About this site

Phil Sarlo

Phil Sarlo's Personal Story - The next 100 days spawned adventures that Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would have been thrilled with. But, even so, my days consisted of loneliness, disillusionment and despair. I tried to tell myself that I was a Christian. I had no peace about it, and I tried to do everything not to think about it. (more)
Other pages in this section

About this site

Gospel Hall dot Org exists to share information about assemblies of Christians who gather to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to raise awareness of the gospel message and teaching about Christian living in a New Testament Church.

FAQs

Are there ways to improve our singing?

Are there ways to improve our singing?

Hopefully, the answer is yes. If we are preparing our children for usefulness in divine things, experience with choral music in school can prove very instructive. Singing together as families while driving or while sitting at the table encourages singing. Singing along with wholesome Christian recordings is helpful. Getting together in fellow-believers homes to sing the hymns we love is uplifting and beneficial to assembly singing. Learning about music could hardly be harmful.

More important than the art in our singing, though, is the heart in our singing. Since singing is so entwined in our past (Psalm 40:3)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 40:3), present (Mark 14:26;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:26; Ephesians 5:19;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:16), and future (Revelation 5:9)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:9), it is difficult to believe - despite ample evidence -that a believer who puts his mind to it and his heart into it cannot sing. If we grasp that our songs express our praise of God, no believer would mumble along or not even mouth the words during the singing (heavenly conditions!). Our Lord deserves our best. Singing "with the spirit" (1 Corinthians 14:15)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15) means that the songs come from the deepest part of our being; they are heartfelt. Is it wrong to say that singing "with the spirit" will produce spirited singing? A Christian who enjoys his salvation and joyously sings hymns from the Believers Hymn Book while hoeing his beans or driving his car will start the assemblys singing in a manner that will draw the others to join in the singing. In a small assembly, singing may be difficult, but whatever their number, worshipful hearts will cultivate "a joyful noise unto the Lord" (Psalm 100:1)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 100:1).

Those responsible for the public worship included some David "set over the service of song" and they "ministered . . . with singing" (1 Chronicles 6:31, 32)." TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 6:31, 32). Evangelical congregations are hiring those with a "song ministry" Will redeemed hearts not gladly volunteer for this service and "serve the Lord with gladness, come before his presence with singing" (Psalm 100:2)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 100:2)?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Were there two classes of Apostles?

It has been said there are two orders of apostles, one of the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matthew 10;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10; Mark 3.;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 3.; Luke 9)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9), and another of His heavenly (Ephesians 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:11). Please define the difference, if any?

Of course, Pentecost made a great difference to all believers. They had “life” before, now they had it “more abundantly” (see John io. xo). Before, they had been individual believers united in a common love and fealty to the same Master. Now their relationship both to Him and to one another had become profoundly modified. During the Lord’s ministry, if we except the special mission in Matthew 10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10, when they received a special enduement of power (v. i), and a unique commission (v. 6), the apostles came little into prominence. It was the Lord who led and worked; they followed and learned of Him. Now they became perpetually “endued with power from on high,” subject to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They were now united to Christ as members of His Body, and for the first time were indwelt by that Spirit. But that the eleven apostles of the Lord’s earthly ministry remained, or ever were, a different apostolic order to Paul, and perhaps two or three others mentioned in the Acts has, I believe, no scriptural authority whatever. We know that the eleven apostles of the original twelve, and Matthias, all passed through Pentecost, and Paul was no doubt Spirit-baptised later at his conversion. Pentecost certainly meant for the twelve a vast accession of apostolic power, so that it is quite permissible to view them as given by the risen Christ. “He gave some apostles,” though they existed before potentially as apostles. They all became partakers of Ephesian standing and blessing. Now, as he had advised them, the sphere of their action was greatly widened, for they were sent “to preach the gospel to every creature.” It seems to me entirely gratuitous and mistaken to assume that Peter and his ten fellow-apostles were not in the will of God in the appointment of Matthias. No hint of this is given in the passage or subsequently. The Lord had given them “Holy Spirit” (John 20:22)" TARGET="_blank">John 20:22) to carry them over the interval between His resurrection and Pentecost—the true “giving of the Holy Spirit.” They appointed him on the authority of the Scriptures, after prayerful exercise before God, appealing to Him to dispose the lot, and Matthias is recognised in Acts 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:14 as completing the original member of the apostles. Not only so, but Paul himself did not acknowledge any difference. He recognised the twelve as “those who were apostles before him” (Galatians 1:17)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:17), and if he insists on his having received his call and gospel from the Lord Himself, it was only to claim equality with the others, but in no way superiority. Some attach great importance to his word, “My gospel,” but this proves nothing, as he tells us in Galatians 1:6-9," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:6-9, that there was only one true gospel, and in chap. 2. 2, that on his return to Jerusalem he checked the gospel he had been preaching with that of the apostles there, lest he had in any way deviated from the true gospel, which was theirs, before it was his. “In conference,” he is able to affirm, “they added nothing to me,” though they recognised that his special mission was to the Gentiles. So clear is this in this chapter that these mistaken teachers have imagined a theory to account for it that Paul got under Jewish influence at Jerusalem (by that right hand of fellowship given to him by Peter and James and John), and was absolutely switched off his true character of testimony. Certainly this would be strange, considering that in the same context he tells us that he openly withstood his fellow-apostle for Judaising at Antioch. That such a theory should be necessary to uphold their position, is surely enough to demonstrate its unsoundness.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the rock that Jesus promisee that the Church would be built on?

In Matthew 16:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:18 does the Rock represent Christ? Or does it mean Truth? Or does it mean the Word of God? If it is Christ, can you give Scripture to prove this?

No doubt, our questioner is aware that this is a much disputed passage; though personally we believe the true meaning is not far to seek, in the light of the context and of the general analogy of Scripture. The disciples’ answer to the Lord’s question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” led on to His second question, “But whom say ye that I am?” The Lord desired to hear from their own lips their confession of Him. All were addressed, but one—Simon Peter—replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” And the Lord pronounced him—”Simon Bar-jona”—blessed (lit, happy), for this had not been learned in the schools of men, but direct from His Father. Not only so, but as Simon Peter had confessed his Lord’s Name before His fellow-disciples, now on the principle of Luke 12:8," TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:8, the Lord confesses his name—”And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter.” In other words He confirms to him the name of Petros or a Stone, which He had conferred on him at his introduction by his brother Andrew (John 1:41)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:41).

Moreover, the Lord has something more important to dwell on, namely, the noble, God-given confession by Peter of His true Messiahship and glory as the Eternal Son—something bigger than a “Petros,” a stone,—a “Petra,” a rock. This distinction is common in classical Greek, and though in Aramaic, the language in which our Lord usually spoke, the difference is not shown, both words being Cepha, the fact that the inspired evangelist, in translating, brings out the classical difference, seems to show clearly that the Spirit of God intended the difference to be preserved. Peter is never certainly spoken of as a rock (petra) in any other place of Scripture, but he himself speaks of Christ as the rock (petra) of offence, and this is the word used in 1 Corinthians 10:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:4—”They drank of that spiritual rock (petra) that followed them, and that rock (petra) was Christ.”

Peter was “a living stone” along with his fellow disciples, but Christ was the living Rock. Our Lord’s words accordingly are not, “Thou art Petros, and upon thee I will build my church,” but “Thou art Petros and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Perhaps we shall be told this is only Protestant and heretical doctrine. But was then Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in the 4th century, heretical? and yet he writes, “The rock petra is the blessed only rock faith—confessed by the mouth of Peter.” Was Jerome heretical, who writes, “Christ has founded His church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the Apostle Peter has been named”? Chrysostom whom we cannot admit was a heretic, says, “On this rock I will build my church, that is on the faith of the confession of Peter,” and so Ambrose of Milan, Basil of Seleucia, and indeed over forty of the early fathers and ecclesiastical writers (not all, we presume, Protestants or heretical teachers) held that the rock was Christ Himself as revealed in the confession of Peter. So Augustine of Hippo: “On this rock (petra) I will build my church, not on Peter, the stone that thou art, but on the rock that thou hast confessed, I will build thee, who in this reply standest for the church.” We may thank God that we have something more stable than vacillating Peter upon which to build for eternity.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do I respond when the overseers change their view in discretionary matters?

How do I respond when the overseers change their view in discretionary matters?

Issues of truth and consequent Scriptural practices are not discretionary matters. The application of Scriptural principles to specific cases is discretionary. Overseers guide the assembly in such decisions (Hebrews 13:7," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, AV mg.). Decisions regarding the seriousness of substance abuse, the determination of railing, the appropriateness of certain apparel (not the overseers' taste), or the issues mentioned in the previous questions are discretionary. The decisions communicated by the elders and apostles in Jerusalem included this element (Acts 15:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:20, 21). Overseers will give account to the Lord in such matters whether they have gone too far or fallen short of the Lord's will in these matters. No doubt, the overseers would love to be like the children of Issachar, "men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" (1Ch 12:32)." TARGET="_blank">1Ch 12:32).

Circumstances, cultures, and mores change so that what is appropriate in one location or generation may not be the same in another. Therefore, at times, overseers may change their views, not about truth, but about the application of truth.

If a believer in the assembly does not agree with their judgment about changing the application of truth, he is responsible to first judge his own heart as to his motivation and as to the importance of the matter. If he concludes the issue is important, he is responsible to express this courteously and reasonably to the overseers (see the principle in 1Ti 5:1" TARGET="_blank">1Ti 5:1 for addressing older believers). When he has committed this matter to the Lord in prayer (Phi 4:6, 7)," TARGET="_blank">Phi 4:6, 7), he is responsible to carry out the other behaviors in that passage (vv 4-8, rejoicing, yielding, thinking positively) and to submit to the overseers (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Other pages in this section

About this site

[ Back ]

Main Menu