Do we pray to the Holy Spirit or only to God the Father?

Do we pray to the Spirit or ask for the Spirit of God?

The Lord Jesus taught the disciples to pray to the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus (John 16:23)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:23). In the epistles we learn that we should pray in the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:18), who helps us to pray intelligently and makes intercession for us (Romans 8:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:26, 27). Before Pentecost, the Spirit came upon people temporarily to empower them for some special service. From the day of Pentecost onward, the Spirit came to indwell and seal each believer at the moment of conversion (Ephesians 1:13," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13, "upon believing"). We are never told in the epistles to pray for the Spirit, be cause He already indwells, us. We are told to be filled with the Spirit in order to serve God, and to walk in the Spirit in order to please God and not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:16).

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can Old Testament believers be saved by believing in Jesus?

How were Old Testament people saved. What did they understand about Christ and His sacrifice?

Statements like John 3:36, 14:6," TARGET="_blank">John 3:36, 14:6, Acts 4:12" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:12 and I Timothy 2:5" TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 2:5 allow us to infer from Scripture that it is impossible to be saved apart from the work of Christ and personal faith in Him. That inference is justified by the clear teaching of Romans 3:25,26." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:25,26. The statement "the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God" is linked with the propitiatory death of our Lord Jesus. He was the foreordained Lamb. His death was a certainty in the purposes of God and enabled God, in His forbearance, to forgive sin in light of a coming Calvary (Psalm 32:1)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 32:1). It is wonderful to think of the Spirit of God gently dealing with a devout Hebrew who was searching for God and wondering what the significance of the many sacrifices was. I Peter 1:10," TARGET="_blank">I Peter 1:10,11 refers to those who searched diligently for the meaning and time of the fulfillment of prophecies relating to salvation. Imagine Daniel's awe when it was revealed to him that Messiah would be "cut off!" Many of those Old Testament believers could join us in singing, "O wondrous hour when God to me, a vision gave of Calvary."

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

What are some of the problem areas in a Christian's thought life?

What are some of the problem areas in a Christian's thought life?

The Bible addresses lust, both the general desires of the flesh against the will of God and the specific desires the Lord Jesus links with fornication (Matthew 5:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:28; 1 Thessalonians 4:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:5). This second, impure lust may involve what is not natural (Romans 1:27)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:27) or what is youthful (2 Timothy 2:22)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:22), but is always immoral. Various circumstances of life may contribute to these thoughts, but do not justify them before God.

Worry is a problem to Christians. When the Lord said, "Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat?" (Matthew 6:31)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 6:31), He was not condemning taking forethought, but having anxious thoughts, worry. Such thoughts follow Satan's suggestions that God's care is not sufficient (compare Matthew 4:3" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 4:3 with 6:32). When the mind becomes preoccupied -with such material concerns, the door opens to inordinate desires for material gain - covetousness.

Unforgiving thoughts (Matthew 18:35)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:35), spite, revenge, and nurtured anger (Ephesians 4:26)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:26) are harmful intruders in a Christian's mind. Assuming malice in another person's actions is evil thinking (1 Timothy 6:4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:4).

A proud heart, which exalts self and belittles others (Philippians 2:3)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:3), is sin (Proverbs 21:4)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:4).

These are the weeds that grow native in our mind, but never found a place in the thoughts of our glorious Lord.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the New Testament teach that a deacon is?

What does the New Testament teach that a deacon is?

Among a number of New Testament words that describe servants, deacon emphasizes the servant’s personal responsibility to serve. In Luke 17:7-10" TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:7-10 the Lord speaks of a bondservant instructed to prepare his lord’s food and to serve him as a deacon. He is both a bondservant (verse 7) and deacon (verse 8), the one emphasizing his lowly place and the other his personal responsibility to serve food to his lord. Rulers are ministers (deacons) of God (Romans 13:6)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:6) in that they have a responsibility entrusted to them. This thought seems to be consistent in New Testament usage.

New Testament deacons serve in at least three spheres. Rulers are deacons, responsible before God for service in the secular sphere. Phebe (Romans 16:1)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:1) and the seven who took care of feeding the widows (Acts 6:1-6)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:1-6) offered charitable and profitable service in a Christian sphere. Some individuals had a responsibility to serve others with divine truth in a spiritual sphere (2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 6:21;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:21; Philippians 1:1)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:1). This latter group is the subject of 1 Timothy 3:8-13." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-13. They had a responsibility for "the mystery of the faith" (verse 9). Someone in an assembly (or maybe someone who is not even saved) may have the responsibility for cutting the grass outside the building where the believers meet. He could be called a deacon, but that is not the deacon service addressed in 1 Timothy 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3.

Deacons did not have an office or official status, but they had a defined spiritual work for which they were responsible.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does the Bible refer to the Spirit as "itself" rather than "himself"?

Why do the Scriptures refer to the Spirit of God as "itself" occasionally?

The Spirit is twice referred to as "itself" in Romans 8:16" TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:16 and 26. Greek students tell us that the pronoun in the original is neuter in strict grammatical agreement with the word "Pneuma" (Spirit), a neuter word. Since the Spirit is a person in the Godhead, other translations read, "Himself."

Our Lord Jesus used the masculine pronoun "He" with the neuter "Spirit" in John 14:16, 17;" TARGET="_blank">John 14:16, 17; John 15:26;" TARGET="_blank">John 15:26; John 16:7,8,13." TARGET="_blank">John 16:7,8,13. Using this "phenomenon of grammar," as another has called this exceptional use of the masculine pronoun, He shows that the Spirit is a person.

W. Gustafson
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Israel or the Church the theme of Psalm 45?

What is the application of Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45? Is the Bride mentioned in the Psalm Israel or the Church? How are we to understand the expressions, “unto the king” and “unto thee” in Psalm 45:14" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45:14?

In order to fully understand Psalm 45," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45, it will have to be accepted that its principal application, so far as the Bride is concerned, is not to the Church but to Israel. The expressions, “King’s daughters,” “the daughter of Tyne,” and “the rich among the people,” etc., are more easily explained when we think of Israel in her future exaltation above the other nations, and acknowledged as Bride by the Lord, in keeping with His promises of Isaiah 54:5; 62:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Hosea 2:19, 20," TARGET="_blank">Hosea 2:19, 20, etc., than when we think of the Church. Yet there are, no doubt, one or two expressions, such as, “Forget also thine own people” and “raiment of needlework” (as compared with Revelation 19:8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:8, R.V.), which appear to suit the Church better, although they can perhaps be understood of Israel also.
Of course, some take it for granted that if the Church is the Bride, Israel cannot be; and if Israel is the Bride, the Church cannot be; but this is to lose sight of the fact that the term is figurative, and there is no reason why the figure should not be used of Israel in the Old Testament and of the Church in the New Testament. This is the case with other figures, e.g., Israel is the Vine of the Old Testament (Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8o:8, etc.), while the Church in union with Christ is the Vine in the New Testament; Israel is the House in the Old Testament, while the Church is the House in the New Testament (Numbers 12:7;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3: 6). Even the term, “Body,” which we usually look upon as the exclusive property of the Church, had been used of Israel in Isaiah 26:19" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 26:19 (where the italics should be omitted). Moreover, it may be that these early pictures, like the early prophecies of the Messiah’s coming, in which events separated (as we now know) by many years, are joined together as if one—are so worded by the Holy Ghost as to include applications both to Israel and the Church, some details being more suited to the one application, and some to the other. This would be helpful in studying the Song of Songs, of which Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45 seems to be the germ.
I consider this to be a better way of looking at the matter, than to accept the view suggested in Newberry’s Bible, where he distinguishes two women, the “Queen” (Israel), to whom he applies vv. 9-12, and the “King’s daughter” (the Church) to whom he applies vv. 13-15. I could agree that the Israel aspect of the picture is prominent in the former verses, and the Church aspect in the latter; but I cannot see two separate Brides in the Psalm definitely distinguished from one another.
With regard to v. i, I think that the “unto the King” at the begin- fling of the verse, and the “unto thee” at the end of it, refer to the same person. It is only an example of what is very common in the Psalms, in Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, and elsewhere, that is, an abrupt change from speaking about the Lord, to speaking to Him. And this speaking to Him is continued into verse 16, which, as well as verse 17, is addressed to the King, not to the Bride, although in our A.V. it looks as if it were.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is

Is “Reconciliation” the same as “Atonement”?

No, they are as distinct as cause and effect. Atonement is the ground on which reconciliation becomes possible. Unfortunately the Greek equivalents are not always correctly translated in our version. In fact in the only place (Romans 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11) where the word “atonement” occurs in the Authorised Version it is a mistranslation for “reconciliation.” On the other hand, “make reconciliation,” in Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 would be quite correctly translated, “make atonement” (hilaskomai), as it is the same root and nearly always translated so in the LXX, Greek Version of the Old Testament. This, too, is the word the publican uses in his prayer (Luke 18: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13), and goes much deeper than merely asking for compassion. It might be translated, “Be propitiated by sacrifice.” Some shallow teachers having sufficient acquaintance with Hebrew, to know that Kaphar (making atonement) means primarily “cover,” have thought this was its only meaning and have whittled “atonement” down to “covering,” and asserted that it is a purely Jewish thing. They ignore the fact that the word has a secondary meaning, denoting that by which alone God can cover sin, namely, by making full satisfaction for His broken law. This has alone been effected by the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ: “He poured out His soul unto death.” The Old Testament has the word again and again but only typically and prophetically; the New Testament alone has the reality (see 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10— hilasmos, the same root again). Reconciliation becomes possible by atonement, but practical when the sinner turns to God with repentance and faith. The word for “reconciliation” (Katallage) “points habitually,” as Dr. Moule reminds us, “to the winning rather the pardon of an offended King, than the consent of the rebel to yield to His kindness.” ‘Be ye reconciled to God’ would then mean, secure while you can His acceptance.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Departure begins with a cooling of our devotion to Christ. One evidence of departure is a lack of love for and obedience to His Word. To change our practices from what His Word teaches or to be unwilling to change our ways in order to conform to His Word is departure. We are best to judge our own hearts before we look for indications of departure in others.

When we apparently take delight in finding the failings of others, we too have departed from the teachings of the Lord. If we fairly evaluate the teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can hardly conclude that pouring the wine from a common vessel and distributing it to 500 people by means of 4 cups violates the Word of God. The same can be said of taking one large entity of bread and distributing it on 4 separate plates. If this is what is meant by "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "No." This is not departure.

To officiate at the "Communion Service" by distributing "the host" or a wafer violates the Word of God. This is multiple "loaves" and, in addition, bespeaks officialism. To have communion using individual cups fails to clearly express the significance of partaking from the "cup of blessing." If this is the meaning of "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "Yes." This is departure.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it wise to counsel a dating couple in fellowship not to sit together in the assembly meetings?

Is it wise to counsel a dating couple in fellowship not to sit together in the assembly meetings?

Some valuable wisdom may underlie this advice, but it does sound like the kind of rule that some religious groups have handed down for generations. Such traditions can create a religious hypocrisy (Mark 7:6-8)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:6-8). Rather than making rules, why not apply Biblical principles?

Being in love is a wonderful blessing, part of the Lord’s gracious provision for the human family (Genesis 2:24;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:31-33)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31-33). It is part of the normal development of the spiritually-significant relationship of marriage (5:25, 28). It is therefore not a foreign intruder into a spiritual life. A couple’s behavior, however, should reflect their concern for their testimony before the world. Paul says, "Give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all" (Romans 12:17," TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:17, ESV). Another principle comes from Paul’s pen, "Flee youthful passions" (2 Timothy 2:22" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:22 ESV). Considering these principles, a couple is well-advised to limit public displays of affection to fit comfortably within acceptable standards among believers. The world’s standards in courting are not relevant (Romans 12:2)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:2).

A principle that relates to all our assembly gatherings comes from the Lord’s words, "For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mat 18:20" TARGET="_blank">Mat 18:20 JND). In all our meetings, we are in the Lord’s presence. Although the assembly is on earth, our place of worship and prayer is in heaven, in the immediate sanctuary of God’s holy presence (Hebrews 10:19, 20)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:19, 20). We enjoy an intimate relationship with our Father, but the standards of holiness in the presence of God have not changed. The same holy creatures Isaiah saw crying "Holy, holy, holy" in God’s presence (Isaiah 6:3)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 6:3) have not changed their occupation at the conclusion of this present age (Rev 4:8)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 4:8). When God’s presence among men was introduced (Exodus 25:8; 40:34, 35)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:8; 40:34, 35), God maintained the standard of behavior in His presence. Nadab and Abihu offered "strange fire" before the Lord (Leviticuis 10:1), apparently acting with a lack of self-control (v 9). God maintained a distinction between "common" behavior and behavior in His holy presence (v 10). In our irreverent age, we need the reminder of the Scriptures on this matter. Being preoccupied with others while in the holiest of all is not suitable. Whether or not a couple sits together, they can easily become more aware of each other’s presence than of the presence of God.

Biblical principles do not establish a rule about couples sitting together. They do, however, instruct courting couples and all of us that we must seek the Lord’s help so that God has His proper place of undistracted honor and occupation when we meet together. Lacking the self-control needed so that God is first in our thoughts and desires dishonors Him. We all need a greater awareness of God’s presence and of the holiness that is fitting there.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How should an assembly approach the subject of homosexuality?

How can we fulfill this responsibility effectively?

Those who teach the young or work with younger believers must be prepared to handle this subject appropriately. Bible Readings on related subjects or relevant passages should include considered comments on this topic.

At some point in gospel meetings or gatherings for Christian teaching, believers or unbelievers who have this tendency, who have imbibed society’s thinking on the subject, or who have committed such acts will be present. On some occasions, parents whose hearts are broken because of the intrusion of this sin into their family will be present. Harsh denunciations of this sin, expressions of personal revulsion, or snide references to the common idioms for this behavior are insensitive and unbecoming. Any form of speech that offends the moral sensitivities of the listeners or that compromises the dignity of God’s Word and sacred truth is inappropriate. Any statements deemed as irrational or merely emotional are counterproductive; the compelling authority of Scripture is our sole basis of persuasion.

Compassionate teaching regarding the life-transforming power of God’s grace offers hope for those enslaved by sin. The sanctifying power of God’s Word, of the indwelling Spirit, and of abiding in Christ can deliver from lust. None of us have avoided some experience with lust and sin’s slavery; we cannot be condescending.

In no case should our aversion to the subject limit our interest or expressions of loving help to those engaging in such behavior. Neither our words nor acts should build an emotional or social wall between "us and them." Fulfilling our responsibility to care for others, reach all with the gospel, maintain a godly testimony, and preserve holiness in our own lives requires divine wisdom and power.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu