous comments. Your interest in our Lord's Sonship is refreshing.

I'm not aware of anything positive online beyond those items on MB and listed in the introduction to Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ.

• Of course there is no lack of articles advocating 'eternal Sonship'.

Even positive published materials are rare. Here are some reliable publications.

Kingston Bible Trust, England, lists:

1. Doctrine: The Sonship of Christ: Remarks on a pamphlet by A. J. Pollock entitled 'The Eternal Son': C. A. Coates.

2. Letters of James Taylor (2 volumes). There are numerous references, some of which are on MB. This set is temporarily out of print but, at one time recently, KBT had some used sets available at no charge.

   The Dover Bible Fund, Pennsylvania, lists:

3. The Personal and Mediatorial Glory of the Son of God: C. A. Coates. This is the same as (1) except that remarks of AJP are not included. It was a great help to me as a young believer.

4. Remarks on Eternal Sonship: C. A. Coates. This may be the same or similar to (1).

5. Letters : C. A. Coates. This has numerous references but the most significant are already on MB. Also available from KBT.

• See MB's Site News: Bibles and Books for contact with KBT and DBF.

Sadly the prestige of the ancient creeds weighs more heavily with most than the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

• Dependence on the Spirit and a healthy mistrust of human conceptions, based on natural thinking, will lead to the conviction that
  • our Lord's Sonship and, indeed, other relations in the present divine economy do not refer to pre-incarnate conditions.

Closely related to our Lord's Sonship is the truth of His Person and Manhood which is also generally misunderstood.

• See Doctrine: The Person of Christ.

Keith, I trust the above may be of help in your studies into the important and holy subject of our Lord's Sonship. I'll be glad to hear how you get on with your studies.

In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

MAJOR  GROUPS OF  BRETHREN  IN  THE  UK What  are  the  Differences ?
Peter Stanbridge asks for clarification

To: Peter Stanbridge
home_stanbridgeAThotmail.com
Stow on the Wold, Gloucestershire, England
Sat, 10 Aug 2002

Dear Peter,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. I'm glad to learn that you have found MB interesting and plan to return.

Your confusion as to various groups of brethren is quite understandable, and I will attempt to clarify the situation.

• Of necessity, my answer may be somewhat lengthy. It will be posted on 'My Answer' as it may be of interest to others.

Some relevant points have already been touched on in Guests: My Answer 2: Some Groups Referred to on 'My Brethren' which should be reviewed.

As to "the differences between the various current major groups of brethren congregations in the UK":

1. 'Open' meetings – with which you have some familiarity from New Zealand – because of their independency and heterogeneous character may vary considerably in beliefs and practices from meeting to meeting.

• I gather that in the UK there is not quite the same polarization as in North America where there are two broad groups, the somewhat loose 'Chapels' and the 'tight' or rigid 'Gospel Halls'.

• In the UK I understand that some meetings of the 'chapel' variety adopted the term 'Evangelical Church' in the 1960-70's to dissociate themselves from the bad publicity generated by extremes among the 'Jims'
  • who, despite the existence of other 'exclusive' groups, became known as the 'exclusive' brethren.

• For background see History: Early Contentions.

2. Most of the exclusive groups which developed from 1881 on – except those in 4 below – have over the years amalgamated in the 'reunited' group which first formed c. 1926.

• A rejection of the traditional position for wider fellowship and looser practices – which commenced in the Netherlands – resulted in a 1999 division which affected the 'reunited' group in the UK and world wide.

• There are now the two groups, the 'New Movement' and the 'Old Brethren'.

3. One exclusive group – originating in the UK but now mainly based in North America – rejected reunion, but in 1992 it divided into 'Perth' and 'Nepean'.

• See Guests: My Stand 3: Hyper Ecclesiasticism.

All the exclusives in 2 and 3 generally hold the same doctrines, but have refused further opening up of the truth as set out in much of the ministry featured on MB.

• For background see History: Later Contentions.

4. Brethren who, since 1890, continued in fellowship with J. B. Stoney, F. E. Raven, C. A. Coates, J. Taylor Sr., and others whose ministry is featured on MB,

• experienced spiritual growth and blessing as the truth was opened up over many years.

• Following the departure of JTSr in 1953, certain legal elements began to emerge and by 1959 had gained complete dominance.
  • There was an appearance of righteousness and most, but not all, were deceived.

• For background see
  • History: Decline and Departure,
  • History: Parting of the Ways,
  • History: Wrong in Principle?.

• The situation was much the same as Paul predicted.
  • "I know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them", Acts 20: 28-30.

Some brethren, discerning what was happening, withdrew in the early 1960's.

• Others continued to 1970 until forced to withdraw by the outrageous events at Aberdeen.

• Those who remained in the legal system are commonly known as the 'Jims'.

Those who withdrew from the Jims in 1970 were known as 'Aberdeen'.

• They subsequently divided in 1982 into 2 groups known as 'Renton' and 'Strang', and there have been several subsequent divisions over points of practice.

• They all generally hold the same doctrines which had developed to 1959, reflected in the ministry on MB.

Those in Stow on the Wold to whom you refer are almost certainly connected with the Jims.

• I base this on your statements that "they do not use computers at all" and that they "seem to have a large and complex array of prohibitions"
  • – both well known characteristics, which which other groups are not afflicted.

• I don't have current information but according to the 1963 'List of Meetings' in Great Britain there was indeed a meeting in Stow on the Wold, located at
  • Well Lane, Park Road, Chipping Camden.

• If those you know meet at that address it would make their identity almost certain, as most of the meeting rooms were held in trust by supporters of the legal system.

• However, there is information that about 28 brethren in Stow on the Wold withdrew from the Jims in 1970, but they apparently had lost control of the meeting room.

The fact that you say "they are extremely welcoming and friendly to us as neighbours" seems out of character for the Jims.

• But, since the recent succession of Bruce David Hales, of Sydney, as their leader – following the death of his father John S. Hales – there have been numerous reports of relaxation of some rules.

• They apparently are attempting to woo back many of those excommunicated over the past 30 years.

• This more outgoing attitude, whatever the motive, would most likely extend to persons like yourselves.

In past years, before 1959, the brethren were always genuinely friendly and outgoing to others, including strangers.

• I found this as a young believer seeking the Lord's mind as to gathering, and experienced a real warm welcome into their homes, as well as to the meetings.

I trust the above will be of help to you, Peter, and look forward to your comments and, possible, discoveries as to Stow on the Wold.

In the Lord, Gordon.

From: Peter Stanbridge
Tue, 20 Aug, 2002

Dear Gordon,
Thank you very much for your reply. While I find it complicated, your explanations have helped me considerably.

I do not attend a Brethren church, but I was keen to understand it a bit more, but I do appreciate the obviously wonderful Christian spirit in your web-site and replies to my question,

• and I certainly understand where the Brethren fellowship is coming from in its love of obedience to scriptural teaching and the Lord.

Regards, Peter Stanbridge.

Page Top   Article Top

GOVERNMENTAL  CONSEQUENCES Sins  after  Conversion,  Divorce  etc.
Correspondence with W. Eugene Tucker

From: W. Eugene Tucker
tuckerweATsbcglobal.net
Tampa, Florida, USA
Thu, 26 Dec 2002

I want to give a brief personal background before I pose my inquiry.

I am 55 years old, have attended a local gospel hall since birth – 3d generation – accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour at 16, married a saved woman – we were baptised the same night – at 19,

• began to exercise my gift in the assembly shortly thereafter, raised three children in the assembly, and served as one of several elders and preachers in the same assembly over 20 years.

Then, after my children left the home, I succumbed to my fleshly lusts and divorced my faithful wife.

• I then broke fellowship with the assembly because I knew I could no longer remain in fellowship.

• My wife remained in the assembly for a while, but when she felt the assembly grew cold towards her and no longer nourishing, she left to fellowship with a non-denominational church.

• However, the goodness of God – because I was still sinning and enjoying it – led me to repentance.

• By God's awesome grace, after 9 months I repented from my sin and reconciled my marriage.

• We remarried in the church where my wife currently attends. For unity sake – and to abate the guilt for divorcing – I often attended with her, but I was uncomfortable with many of the practices.

• During one of my visits to the hall where I was an elder, the oversight asked me to return "home".

• For many reasons – some I believe unscriptural – my wife believes she is now where she should be and has no intention to return to the gospel hall we attended for many years.

• I believe the non-denominational church my wife attends has many practices that do not pattern the early church in Acts and Paul's letters to the local churches. My wife dismisses these practices by saying there is no perfect place.

• It is hard for me to participate in services when I know things are out of order. For example, the manner and infrequency of breaking bread, the one spiritual leader – pastor, secular musicians, women activities.

• I feel led to return to the hall, but I don't want to create a schism in my home as to the place of worship. Hence my inquiry.

• Should I continue to fellowship at a place where many practices are not based in scriptures even though the preaching (and gospel) is solid or return home where I am comfortable?

To: W. Eugene Tucker
Thu, 02 Jan 2003

Dear Eugene,
As to your inquiry, my answer is not likely to be pleasing to you in any way.

• But you have asked and I can only answer according to details you have given and the light I have from the Scriptures.

I could not advise anyone to stay in a 'church' – even non-denominational – because of clericalism and other factors,

• but neither could I advise anyone to return to an 'open' meeting – whether gospel hall or chapel – no matter how "comfortable" that might be for them.

• If you have had opportunity to explore 'My Brethren' you will understand my reasons.

The following will help explain my position:

• History: The First 50 Years,
  
• History: Early Contentions for the Faith,
  
• Doctrine: The Assembly,
  
• Studies: Our Responsibility in the Present State
  
  of the Church,
  

  Guests: My Answer 2: Open/Closed,
  

  Guests: My Stand 2: Open 1 -2.

However it is not simply a question of whether to move or not. As I'm sure you know, the present situation is a result of your original separation from your wife.

• You are right to say "I don't want to create a schism in my home as to the place of worship".

• When you divorced your wife and left the gospel hall you say "My wife remained in the assembly for a while, but when she felt the assembly grew cold towards her and no longer nourishing, she left to fellowship with a non-denominational church".

• Although for different reasons, to use your word, she undoubtedly felt "uncomfortable" as well as deserted at the gospel hall.

Your reconciliation took place in her new circumstances. To return to the gospel hall without her would create a similar situation for her as when you first left her.

• She would appear deserted and would therefore no doubt be quite uncomfortable at the 'church'.

• I can't agree with your wife's lack of concern as to the 'church', but can understand that it would likely be very uncomfortable for her to return to the gospel hall with you.

• The 'oversight' may have invited you to return, but have they invited your wife and made things right with her?

• The fact is that your wife has been damaged and it appears that the reconciliation has not undone all the damage. This requires healing that only the Lord can give.

There is a further point to consider. It is a divine principle that "whatever a man shall sow, that also he shall reap", Galatians 6: 7.

• You, and your wife, are suffering the governmental consequences, of your earlier actions.

• Grace forgives, but it does not remove the governmental consequences.

• This applies not only to the difficulties in your marriage and your dilemma as to what to do, but also as to your personal position.

• Before you left the gospel hall you were engaged in preaching and as an 'elder'. But that situation has changed.

• The qualifications for an 'overseer' or 'elder' are set out in 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Titus 1: 5-9.

• It is clear that your conduct, taking place after your conversion and as a mature man, would disqualify you for such public service.

• Whether you or the 'oversight' would view it thus I do not know, but it is part of the governmental consequences of your action and "God is not mocked".

Your only recourse is to be before the Lord as to your wife, and with your wife as to fellowship. This may take time and will require mutual patience and understanding.

• But to move to satisfy your own feelings will doubtless cause a serious breach.

Eugene, I trust that you will carefully consider all of the above.

• Be assured of my deep and prayerful concern for you and your wife.

Your in our Lord, Gordon.

From: W. Eugene Tucker
Mon, 13 Jan, 2003

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ:

Thanks for your Spirit-led response. I don't know what kind of response I was expecting; therefore, I am not disappointed with your response.

• I, however, was interested in your conclusion regarding "governmental consequences".

• Could you expound on that and discuss your understanding of the requirement that an elder "be blameless".

• It is chilling to think that I may not be able to function as an elder, even in a different local assembly of God's people.

With repect to your comment about patience and mutual understanding, my wife has suggested that we locate a neutral place to fellowship. Any thoughts on that plan to avoid a breach?

Again thank you for your counsel. Eugene

To: W. Eugene Tucker
Mon, 28 Jan, 2003

Dear Eugene,
It is encouraging that you received my previous reply in the spirit in which it was written. As to your further questions:

Governmental consequences are the results of some sin, or course of sin. As quoted before "whatever a man shall sow, that also he shall reap", Galatians 6: 7.

• God can and does forgive where there is repentance but this does not mean that He removes the consequences of sin.

• This is evident at the beginning of man's history. Adam and Eve were doubtless forgiven but there were consequences which remain to this day. Gen. 3: 16-19.

• David's sin was forgiven, but the child was to die and the sword would not never depart from David's house. 2 Samuel 12: 10-14.
  • His last words show that David had accepted the governmental consequences of his sin and had not forgotten it. 2 Samuel 23: 5.

An elder is indeed to be "blameless" AV, or "irreproachable" JND.

• The qualifications of an overseer are set out in 1 Timothy 3. That letter deals with suitable conduct in "God's house", 3: 15.

• It is noticeable that Paul does not refer to God by the name 'Father' in that letter. He refers to "God" because is it the public position observable by "those without", 3: 7.

• He also refers to God as "the blessed and only Ruler", 6: 15. Overseers, or elders, represent rule in God's house and must be publicly qualified for that role.

• All the qualifications can be observed by others. Of course spiritual state underlies all, but the point is what can be seen. God must be rightly represented in His house.

"Irreproachable" means that the overseer must have such a public character that no public charge or complaint can be brought against him which would reflect on God or the holiness of His house.

• Anyone having a public record of sin – and such things as immoral conduct involving divorce, bankruptcy etc., are on public record – is disqulaified.

• A man may aspire to exercise oversight but his public record after conversion would debar him from such representation of "the blessed an only Ruler".

• This may be "chilling" but the record and effect of what has been done publicly remains but, of course, does not refer to our place in the body.

All this remains true even in this day when there are no apostles to appoint, or authorize the appointment of, elders.

• The bearing of another important factor is covered in Doctrine: The Public Ruin of the Church.

• This matter and its implications are denied or overlooked by all sectarian groups from Rome down, even by those who claim to be 'New Testament assemblies'.

Your wife has suggested that you "locate a neutral place to fellowship". I can quite understand this from her standpoint as it would probably avoid the embarrassment that would result from returning to your original meeting.

• Evidently she is ready to make some accommodation which in itself is good and I do sympathize with her. This is a decsion you must make for yourselves.

• However, I stand by the opening remarks in my previous reply which would also apply to what you might consider a "neutral place". My statement there was
  • "I could not advise anyone to stay in a 'church' – even non-denominational – because of clericalism and other factors,

  • "but neither could I advise anyone to return to an 'open' meeting – whether gospel hall or chapel – no matter how 'comfortable' that might be for them.

  • "If you have had opportunity to explore 'My Brethren' you will understand my reasons".

We may and do approach matters from a different perspective and background, but I believe that prayerfully weighing the Scriptures will make clear God's viewpoint, which is the real issue.

• You readiness to look at all facets of your situation is encouraging and surely pleasing to God.

• As you have not requested privacy, our correpondence will be posted on 'My Answer 4' for the benefit of other guests.

Be assured of my continued interest in you and your wife. May you work things out together mutually and to God's glory. Feel free to write again if you wish.

In our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

BIOGRAPHY:  EARLY  BRETHREN
Thoughts of Max Weremchuk, JND Biographer. See also Biography: J. N. Darby Research Papers.

From: Max S. Weremchuk
Mon, 17 Mar 2003

Hi Gordon,
From the start of my research on the Darby biography to its completion in the late 1980's I was not an 'academic' in any sense of the word.

• I had no formal training. I didn't even have a high school diploma. Since then I have studied for and earned a doctorate in Greek Orthodox Theology – but that was much later and a different story.

• I did not have easy access to archives and material that others working in the academic field in one form or another had/have.

• My work definitely did not meet the accepted – professional – academic standards. My referencing and so on was sloppy. I made mistakes. For this I received severe criticism.

• Where this criticism was justified it was justified, and correction and improvement are certainly necessarily. I hope to have 'improved' somewhat for the second edition.

Page Top   Article Top

ONE - CITY - ONE - CHURCH

Glenn Haman says "I am doing research on the principle of the ground of the local church. Watchman Nee taught the one-city-one-church principle and practiced it in China. I was recently told that he got this teaching from the Exclusive Brethren. However, in his book, 'Orthodoxy of the Church' he pointed out that this teaching did not come from the Brethren. If you can help me please send info". Compare: Guests: My Answer 3: One Leader.

Dear Glenn,
It is impossible to give a brief definitive answer, especially in view of WN's denial, but let me share what I understand.

• My reply may seem overlong for what appears to be a simple question, but it is well worthwhile – to me at least – to examine the matter thoroughly.

• See History: The China Episode 1932-35.

• This may be so even though he moved on independent lines himself.

The need for the practical expression of unity among saints in a city was a concern among the brethren as early as 1838, just ten years after they first began in Dublin.

• See details in Biography: G. V. Wigram: His Early History: London.

• The early concern related particularly to unity in administration.

• However over the years – and as travelling in larger cities became easier – it also found increasing expression in gatherings for edification.

• The breaking of bread and preaching on the Lord's Day, and week night prayer and reading of the Scriptures, always took place in various parts of the citty, sometimes called 'subdivisions'.

• But over time there were also regular occasions for central or 'city' readings of the Scriptures on the Lord's Day, and week night 'city' readings and prophetic ministry meetings, as well as monthly care meetings,
  • of "the whole assembly come together in one place", 1 Corinthians 14: 23.

The expression of unity and oneness was not restricted to the meetings.

• Visiting and having company for dinner – especially on the Lord's Day – was an integral and vital part of life among the brethren.

I have no experience of the practice of "one-city-one-church" by WN and his followers and so do not know whether it goes beyond an outward formality

• or whether it has the same features as the recognition of one assembly in a city among the brethren.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I should clarify that use of the word 'assembly' does not imply any special status for the brethren – or pretension to alone be the assembly –

• and does not exclude any of the saints who might gather otherwise or who are in the various 'churches'.

I trust that the above has not wearied you and may be of some interest and value.

• It would be good to hear further from you, as to your own background and the reason for your research.

In our Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

DISPENSATION Dispensational Pre-Tribulation Rapture
John Shinn asks for an explanation of 'dispensational' as used in the phrase 'dispensational pre-tribulation rapture'.

To: John Shinn
Thu, 24 Jul 2003

Dear John,
The word 'dispensation' is used to refer to particular periods of time in which God, in His sovereign ways, has put men on trial in view of reaching His final great purpose in Christ.

• In different and successive dispensations God has used various means to deal with all men in general, or with Abraham's seed in particular, e.g., the light of creation, promises, covenants, law, presentation of the Messiah.

• Depending on one's viewpoint, Mr. J. N. Darby is usually credited with discovering – or blamed for concocting – the Scriptural evidence of God's dispensational dealings through the ages.

• 'Evangelical' scholars have been particularly influenced by his insights, and many have developed elaborate and somewhat differing dispensational schemes.

• They have also over-emphasized JND's teaching as to the 'pre-tribulation rapture' to the detriment of His appearing. See Doctrine: The Lord's Coming.

• Most mainline denominations reject the 'pre-tribulation rapture' as well as the concept of dispensations – holding to views which confuse Israel and the Church.

• I suspect that 'dispensational pre-tribulation rapture' is used by those promoting the mainline views in an attempt to discredit the teaching of the rapture by use of – what is to them – a pejorative label, i.e., 'dispensational'.

To be clear, 'My Brethren' accepts and supports the teaching as to dispensations and the pre-tribulation rapture by JND and his co-labourers, both contemporary and more recent.

I trust this helps, John, and look forward to your comments.

In the Lord, Gordon.

Page Top   Article Top

EB's ATTEMPT TO CONTACT SOME PERSONS THEY HAVE REJECTED FOR OVER 30 YEARS
See the email from Lana Guy who asks for an explanation. She writes as to her step dad's family, "Why now? … They want to meet us now after my Dad has been kicked out of the family for 30 years and they cannot really associate with us or have a family meal together? … Why is my 14 year old brother saying to me, 'Why won't my Grandparents talk to me? What did I do?' Is this right?"

Wed, 01 Oct 2003

Dear Lana,
Thanks you for writing. You are courageous and wise to seek for an explanation of the family situation you describe.

First, let me clarify a few matters. We live in Toronto and are 74 years old.

• My wife, Betty, who is the third generation of her family among brethren, and I have not been connected for over 30 years with the group you know as 'brethren' – a name of which their practices make them unworthy.

• Seeing this, some brethren left in 1959-60. You can read some of their concerns in History: The Partings of the Ways.

• As the situation became increasingly worse, others left in 1970. See History: Decline and Departure.

Among other sad matters, this legal and unscriptural teaching resulted in the break up of families, husbands and wives separated, parents and children separated and prohibited eating with any not in that group.

• You may ask why any would submit to this. The answer is fear – fear of excommunication which,

• because of the close relations among brethren, would mean loss of families, friends and also financial difficulties for those who were employed by others or in business partnership together.

• This fear caused some to expel from their homes teen age children who had not committed themselves. A younger cousin of my wife and one of her nephews was treated in this cruel fashion which had never been known among brethren prior to 1953.

Recently a new 'universal' leader has ordered that attempts should be made to recover persons who had been wrongly excommunicated or children who had been expelled.

• What the motives behind this are difficult to say. But who could trust a system that wrongly expelled so many persons and refused any contact for 30 years or more?

• Persons in many countries have been contacted by family members after many years.

• We have a friend who is 85 years old and in a nursing home. He and his now departed wife pleaded to be received back for years but were refused.

• Now, because of this new order, his family wants him to go and live with them and return to their group. He is wise enought to refuse. In any case, they could not attend properly to his many physical needs.

I'm not sure whether this answers all your questions but I hope it will help you explain the situation to you brother who has certainly not done anything wrong.

• His grandparents may well have really wanted to see him but the fear I have described would have prevented them. Such are more to be pitied than blamed.

This web site was started with the hope of helping some who had suffered from the legal system introduced in 1959.

• See the Home Page and A Personal Message to My Brethren.

• We attempt to set out the early and good teaching and practice of those rightly called 'brethren'.

I feel deeply with you the hurt that you and your family have suffered and are suffering. Contact now, as enticing as it may be, will only eventually lead to more sorrow.

• To join with that group would mean putting yourselves under a bondage to many manmade rules.

As you say, I believe that you "are not bad people", but even 'good' people need a Saviour.

• If you haven't already, I urge you to read and consider two items on the Home Page, Eternity – What is Your Plan? and What is a Christian?.

If you need any clarification or any more information don't hesitate to write.

May the Lord bless you and your family with His comfort and His salvation.

Sincerely, Gordon Rainbow.

Page Top   Article Top

IS  BAPTISM  NECESSARY  TO  BE  CONSIDERED  A  CHRISTIAN?
Replies to questions from William M. Willcox, Hin Han (Nicholas) Chin, and an 'anonymoua' inquiry.

Mon, 15 March 2004

Dear William,
Welcome to 'My Brethren'. We appreciate your confidence in asking the question:

• "My wife would like to know if she must be baptised to be considered a Christian".

• The whole question of 'What Baptism Is And Who Should Be Baptized' is thoroughly gone into in two excellent articles in Doctrine: Baptism,
  • and I suggest you and your wife review these articles and the scriptures mentioned there.

• I hope to hear from you afterwards.

Yours in the Lord, Gordon.

To: Hin Han Chin
Fri, 30 Dec 2005

Dear Han,
I'll just try to reply to your questions on baptism this time, and trust the answers won't be too brief to be useful to you.

The one Name in Matthew 28 refers, I believe, to the way the invisible God has been made known in revelation in what we call the 'economy', and avoids any thought of there being three gods.

• There, according to JND, it should read "to the Name". i.e. the one baptized is brought outwardly into relation to God as revealed and known in Christianity.

• In Acts "in the name" stresses the authority of the Lord Jesus, especially necessary to those who had been Jews.

Then have a look at Doctrine: Baptism especially my comments in 'The Mode of Baptism Reconsidered'.

• 'Baptists', by whatever other name, insist on immersion even to the point of insisting on re-baptism if not done by immersion and as an adult believer. This treats all other baptisms in the public church as wrong and is, I believe, an insult to God, known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

• The only requirements in Scripture is that baptism be "to the Name …", by the authority of the Lord Jesus and with water. The amount or use of the water is unspecified. Surely baptism was not ordained by God so that it could only be done in countries with a mild climate in deep water or elsewhere in a specially constructed 'baptistry'! You will recall that when you were baptized here it was by pouring of the water.

As to baptism of the Holy Spirit, this took place initially at Pentecost, forming the body of Christ, and subsequently on faith in Christ and His atoning work that others were/are added to the body. 1 Corinthians 12: 13.

• In Acts 10: 44 "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word". Applying this to water baptism suggests pouring rather than immersing.

I'll try to get back to you on the other points but don't hesitate to write again in the meantime.

With love in the Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Ques: Thanks for the articles! And yes, I do have a few questions actually, because I was a little confused about baptism myself.

• Actually, it was one of the first things — asked me about back when she was considering converting. I suppose she was a little fearful about it because she didn't really know much about any church history really, and she pictured baptism taking place in a big church with many onlookers as she would be submerged into the water.

• I told her it wasn't necessary because I was always under the impression that it was the true believing of Jesus Christ as salvation that would save a person, and I thought that in the scriptures the baptism was used as a ritual or a way to symbolize that out to the readers. Please do correct me if you feel I'm mistaken.

Ans: It is quite understandable that some might hesitate – or even refuse baptism – because of fear of large crowds and/or being the centre of attention.

• The validity of baptism does not depend on the place in which it is done, the quantity of water, or the number of witnesses. What is important is the use of water and that it is done, as Scripture indicates, in the name of the Lord and to the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

• The practice among brethrem with whom we have been in practical fellowship has been to have simple baptisms in private homes with a few immediate witnesses, followed by a reading meeting on baptism with a few more brethren for the help of the newly baptized, the parents, and others.

Ques: In your article you state: "Therefore I am convinced that, to be recognized as a 'Christian' based on the Scriptures, it is necesary for a person to be baptized."

• I just want some clarification as to what you mean by that … are you saying that a person who believes in Jesus Christ and asks for salvation but fails to be baptized won't be saved and won't receive the salvation?

• – never having been formally separated from the previous life of unbelief and publicly identified with the death of Christ –

• any more than an immigrant to Canada could be publicly recognized as a Canadian citizen if refusing to take the oath of allegiance.

• We are called upon to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, not only as our Saviour but as our Lord, the One to whom we owe obedience. And as He has ordainrd baptism, and confirmed it through His apostles, to refuse if is simple disobedience. True believers would certainly accept that.

• Of course there may be certain situations in which, through no fault of their own, new believers may not be able to be baptized at once. This should be remedied as soon as circumstance allow.

Ans: "Saved" has several meanings, but as commonly used, we are saved "at our moment of believing in Him", and at the same time being sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Ques: And if it's after we complete both, then what would be the significance of the "believing in Him and asking for salvation" part if a person happened to do that before being baptized?

Ans: In fact, persons of a responsible age have confessed Him before being baptized. Of course some might have already been already baptized as born into a Christian household – as yourself – or as an infant in one of the denominations. If this was done validly – as in most instances – it would be accepted and not repeated.

Ques: And lastly … what about people who convert on their deathbeds and then shortly pass away afterwards? Since they weren't baptized does that mean they won't receive the eternal life either?

Ans: Not at all. Baptism is identification with Christ through the figure of death, separating us from the world that rejected Him. Believers "who convert on their deathbeds and then shortly pass away afterwards" are already being separated through their literal death from the world that rejected Christ

• and thus the intent of baptism is fulfilled in their death – and they are covered by the value of the death of Christ Who died for them.

Ques: I realize I've asked a lot of tough questions, but I want to make sure I'm leading — in the correct direction!

Ans: Asking questions is one of the best ways to learn. Never hesitate to ask. G.A.R.

Page Top   Article Top

WILL  THE  SPIRIT  EVER  LEAD  ANYONE TO  LOOK  AT  HIMSELF  OR  HIS  WORK?

Daniel Soukoreff writes, "I would appreciate your thoughts on this comment of CHM forwarded to me by Heino Promm. My first thought was that the picture in Genesis 24 did suggest that after Christ has His place then the Spirit would be honoured in His place. 'I will not eat until I have made know my business' ". Heino Promm wrote: "When the comforter is come" – Read John 16:7-15 : "When the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me", John 15: 26. "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall received of Mine and show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine and shall show it unto you.", John 16: 13-15. "The coincidence of these words with the testimony of Abraham's servant is instructive and interesting. It was by telling of Isaac that he sought to attract the heart of Rebekah; and it is, as we know, by telling of Jesus, that the Holy Ghost seeks to draw poor sinners away from a world of sin and folly, into the blessed and holy unity of the body of Christ. 'He shall take of Mine and show it unto you'. The Spirit of God will never lead any one to look at Himself or His work, but only and always at Christ. Hence, the more really spiritual any one is, the more entirely will he be occupied with Christ". C. H. Mackintosh.

Fri, 8 Jul, 2005

Dear Daniel,
We respect CHM but it seems that his thoughts were based on the KJV which is unclear.

• While the Spirit's primary service is to glorify Christ, "he shall not speak of himself", John 16: 13, does not mean that He never speaks 'about' Himself but, as JND puts it, "from" Himself.

• Other more recent versions support JND's translation: NASB says "on His own initiative"; NIV says "on His own"; NKJV says "on His own [authority]".

Guests: My Answer 1: "To Whom do you Pray?";

Doctrine: Addressing the Holy Spirit;

Ministry: J. Taylor 4: The Spirit as Seen Objectively in the Book of Acts.

I hope this is of help. In our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

Fri, 8 Jul, 2005

Dear Gordon,
These are helpful comments especially as to what you mention of the Spirit's speaking of Himself and His service.

Frankly one of the challenges these last years has been a lack of older brothers to talk over the scriptures with, so thanks again, Daniel.

Page Top   Article Top

MATTHEW 18: 20 TRANSLATION and APPLICATION
The following question was received April 14, 2010 by hand from a resident of Bethany Manor, our home since April 2005. See also My Stand 3: Matthew 18: 20

Some brethren like to say "Gathered TO the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" rather than "Gathered IN the name of the Lord Jesus" as we have it in Matthew 18: 20.

• I am not aware of any New Testament Scripture which would warrant such a change in language. What do you think? I will appreciate your thoughts on this.

Page Top   Article Top

PARTICIPATION  OF  WOMEN  AT  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER:  GIVING  OUT  HYMNS

Mark Rae NO EMAIL Shawnigan Lake, BC, Canada Sun, March 6, 2011 I attend an 'open' brethren meeting in Duncan, BC and wonder if > you could give me more on women's participation at the Lord's Supper? I understand the silence instruction concerning teaching and authority, however, I wonder about the participation of believing women and believing children in the suggesting of hymns and songs and spiritual songs and prayers of worship. Does this participation constitute 'leadership', 'authority' or what? Thank you for your thoughts on the relevent scriptures, Mark.

To: Mark Rae
Thu, Mar 10, 2011

Dear Mark,
Welcome to 'My Brethren' and thanks for your interesting question. Your email address was not shown and so our reply can only be posted in the current Guest Book -- and in "My Answer: 4" -- in the hope that you will visit 'My Brethren' again and find it.

There are no specific scriptures that bear on your inquiry -- doubtless because such a situation was not envisioned -- and so we must look to the general teaching of Scripture as to the assembly and its functioning. This is found in 1 Corinthians.

1.The setting for partaking of the "Lord's Supper" is "in assembly", 11: 17-32.

2. "The assembly of God" is composed of those "called saints" [i.e. saints by divine calling], 1: 1-2, and is not a children's meeting, although children may be present under their parent's authority.

• Believing children would be governed by the same principles as apply to adult men and women.

Page Top   Article Top

DO  BABIES  AND  LITTLE  CHILDREN WHO  DIE  GO  TO  HEAVEN?
August 2011: On a recent visit, our dear young friend Rachel (17 years old) asked this question which has perplexed many.

August 21, 2011
Our dear Rachel,
You have asked a difficult but important question. In fact, there is no scripture which definitively addresses this point. Therefore we have to look at the general tenor of the Scriptures. I don't want to discourage you but we will have to look at quite a few scriptures.

First let us consider how the Lord Jesus speaks of the children.

He credits the little children with beleiving in Him, and refers to their angels who serve those "who shall inherit salvation".

• And Jesus having called a little child to [him], set it in their midst, and said, Verily I say to you, Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens; and whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name, receives me. But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were profitable for him that a great millstone had been hanged upon his neck and he be sunk in the depths of the sea … See that ye do not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you that their angels in [the] heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in [the] heavens … So it is not the will of your Father who is in [the] heavens that one of these little ones should perish. Matthew 18: 2-6, 10, 14.

• But as to which of the angels said he ever, Sit at my right hand until I put thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation? Hebrews 1: 13-14.

Page Top   Article Top

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