Easy Summaries of John Nelson Darby on God’s Grace, the Rapture, Dispensations, the true Church etc.
In 1934 Malcolm Biggs wrote to a younger brother (Stuart Price)[i], who asked him for help as to what he should read. He gave him a list of ministry, but he said, ‘Make JND’s Synopsis your daily companion
[i] This was in an unpublished private letter. It is being reproduced in the following PDF files
This booklet by Malcolm W. Biggs (1875-1941) was referred to, in some meetings in Northern Ireland, published in my ‘Today if ye will hear His Voice’ series (Not yet on-line). Also referred to was a book by the same author ‘Fellowship, its Nature and Possibilities’. Neither are available on-line. The former is published by Kingston Bible Trust – 2015 Catalogue .
The latter is out of print, and unavailable through normal channels.
As neither of these publications are on line, I have digitised the shorter one, and it is beliv made available here. I would value an offer of assistance to digitise the other.
If a path of a collective character pleasing to the Lord is to be taken by us, not only must the moral features consistent therewith be maintained—such as righteousness, holiness, faith and love—but the principles carried out in practice. It will be profitable, therefore, to consider some of these principles and note their practical application.
No believer has a right to regard himself purely as an individual. He has been called to the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord; and if we seek to walk in the path pleasing to the Lord, the Christian’s path, it is imperative that we regard our relations one with another. We have been called into the great partnership of Christian fellowship.
The principles therefore, to which we shall first refer are those which govern Christian fellowship. From 1 Corinthians 1:9, it is clear that all believers are called to the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Hence in 1 Corinthians 1:2 the epistle is addressed not only to the assembly which is at Corinth, but to ‘all that in every place call the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both all theirs and ours’. Whether all have responded to, or answered to the responsibilities is another matter, but from the passage quoted it is evident that all believers are called to it
The fellowship being that of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, the Lord Himself is the bond of our fellowship. To us Christians there Is one Lord. We must be true to his name. This is a matter of immense importance. We must ever remember the necessity of confessing Christ as our Lord and owning His authority over every department of our lives. If the reader knows of anything of his own life, his personal conduct, habits, etc., business or domestic which does not please the Lord, let him judge himself, for until he does so it is useless, indeed damaging, for him to attempt to take up the question we are about to consider. To discuss church questions when we know there is something in our lives individually that is not pleasing to the Lord, is damaging to a degree. If we are to speak about ‘our Lord’, and His will for us, each of us must recognise Him as Lord, and do His will in our personal lives individually. We cannot be right collectively, unless we are right individually; but in addition to our individual history with the Lord, we have a collective responsibility as forming part of the assembly which He loved and for which He gave Himself. It is to this side of our spiritual exercises, obviously, that our inquiry applies.
It is very evident that anyone whose life is moulded on the On the principles inculcated by the word of God, of obeying the Lord Jesus, will find little real companionship with those whose life is fashioned according to the world; the whole principle of life is different, and practically there will little or nothing in common. The believer, however, is by no means to lead a life of isolation. He may find himself very isolated from the mere worldling, from worldly-minded Christians also. They may separate him from their company; he may be despised and rejected, as was his Master before him. But although isolated as to the world, the believer can say, as the Psalmist did, ‘I am a companion of all them that fear thee’ Psalm 119:63. It is here that fellowship comes in.
There is no part between him that believeth and an unbeliever; but there is a very great deal in common, and a very real and vital bond between all believers, and if our lives are what they should be in practice, we shall find real companionship in those that do the will of God. The One we obey is the One they obey ; and obedience to that one Lord will blend our lives together. Not only does each individual believer know Jesus as Lord, but as together in the same path of obedience to His will we can say, ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’. To us there is ‘to us there is … one Lord, Jesus Christ’,(1 Cor 8:6). The fact of every believer owning the same Lord, establishes a bond between them. We are called into the Fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. We must be true to this bond and His fellowship. Fellowship is only practically realised as we recognise in our conduct and in our associations what is in keeping with the Lord’s name.
Hence, before fellowship becomes realisable the believer must be true to the name of the Lord not only in his personal conduct, but in all his associations. It is important to see that we may be defiled by our associations as well as by actual conduct. Numbers 19:22, makes this very clear : ‘And whatever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until even’ See also Lev 13 & 14 and Hag 2:11-14 This same principle of defilement by association is seen in the New Testament: see Gal 5:9, 1 Cor 5:6-7, 2 John v.10-11.
If a believer’s personal conduct is inconsistent with the name of the Lord, who is the Holy and the True—he is by that very fact morally, or spiritually, unclean. It is not always seen, however, that if others associate with such a one, that is to say, if he ‘touches’ them, or they ‘touch’ him, they also unclean. Further, if a believer, whose personal conduct may be otherwise consistent, identifies himself with those who are associating with the unclean person, he also becomes unclean This fact is very exercising and sobering. We may have opportunity again to refer to this important matter.
Each of us is to own the Lord and be consistent with His name in every sphere of our lives. If we own Him thus, fellowship ceases to be a mere term, and becomes a practical reality. Clearly, if things are otherwise, and man does what is right in his own eyes, fellowship is impossible. One Lord is to control all. What is consistent with His name is to be recognised by each of us. So only can the expression, ‘To us There is one Lord’ (1 Cor 8:6), have vital meaning.
Christian fellowship is also the fellowship of Christ’s death, the communion of the blood of Christ, of which the Lord’s supper is the repeated expression, and to which we commit ourselves by partaking of the Supper, by drinking of that one cup.
As an Israelite who ate of the sacrifices was professedly in communion with the altar of Jehovah, so a believer who partakes of the Lord’s supper avows his communion, or fellowship, with the death of Christ. Nothing inconsistent with the death of Christ can ever be allowed. Christ in His death has become our altar—the basis of fellowship for all believers—at once severing us Judaism, or that which answers to it today; that is, any system of worship of a material or formal kind, and from idolatry, whether in its past or present-day forms. How really exclusive Christian fellowship is! The more we consider the communion of the death of Christ, the more we shall see how necessarily it shuts out all that is of the world, religious or profane
We may well speak of the cup as ‘the cup of blessing which we bless’, but we must remember equally that it is the communion of the blood of Christ. If we are partakers of the benefit secured by the death of Christ, we must be true to that which that death witnesses, and to which we are committed. The death of Christ forbids any link with the world. This is involved in our baptism. It is again forced upon our attention, as we partake of the Lord’s supper. He who is a friend of the world is an enemy of God. To be one with the world would be virtually to deny the death of Christ of which the blood of Christ ” is the witness. The cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ. How great the blessing secured thereby! How great the love expressed therein! It was a love that gave up all for us, so that endless and measureless blessing might be ours. We are sharers together in that cup of blessing; we must together, as one, refuse the world. Any worldliness would provoke the Lord to jealousy. His love is so great He can have no rival, no idol in our hearts. We must not allow another to share our hearts with Christ. To do this after committing ourselves to such a bond of fellowship, would provoke Him to jealousy, and we should find ourselves, typically speaking, under the curse (See Numbers 5). here is a suggestion of this type in 1 Corinthians 10:22 and 16:22. Worldliness among God’s people is very serious
The world has a religious form as well as a profane one. Judaism has its present-day features in much that is current in the professed circles of Christianity. ‘Sodom and Egypt’ are typical of the profane world; ‘where also our Lord was crucified’ speaks of the religious world. See (Revelation 11:8). Worldliness is most seductive when it wears religious clothing. Idolatry is most deceptive when linked with a feast to the Lord. (See Exodus 32:4,5). May the Lord keep us clear of such unholy associations, ever remembering that by the Lord’s s upper we are professedly in the ‘communion of the blood of Christ’.
‘The communion of the Holy Spirit’ is a remarkable expression ; it is found in 2 Corinthians 13:14. We have been baptised by one Spirit into one body. We may have occasion to develop this side of our subject a little later on. Here we may remark that, since the Holy Spirit is the power of Christian fellowship, anything of the world or the flesh, anything in the way of mere human arrangements in the assembly of God, or maintenance of merely social links one with another, must necessarily greatly hinder the fellowship. It need scarcely be remarked that the setting aside practically of the liberty of Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 by appointment of a minister, or any attempt to arrange the service or of God, must greatly grieve the Holy Spirit and thus hinder and prevent what is normal to our collective experience. Moreover, in the measure in which we in our assembly life, friendships on basis of what is merely natural, links of social kind, etc., in that measure fellowship is hindered, yea, it is impossible.
Our links as Christians are not in the flesh or according to what we are naturally, socially, nationally or racially, but according to what we are ‘in (the) Spirit.’ Here we have a power, the Holy Spirit, that binds us all together, that gives us spiritual tastes in common one with another, spiritual sensibilities and perception. And in the measure in which we recognise what is of the Spirit in a practical way, we shall prove what is ‘the communion of the Holy Spirit’. Many practical considerations flow from these facts. May we not each ask himself the questions:
To do these things we must, surely, refuse the flesh in its many subtle forms, and make room for the Holy Spirit and for what is spiritual. To the Corinthians the apostle had to write, ‘I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal’ (1 Cor 3:1). Were he writing to us now would he have to say the same thing? Are there not schools of thought? Are there not some Christians who are definitely boasting in following the ideas propounded by some Christian leader of so-called thought? Let abandon those fleshly habits, dear reader, and seek only to be led by the Spirit, and thus answer to the beautiful type of Rebecca of whom it is written, ‘the servant [a type of the Holy Spirit] took Rebecca, and went his way’ (Gen 24:61)
To summarise, then, what has been before us: the Lord is the bond of Christian fellowship, the death of Christ is the basis thereof, and the Holy Spirit is the power of this fellowship, making it subjectively real.
Now it is obvious that the character of Christian fellowship being such, it must of necessity be universal in its bearing.
The universal character of fellowship is a fact of wide and practical bearing. Whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, America or Australasia, the fellowship is one, and wherever we are we must be true to it. Conduct suitable to it in one place, is suitable to it in any other place; and what is unsuitable to it in one place is unsuitable to it in any other. Locality can make no difference in a matter of this kind, for the considerations are moral, and therefore universal, in their application. Let us ever remember this fact.
Moreover, the same principle has its application to persons. If anyone is suitable or fellowship in one locality, he is obviously suitable for it in any other locality. Hence, in the early days of the assembly, letters of commendation were customary, which enabled a believer going from one place to another to be received suitably by those into whose district he might going. See 2 Cor 3:1, Rom 16:1, Acts 18:27. Similarly, if the conduct or associations of anyone are such that he is rendered unfit for fellowship in one place, he is unfit for it in any other place. If we seek to be true to Christian fellowship, we must always and everywhere recognise this principle. How often it is, and has been, overlooked by believers. To do so is to deny the character of fellowship.
The principle applies equally to actions of a collective nature. If evil exist in one locality, unless dealt with according to God, those in any other locality acknowledging bonds of fellowship with those allowing such evil are identified therewith and are responsible as to the matter, as being involved in the evil by association. Any discipline that might be necessary as to dealing with evil, would have to be exercised in the locality in which it is, as the apostle shows in 1 Corinthians 5; but nevertheless, the acknowledgment of the bonds of fellowship carries with it all that fellowship implies, which is complete association, and, let us remember, association with evil defiles.
Moreover, fellowship being universal, nothing relating thereto can have a purely local character or effect. This fact entirely forbids anything in the nature of an independent or local fellowship. Hence, in like manner this principle necessitates that the action of any one gathering walking consistently with Christian fellowship involves every other gathering acknowledging the bonds of fellowship therewith; and similarly, if a gathering refuse to judge evil in their midst, this involves in its guilt those in fellowship with it. No action can be purely local in its character or effect.
We would ask the thoughtful reader to consider how seriously these principles have been overlooked or ignored by many Christians, however unwittingly. It is not uncommon to find believers meeting together in a place to take the Lord’s supper and maintaining that their fellowship is purely local, and that they are an independent local company of Christians. This is, in practice, to deny the very fellowship professedly expressed in their assumed action of taking the Supper. The Supper cannot rightly be taken apart from recognising the fact of ‘one body’ being here on earth, and nothing is clearer than the apostle’s words in the 1 Corinthians 10:17, ’Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf’. This ‘we’ is what may termed the Christian ‘we’, that is to say it embraces the universal ‘one body’ of all believers, the one fellowship of which is normally expressed in taking the Lord’s supper. To attempt to take the Lord’s supper and at the same time profess to be an independent local company, is to deny the first principle of Christian fellowship; for Christian fellowship is universal. It may be replied, however,’ But we are in fellowship with all Christians!’ Yet this, surely, cannot really meant. Do such mean to that they are in fellowship with every professing Christian, whatever his conduct or associations, be he immoral or a blasphemer or in fellowship with such, or be he linked with some antichristian, or religious system, which they who so speak would denounce as wrong? If so, this is evil indeed! It is true that all Christians are called to Christian fellowship, the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and we should be true to this fellowship, as we have already seen. But are all Christians true to it? If not we cannot say we are in fellowship with them. Were the Corinthians in fellowship with the man whom they were told to remove from among themselves? Clearly not. They had to cut their links of fellowship and not even to eat with the incestuous person. No, dear reader, fellowship means partnership, and this involves identification, and for any to be identified with evil means that they are evil too.
Now that the assembly, so far as its outward profession is concerned, is in confusion, and all manner of evil exists in the sphere of Christian profession, it becomes increasingly necessary to adhere to divine principles. we are to take a path of a collective character, the Christian’s path in days of difficulty, we must recognise the principles governing Christian fellowship; we must also constantly remind ourselves that, as believers on our Lord Jesus, we are not merely so many individuals.
However separate from evil and from evil associations we each must be individually, since we have received the Holy Spirit, we are vitally linked with all believers on earth; ‘We all have been baptised by one Spirit into one body’ (1 Cor 12:13). Therefore, in addition to the principles already considered as governing Christian fellowship, we must also consider the principles governing the assembly as ‘one body’.
The fact of assembly being one body has both a local and a universal application. Though local assemblies are recognised, Scripture makes it abundantly plain that the assembly is one universally. Those who composed local assemblies, as having been baptised with all other believers by ‘one Spirit’, made but ‘one body’; though the local assembly was to have the character of Christ’s body as we may see farther on.
Whatever breakdown may have taken place in the public profession of Christianity, the assembly Of God, as already remarked, has in no way ceased or changed in its vital existence and character. The apostle addresses Christians thus in 1 Corinthians 1. Let the reader pay attention to this epistle. The manner of address shows that although the epistle was written to the particular assembly in Corinth, its bearing was universal. Hence we find such expressions as, ‘so ordain I in all churches’ (1 Cor 7:17). ‘We have no such custom, neither the churches of God (ch. 11:16), and again, ‘as in all churches of the saints’ (ch. 14:33).
Moreover, the manner in which the apostle addressed the assembly in Corinth also shows it was identified, or associated with ‘all that in every place upon the name Of Jesus Christ our Lord,’ (1 Cor 1:2) who, indeed, was Lord both to them and to all other believers; for to us, Christians, there is but one Lord
Other scriptures show equally that the assembly as ‘one body’ is considered as one whole existing on earth at any given time. Ephesians 4:4 tells us that there is ‘one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling’. For there to be the hope of our calling, the one body must be here. Ephesians 4:15-16 again speaks of the assembly as the ‘whole body’ increasing and growing, Christ being the Head. To increase and grow the body must be here. Then again in Colossians 3:15 we read that ‘we are called in one body’. From the nature of the exhortations given in these passages, it is clear that they could not possibly apply to us when we are in heaven; they refer to us here and speak about what has been brought about on earth. Jew and Gentile have been formed into one body, which clearly refers to what has taken place on earth; and this is confirmed by exhortation in Ephesians 4:3-4, to maintain the unity of the Spirit, because ‘There and one Spirit, even as ye have been called in one hope of your calling’.
1 Corinthians 12:13, however, very emphatically asserts this unity as existing on earth, having been brought about by all believers having been baptised by ‘one Spirit’. The ‘we’ of verse 13 is clearly a universal ‘we’, and include every believer on earth, since all have been baptised by ‘one Spirit’. Whereas the ‘ye’ of verse 27, refers to those in Corinthian assembly. ‘Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular’. Let the reader carefully note this fact : the assembly is one body on earth at this present time: one body universally. Fellowship is one, and the assembly is one: ‘one body’.
Yet we must equally observe that local assemblies existed. We have seen this to be so in Corinth. Those who composed each local assembly were not only ‘one body’ with all other believers on earth, as we have already seen, but local assembly which they composed was to have the character of the whole; characteristically it was ‘Christ’s body’, as seen from 1 Corinthians 12:27. Notice the change of pronoun: ‘we all’ (verse 13), ‘ye’ in verse 27.
The writer of the of book of Acts refers to many such local assemblies as having been established by Barnabas and the apostle Paul, chapters 14:23, and 16:5, as well as those previously existing in Judea, ch. 9:31. These local assemblies, however, were not independent bodies, but were bound together by the common bond of Christian fellowship, and by the fact that all believers had been baptised by ‘one Spirit into one body’;hence, as remarked, the ‘we’ of 1 Corinthians 12:13, is undoubtedly a universal ‘we’. The local assemblies were to have the features of the whole. ‘Now ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular’ (verse 27).
It is to be regretted that a great number of believers are allowing the idea of independent assemblies. It is difficult to conceive anything more contrary to the teaching of the epistles. We scarcely imagine the apostle Paul, who insists so strongly on the unity ofthe assembly as one body on earth in his epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians, establishing local assemblies and teaching them that they were not
independent. The assembly is not an aggregate of a number of independent bodies; It is not a confederation of a multitude of local assemblies; it is one whole, as Scripture most plainly asserts, ‘There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling’ (Eph 4:4).
However, it is necessary to see that the administration of the assembly is not carried out universally; that is to say, by any central body or authority governing the whole, but is out in the several localities, bearing in mind that their actions have a universal effect, inasmuch as their bonds of fellowship are universal.
This being the case, it is necessary that we take up our places locally in the recognition of what we are as forming with all other Christians ‘one body’ universally. In other words, we approach our local exercises from a universal standpoint. As already remarked, it was God’s desire that the assembly should not be a universal organisation governed by some metropolitan centre such as Jerusalem was, or such as, alas, Rome assumes to be. It was His will that though one universally, it should find characteristic local expression in whatever place believers might be. It was to be truly catholic, that is ‘universal’ (for word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’), a vital organism, ‘one body’ universally; yet to have administrative powers locally, which were to be exercised in the consideration of what was universal. Hence, as we have noticed, the address at the beginning of the epistle to the Corinthians is not ‘unto the church of God which is at Corinth with all that call upon the name Of Jesus Christ our Lord’, but ‘with all that in every place call the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. That is to say, there was the definite recognition of locality in regard of believers as constituting the assembly in the place in which they lived; yet they were not independent, for they were all bound together in the bonds of one universal fellowship, and by the fact that all believers form but ‘one body’ on earth.
The Lord has greatly helped of His beloved people, not only to recognise that dry are vitally linked with every believer on earth as forming with them one body, but to recognise equally their place locally, and to seek to carry out in their own localityprinciples which govern the assembly universally.
From the foregoing remarks it is evident that action of any one assembly in the early days of the Christian epoch would not have had a purely local bearing. If the command of the Lord was carried out in Corinth it would necessarily have to regarded by all who in place called on the name of that Lord. Moreover, the ‘body’ being one universally, those who composed the local assembly were part of the one whole; therefore, their action in carrying out administration in their locality; that is to say, the action of the local assembly, affected the whole, and had a universal bearing
This principle is of the utmost importance, but, it is to be feared, very much overlooked. If we would seek to walk in a path pleasing to the Lord in this day of difficulty, if we today seek to walk in the light that Scripture affords us regarding the assembly, and to depart from all that is contrary to divine principles, we must recognise, at least, that the assembly is one universally, ‘one body’.
The action of any local gathering of such who so walk, therefore cannot have only a local bearing. If today an individual is under discipline as an evildoer, and is so judged by those who act in their locality in the light that Scripture affords regarding the assembly, so that he cannot be allowed to partake of the Lord’s with them, he cannot rightly be received anywhere else. For another gathering to receive him would be an act of independence, and a denial of Christian fellowship and of the fact that the assembly is one universally. As another has said, ‘If a person is to be received in one place when he is rejected in another, it is evident there is an end to unity and common action. The assembly being ‘one body’ universally, and fellowship being universal also, the action of any one gathering of believers walking in the light that Scripture affords regarding the assembly and acting on divine principles, involves all others who are also walking in the bonds of fellowship.
Similarly, if a gathering refuses to judge evil in its midst, it involves in its guilt those in the bonds of fellowship with it. There is no warrant in Scripture for independent assemblies or purely local fellowship. The assembly is one body universally.
It may be added here that owning these great spiritual realities and principles, would lead us to recognise that a believer is local in the place where he resides. Hence if anyone were under discipline by an assembly and were, while in that state, to move into another locality, if or when the Lord graciously brings about recovery, his case would have to be dealt with by saints in the gathering in the locality in which he is at the time of his recovery. If he is living in Corinth, so to speak, he is local there; if in Colosse, he is local there.
All administration, whether of discipline or recovery, must be carried out locally.
These passages put this question beyond controversy. The person is recovered in the place where he resides at the time of recovery.
In dealing with such a case, the few who desire to act according to principles proper to the assembly, would rightly get all the help they could from those who had to deal with the person when the discipline was exercised; they could in the Lord’s name call upon any one anywhere to give evidence to them; but clearly those in the locality Where the person resides would have the responsibility of handling the matter, and the Lord would support them in the discharge of their responsibility. It is well that this fact should ever be remembered. The present state of a person is only known in the place where he lives; and the Lord supports those in that place in discerning matters, for it is their responsibility.
‘Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee’. ‘By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. … For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God’. ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness’ (Gen 12:1, Heb 11:8,10, Rom 4:3)
‘Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. Naomi and Ruth Return to Bethlehem So they two went until they came to Bethlehem’. (Ruth 1:16-19)
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God’. (Matt 14:24-33)
Sosthenes
September 2017
Christians have differed as to the subject of everlasting punishment.
Simple Bible-believing Christians accept that the consequence of rejecting the gospel is eternal punishment in hell. Unfortunately, many modern teachers proclaim lies:
Eternal does not mean ‘without end’
Everybody, including unbelievers, will be saved – Universalism
The wicked will be consumed and annihilated – Annihilationism.
Souls will return in another body – Re-incarnation
Christians have differed as to the subject of everlasting punishment.
Simple Bible-believing Christians accept that the consequence of rejecting the gospel is eternal punishment in hell. Unfortunately, many modern teachers proclaim lies:
The simple believer has no doubt that persons who reject the glad tidings will suffer in hell eternally. The English Bible leave him/her in no doubt that the punishment of the wicked is eternal. ‘And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever … And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. …And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire’ (Rev 21:10,12,15).
However, the theological intelligentsia has created alternative arguments:
These arguments are mutually exclusive.
Darby was a Greek scholar and he was perfectly satisfied that the word meant ‘without end’ God warns the reader that eternal misery is the portion of the wicked. If that were not the case, would God frighten people with something that was not true? Strong defines αἰώνιος as ‘age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting’.
Rev 5:14 says, ‘And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.’ The worshippers worship for ever and ever. On the other hand, ‘The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name’ (Rev 14:11). For ever and ever is just that – eternal.
These persons call themselves Christian universalists. The idea that all will be saved is monstrous and unscriptural lie. Scripture makes it clear that some are saved and others are damned. If this were not the case what would be the point of Christ’s atonement, because those who rejected Christ’s work would be saved anyway? It would follow that even the devil would have to be saved – without Christ. When scripture says ‘should not perish’ – they argue that none would perish; when scripture says ‘whose end is destruction’ – they have no answer since they believe that all will come into happiness, but the wicked would have to wait a little longer. They argue that the condemned are such for a time only – like the Catholics believe in purgatory.
This view, Darby said, was much in vogue in Britain during his lifetime. I believe it still is. Annihilationists say that death means simply ceasing to exist, as it does for the animals. If life is to be found only in Christ – ‘He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life’ (1 John 5:12), then those who do not believe have no life. They claim that after a certain quantity of punishment, the wicked will be turned out of existence, annihilated or consumed by the fire of hell, and exist no more. However, if when they died they ceased to exist, how were they to be made alive (without the work of Christ) in order to exist? Are they to be revived just to be punished?
Both of the above subvert God’s claims and the work of Christ.
As far as I can see, there is no reference to reincarnation in Darby’s writings. I am adding it though since, sadly many Christians have, in more recent times, borrowed this notion from Buddhism and Hinduism. It becomes a way of avoiding having a direct experience with God and accepting the work of Christ. ‘Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation’ (Heb 9:26-28).
Christ endured the wrath of a majestic and holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Eternal punishment is the terrible consequence of the enmity of man’s heart against God; eternal blessedness is the result of God’s free and blessed grace. Simple-minded Christians believe this, as they believe scripture.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son’ (1 John 5:10-11)
Poor sinner, you are to meet God. Are you competent to judge how much punishment He should assign to you for your quantity of sin. He is to judge you in love. Love is what He is. But He is God, and does what pleases Him. His love for His Son; His love for those who have accepted the work of His Son, obliges Him to punish you eternally if you refuse His love. Mark this: if the Spirit of God has touched your conscience, you know that you deserve to be shut out of the presence of God for ever. You are conscious that you have deserved eternal wrath and punishment. You are a sinner: — What, in your own conscience, does sin deserve? And further, if it is a question what sin deserves, it is a question of what Christ bore, what His atonement was; for He bore our sins and was made sin for us. (Lightly edited by Sosthenes).
This is a summary of a paper by John Nelson Darby ‘A Brief Scriptural Evidence on the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, for Plain People’. It is published in Collected Writings Volume 7 (Doctrinal 2) page 1.
Sosthenes
August 2017
The essence of my current view of fellowship is that it is experience and not a membership system. I seem to discern believers amongst ban elaboration of Paul’s statement that the Corinthians had been called into the fellowship of God’s Son with which I am uncomfortable. It suggests that this is a calling, which is additional to the call in the gospel, and that there are those who have responded to the call in the gospel but have failed to respond to the call into the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I don’t accept this. It implies a division in the body of Christ between those who have entered into this fellowship and those who have failed to do so.
In answer to my paper on What do we mean by Christian Fellowship?
Brother Jim in Scotland writes:
The essence of my current view of Christian fellowship is that it is experience and not a membership system.
Paul went to Corinth in Acts 18 and, as was his custom, made his way to the synagogue. When it was finally clear that his message was firmly rejected by the Jews, he said that he would go to the nations. However, he was received by Justus; Crispus believed with all his house and many of the Corinthians, who had heard and believed, were baptised.
These people, from diverse backgrounds, now had the things relating to the faith of Jesus Christ in common in every circumstance of life. Whether they met together by arrangement or bumped into one another in the street, they had a link, related to their common faith, which they had with no others. This was Christian fellowship. It was known to them before Paul wrote his first letter to them. In chapter 1 of his first letter, he refers to this known link and enlightens them as to its exalted level – it is the fellowship of God’s Son. FER refers to having the things before we have the words and I think that this applies here.
I seem to discern believers amongst ban elaboration of Paul’s statement that the Corinthians had been called into the fellowship of God’s Son with which I am uncomfortable. It suggests that this is a calling, which is additional to the call in the gospel, and that there are those who have responded to the call in the gospel but have failed to respond to the call into the fellowship of God’s Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I don’t accept this. It implies a division in the body of Christ between those who have entered into this fellowship and those who have failed to do so.
There is the intimation, in this point of view, that fellowship is a membership system which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ. It has been ministered that ‘we form an association and all the members of the association are governed by the same thoughts and feelings and ‘All those breaking bread form part of the association, as we all partake of one loaf.’ An inescapable conclusion from these statements is that those members of the body of Christ not breaking bread have no part in this membership system. Fellowship is thus defined as a membership system which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ. This is the definition of a sect.
There is no higher expression of that which Christians have in common, i.e. Christian fellowship, than participation in the breaking of bread but I think that it must be borne in mind that that we do this for a calling of Him to mind, according to His request. To make the breaking of bread the confirmation ritual of membership of a fellowship, which is narrower than membership of the body of Christ, is to degrade it from what was instituted by the Lord.
If, as I believe, fellowship is experience, expressions such as ‘a fellowship’, ‘the fellowship’, ‘in fellowship’ and ‘out of fellowship’ lose their force; they all seem to me to imply membership. We, very simply, walk with others and find fellowship with them as we do so. The scriptural warrant for this, which includes moral and spiritual requirements, is in 2 Tim 2 and 1 John 1.
You refer to FE Raven Vol. 17 p40-41. Also are relevant is Vol. 18, p.63: ‘I have nothing to do with anybody else save to walk with them’ and so on. I have the impression from his ministry in the USA in 1902 that FER had become increasingly concerned with the way in which brethren were institutionalising. My view is that this concern about “brethrenism” was disregarded and accounts for the development of corporatist views of fellowship.
What do we mean by ‘fellowship’?
How many fellowships are there?
What are the moral aspects to fellowship?
Where does the breaking of bread fit in?
How does fellowship relate to ‘withdrawing from iniquity’
What does it mean to be ‘in fellowship’ or ‘out of fellowship’?
These are questions which concern many Christians and have been the cause of much controversy. This short note makes some fundamental observations backed by scripture. It leaves other questions unanswered and I invite the reader to give me any thoughts he or she has on this important subject.
The dictionary gives the word as meaning
None of these definitions relate to what we mean by ‘fellowship’ in a Christian sense.
Two words are used – one normally a noun and the other a verb. See below[i] for the references to ‘fellowship’ in scripture.
So the only reference to fellowship with persons is in 1 John 1. Two references to God are as having fellowship with the Holy Spirit and one to the fellowship of God’s Son. These have been highlighted in yellow. All of the other references to κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia)/Strong (2842), highlighted in green, have a moral base – we have fellowship with a thing rather than a person
It is very clear from scripture that the only true fellowship to which the Christian belongs is the fellowship of God’s Son ‘God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor 1:9)’. Being a member of this fellowship should preclude the believer being in any other formal fellowship. As we saw above ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’ (2 Cor 6:14).
I am linked in a wonderful fellowship with every believer in the Lord Jesus who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It is a partnership: we share things in common. ‘Our commonwealth has its existence in [the] heavens, from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ [as] Saviour’ (Phil 3:20 Darby). This affects all our relationships here.
As we are in that fellowship we have fellowship with one another – but that must be as walking in the light. The light must be the light of the revelation of God in Christ[ii]: it is certainly not a humanly written creed.
Of course, there are limitations to enjoying fellowship. None of us has contact with more than a tiny percentage of the Lord’s people on earth. We are scattered geographically, and alas, we are scattered ecclesiastically.
Individual churches and whole denominations often describe themselves as fellowships, e.g. Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. On the internet, somebody had listed 150 churches in his (US) city. Most of them had them had the word ‘church’ in their name, eight had the word ‘fellowship’ in it e.g. Christ Centered Fellowship or Covenant Fellowship.
Whilst people forming these assemblies or groups of assemblies are very sincere, I would suggest that they have something less than that which our Lord has in mind for us. It is sectarian. Frederick Raven used to speak of a ‘little pattern church’ – persons there would talk about ‘our fellowship’ as if that was a better fellowship than another Christian fellowship. He had a real problem with that[iii]!
We have fellowship with His sufferings, with light, or exercising it in giving or in ministry. We do not have fellowship with evil deeds or darkness. We may break bread together, but if you see that I am going on with evil, you cannot have fellowship with me. Of course, if I continue with that, there will come a time when those Christians I meet with will deem that I cannot have fellowship with them, and that would mean that they judge me to be unfit for Christian fellowship anywhere, not just that there is a difference of opinion or discouragement. Paul writes ‘But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.’ (1 Cor 5:11).
The highest point in a Christian church’s calendar is the breaking of bread. In some churches this might be called ‘holy communion’; in the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic churches, it is called the ‘mass’. Others might refer to it as the ‘worship service’. There is a lot of unscriptural dogma attached to this (e.g. transubstantiation), but the basic point is that participation is limited to members of the church. Sometimes visitors will be invited to share in it.
The Lord asked us to do something simple. ‘This do in rememberance of me’ (Luke 22:19). Paul gave it a public view: ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come’ (1 Cor 11:26). Whatever it is, it is responding to the Lord’s request to remember Him in the world in which He was rejected.
What is important is that nowhere in scripture is the breaking of bread used to define the membership of a Christian group. We break bread in the light of the one body. A brother wrote to me recently saying ‘the breaking of bread becomes the badge of fellowship, and everything flows from that, whereas, in truth, it is the other way round – I break bread with brethren with whom I am happy to be in fellowship as the highest expression of fellowship, and as an exclusive commitment to those with whom I am in fellowship.’ I couldn’t have put it better.
In days of brokenness in Christendom, any individual seeking to be faithful to the Lord is called upon to depart from iniquity. The word ἀδικία (adikia) Strong 93 is generally translated ‘unrighteousness’. But the positive side of this is seen in the way in which the believer is able to find those he or she can walk with. Charles Coates said that if Christian fellowship is to be taken up in a divine way in the present condition of things it can only be as we ‘pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart’ (2 Tim 2:22)[iv].
How we define iniquity is the subject for another paper.
When it comes to ‘withdrawing from’ persons, it relates to behaviour. ‘Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us’ (2 Thess 3:6 Darby). That goes on to ‘do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (v.14-15). This is how we treat a person with whom we are walking. A distance comes in so that the person can reflect on his behaviour and repent.
These expressions are used freely and this is where I think we need to look into what is meant. I have been looking at the websites of several evangelical Christian churches and the word is used freely. What strikes me is that my perceptions have been tainted with exposure to the line of thinking on these sites. Having been delivered nearly 50 years ago from the sect which has now become known as the PBCC, looking at their site I can see this very clearly. But they are by no means unique – in fact the norm. Sectarian thought pervades. Shortly before my 101-year-old mother was taken, she was put beside another Christian lady in the home. When I spoke to the latter I said ‘I hear you are a lover of the Lord Jesus’. Her reply ‘I’m a Methodist’ – end of conversation. Sad.
But then we have to be selective. Somebody comes to our gathering (I wish it was more frequent!). As a fellow believer, immediately there is fellowship. Indeed one could say they were ‘in fellowship’. Now that person says, ‘I would like to break bread with you’. We then have to ask questions as to his or her beliefs, conduct and associations – have they ‘washed their robes’. Are they linking us in partnership with something which is incompatible with Christian fellowship?
Similarly, if a person espouses heretical doctrine (See Titus 3:10) or becomes morally unfit (see 1 Cor 5:11), then the company has to exercise discipline. That person, if unrepentant, must be excluded from fellowship. He is then unfit for Christian fellowship anywhere – ‘out of fellowship’. If that person then went to the Baptists for example, and they were to ask our company as to why we parted company with him, then they ought not to receive him based on what we said. Fellowship, therefore, transcends sectarian boundaries.
A serious question is the extent to which, being ‘in’ or ‘out of’ fellowship becomes sectarian. For example, if a young person becomes discouraged, and links on with a charismatic gathering where things are more exciting, we may no longer be able to break bread with that person. However, he is not a heretic or a morally corrupt person. He remains a believer, but we are unable to support his associations. If we were to deem him ‘out of Christian fellowship’, would we be going beyond what the Lord would support? Would we be on sectarian ground? Would we be losing sight of the ‘one body’?
These thoughts have been presented after both prayer and study of the scriptures and helpful ministry. I am not presenting them as statements of dogma – more to stimulate exercise in others and to have a dialogue on this important subject.
A brother wrote to me recently in which he lamented the way we go to extremes one way or the other. One was to ritualism; the other to rationalism. Formality and legalism are Pharisaical, and we knew what the Lord said about that. On the other hand, rationalism is allowing my own carnal thoughts to come to conclusions about spiritual things. This could be worse.
The Holy Spirit is the One who guides us into all the truth.
Here is a summary in tabular form:
|
Outlook towards: Legality * Ritualism * Sectarianism |
|
In Fellowship |
|
|
Out of Fellowship |
|
|
Outlook towards: Liberalism * Rationalism * Independence |
|
In Fellowship |
|
|
Out of Fellowship |
|
My position is with neither of the extremes above. For example, I feel I need to be selective as to breaking bread. If the Lord has given me two or three to break bread with, then I can be thankful. In the early church they broke bread in houses (see Acts 2:46). Big communion services were not envisaged.
I welcome your prayerful thoughts.
With greetings in our Lord
Daniel Roberts (aka Sosthenes)
Below are a few helpful quotations from ministry relating to the above. Our brother ‘Agabus’ put together a far better series of quotations in a booklet entitled ‘Universal Fellowship and the Local Assembly’. Please e-mail me sosthenes@adoss.co.uk for a copy.
We recognise the authority of our Lord — and, further, any meeting is justified in protecting itself by declining to receive into its fellowship a person coming from a meeting lying under strong suspicion of sheltering evil — but one meeting has no sort of authority to pronounce an authoritative judgment on another meeting — and call on others to obey — for the Lord is equally in both meetings, and it is an invasion of His rights (F E Raven letters vol 20 p 293)
The fellowship of the Lord’s table, that side of it, is the fellowship of His death. What binds Christians together in fellowship is the common confession as Lord of “his Son Jesus Christ”. It is not fellowship with Him, but of Him. That bond subsists down here, and we are all equally responsible to maintain it according to God. In John’s epistle we have, in chapter 1: 3, “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”; but the “our” there no doubt refers to the apostles. Further on, when it says, “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another”, we have Christian fellowship in the sphere where all Christians walk.
Ques. Were not the saints at Corinth all wrong as to fellowship?
F.E.R. No doubt things were in many ways in a bad state. But there could be no other bond of fellowship down here. It has a voice to all the world; because there is not a single person on all the earth but ought to confess Christ as Lord — for “he is Lord of all”.
Ques. Are all Christians in this fellowship?
F.E.R. They are all called to it. There is not and could not be any other bond of fellowship but that of Christ as Lord, and His death.
In stating it here the apostle appeals to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”. It is the broad ground of Christian fellowship. (F E Raven Vol 7 p 402 – Christian Fellowship)
The Spirit of God would teach us in 1 Corinthians 10 that the communion or fellowship which is involved in breaking bread is universal in character. To break bread locally without regard to the universal fellowship would be like eating the hallowed things in our own gates instead of in the place where Jehovah’s Name is set. We must come spiritually to a “place” which speaks of the unity of all Israel in fellowship and in approach to God. As to the actual coming together to eat the Lord’s supper it is in “every place” where His Name is called upon, but fellowship and approach to God are universal in character. While our assembly relations are taken up locally, it is important to see that they are taken up in the light of what is universal, so that in taking them up we embrace, in mind and affection, all saints. Viewing the saints according to what is of God would lead to our being exclusive of every principle or practice that is contrary to the universal truth of God’s assembly. We should neither tolerate sectarianism nor independency. We are reconciled to God “in one body”; therefore assembly approach to God must be in the recognition of this. There could be no stronger expression of unity than “one body” formed by “one Spirit”, and that the Holy Spirit of God. (C A Coates vol 5 p 147 – An Outline of Deuteronomy)
The seriousness of one local company interfering with another local company came up at this point, and we were impressed with the Lord’s jealousy of His rights in each locality, noting the Lord’s separate word to each of the seven assemblies in Revelation 2 and 3, and also, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, (Matthew 18:20). Flowing out of this we were helped to see that in 1 Corinthians 5 it is not a question of repentance, but of the offender “being such” and “him that has so wrought this”. It was a matter of public wickedness. Here a helpful suggestion was made that, while many matters such as “some fault” (Galatians 6:1) can be ‘mended’ privately, others involve the one, two, three of Matthew 18, while certain cases in which the Lord’s name has been dishonoured must come under assembly discipline . In 1 Corinthians 5, nothing is said about repentance but “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves” 1 Corinthians 5:13. – (J Taylor Vol 76 p 469 – Meetigs on Letters to Timothy This reading 1 Tim 2 & 3)
[i] Most often it is the noun – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia) – Strong (2842) defines it as
(a) contributory help, participation,
(b) sharing in, communion,
(c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.
koinōnía (a feminine noun) – properly, what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship (partnership, community).
Darby notes to Heb 2:14 – Applying to the children – The common equal sharing of the nature. It is a joint participation in that which belongs to me, or to a known fellowship.
I have coloured the quotations as follows
Ref to person – physical
Ref to thing/state – moral
Nominative (subject) – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia)
Acts 2:42 the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship
1 Corinthians 10:16 not the communion of the blood … not the communion of the body
2 Corinthians 6:14 and what communion hath light with darkness
2 Corinthians 13:14 and the communion of the Holy Ghost
Philippians 1:5 For your fellowship in the gospel
Philippians 2:1 if any fellowship of the Spirit,
Philemon:6 That the communication of thy faith so that the fellowship of the faith
1 John 1:3 truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and the Son
Accusative (object) κοινωνίαν (koinōnian)
Romans 15:26 a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
1 Corinthians 1:9 unto the fellowship of his Son
2 Corinthians 8:4 and [take upon us] the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
Philippians 3:10 and the fellowship of his sufferings
1 John 1:3 also may have fellowship with us:
1 John 1:6 that we have fellowship with him,
1 John 1:7 we have fellowship one with another,
Genitive (possessive) κοινωνίας (koinōnias)
2 Corinthians 9:13 for [your] liberal distribution unto
Galatians 2:9 the right hands of fellowship; that
Hebrews 13:16 and to communicate forget
As a verb we have συγκοινωνέω sugkoinóneó Strong 4790
Note that this is the same above with συγ/sug – ie ‘with’ 4790 sygkoinōnéō (from 4862 /sýn, “identified with” and 2841 /koinōnéō, “share in”) – properly, sharewith by jointly partaking; to participate with because closely identified with someone (i.e. “deeply sharing with,” note the syn).
Philippians 4:14 done, that ye did communicate with my afflication
Revelation 18:4 ye be not partakers of her sins,
Ephesians 5:11 no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness
And κοινωνέω: koinóneó Strong 2841
Romans 15:27 the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things
Philippians 4:15 no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Hebrews 2:14 as the children are partakers of flesh
1 Timothy 5:22 neither be partaker of other of other men’s sins
2 John 1:11 he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds
1 Peter 4:13 inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings
Galatians 6:6 in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
Romans 12:13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
[ii] See CA Coates vol 33 p 360
[iii] See F E Raven – meetings in USA – vol 17 p 41
[iv] See CA Coates Vol 4 An Outline of Numbers p320
[1] Most often it is the noun – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia) – Strong (2842) defines it as
(a) contributory help, participation,
(b) sharing in, communion,
(c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.
koinōnía (a feminine noun) – properly, what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship (partnership, community).
Darby notes to Heb 2:14 – Applying to the children – The common equal sharing of the nature. It is a joint participation in that which belongs to me, or to a known fellowship.
I have coloured the quotations as follows
Ref to person – physical
Ref to thing/state – moral
Nominative (subject) – κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia)
Acts 2:42 the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship
1 Corinthians 10:16 not the communion of the blood … not the communion of the body
2 Corinthians 6:14 and what communion hath light with darkness
2 Corinthians 13:14 and the communion of the Holy Ghost
Philippians 1:5 For your fellowship in the gospel
Philippians 2:1 if any fellowship of the Spirit,
Philemon:6 That the communication of thy faith so that the fellowship of the faith
1 John 1:3 truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and the Son
Accusative (object) κοινωνίαν (koinōnian)
Romans 15:26 a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
1 Corinthians 1:9 unto the fellowship of his Son
2 Corinthians 8:4 and [take upon us] the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
Philippians 3:10 and the fellowship of his sufferings
1 John 1:3 also may have fellowship with us:
1 John 1:6 that we have fellowship with him,
1 John 1:7 we have fellowship one with another,
Genitive (possessive) κοινωνίας (koinōnias)
2 Corinthians 9:13 for [your] liberal distribution unto
Galatians 2:9 the right hands of fellowship; that
Hebrews 13:16 and to communicate forget
As a verb we have συγκοινωνέω sugkoinóneó Strong 4790
Note that this is the same above with συγ/sug – ie ‘with’ 4790 sygkoinōnéō (from 4862 /sýn, “identified with” and 2841 /koinōnéō, “share in”) – properly, sharewith by jointly partaking; to participate with because closely identified with someone (i.e. “deeply sharing with,” note the syn).
Philippians 4:14 done, that ye did communicate with my afflication
Revelation 18:4 ye be not partakers of her sins,
Ephesians 5:11 no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness
And κοινωνέω: koinóneó Strong 2841
Romans 15:27 the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things
Philippians 4:15 no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Hebrews 2:14 as the children are partakers of flesh
1 Timothy 5:22 neither be partaker of other of other men’s sins
2 John 1:11 he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds
1 Peter 4:13 inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings
Galatians 6:6 in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
Romans 12:13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
[1] See CA Coates vol 33 p 360
Peter is often portrayed as having the keys to heaven. He had the keys to the kingdom
Peter is often portrayed as having the keys to heaven.
He had the keys to the kingdom. He used
The first in Acts 2 when 3000 Jews believed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came.The door is now open.
When looking at the building of church, J N Darby noted, ‘There are no keys for the Church. One does not build with keys. The keys are for the kingdom’ Collected Writings Vol 14 (Ecclesiatical 3), p80
Sosthenes
June 2017
In a brief article entitled ‘What is a Sect’ – Collected Writings Volume 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) p. 362, John Nelson Darby distinguishes those who gather to the Lord’s Name in the light of the One Body, and those who are members of a sect, or church, or ecclesiastical corporation. The latter is based on held opinions.
In a brief article entitled ‘What is a Sect’ – Collected Writings Volume 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) p. 362, John Nelson Darby distinguishes those who gather to the Lord’s Name in the light of the One Body, from those who are members of a sect, or church, or ecclesiastical corporation. The latter is based on held opinions.
The Greek word for ‘sect’ is αἵρεσις/hairesis/Strong 139. Strong says that the word signifies a strong, distinctive opinion and was used in the New Testament to differentiate parties (sects) in Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – Sadducees and Pharisees were such by choice (See Acts 23:8). In Acts 24:14, Christianity was described by some as a Jewish sect. Of course, Paul did not own this.
Darby defines the word as signifying adherence to a doctrine or system of philosophy or religion. It is used as describe Christians departing from the truth – ‘There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies’ (2 Peter 2:1). ‘There must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you’ (1 Cor 11:19 DBY). The Catholics assumed what they held to be ‘universal’, and censured all other believers by branding them as ‘sects’.
The unity of the Church of Christ is seen in the Lord’s prayer in John 17 – ‘that they all may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me’ (v 21). When the Holy Spirit came (see Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:13), Christians became one in thought, word, and deed. And in this there was testimony to the unity. Satan spoilt that. In the scriptures the Holy Spirit compares the church on the earth to the human body, Christ being the Head (see Col 1:18). So if ‘one member suffer, all the members suffer with it’. (1 Cor 12:13). We members of Christ’s body.
When Christians unite outside this of unity, around a particular opinion, their unity is not founded on the principle of the unity of the body. They form an ecclesiastical corporation, and recognise each other as members of that corporation. This constitutes a sect. The communion service becomes an expression of the union of a church’s members. When a corporation of Christians assumes a right to admit members to it, it forms a unity opposed to the unity of the body of Christ. Being a member of a such a church is not according to scripture.
Of course, many pious Christians find themselves ignorantly in sectarian positions: they have never truly apprehended the unity of the body. They believe they are in that position through the will of God. But, in fact they are in a sect, a denial of the unity of the body of Christ (see 1 Cor 10:17).
Darby said that his desire was to recognise all Christians as members of the body of Christ, and from an enlarged heart, ‘receive them, from an enlarged heart, even to the Supper, supposing that they are walking in holiness and truth, calling upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart’ (see 2 Tim 2:19-22). He would join with other brethren to take the Lord’s supper as members of nothing else but of the body of Christ, not as members of a church or sect. Unfortunately though, he could not gather with all the children of God, because not all were walking according to the principle of this unity of the body of Christ. They were sectarian.
Although the practical difficulties may appear great by reason of the state of the Church of God, the principle is very simple. However, Christ is sufficient for all. If we are content to be little in the eyes of men, things will not be so difficult. We can cite Matt 18:20 – ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’. This is a precious encouragement in these sad times of dispersion. We are told ‘Youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart’ ( 2 Tim 2:22 DBY). This directs us in the path of the Lord’s will, despite the confusion around us.
Based on J N Darby’s paper ‘What is a Sect’ – Collected Writings Volume 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) p. 362.
Summary by Sosthanes
May 2017
The Great Tribulation
This is the next in our series of ‘The Things which shall be Hereafter (Rev 1:19)’. It is a subject which is spoken of extensively in scripture but is often misunderstood. Two important points:
It is future
It relates to Israel – the church has no part in it.
The notes here are largely from ‘The Scroll of Time’ by John Ashton Savage
This is the next in our series of ‘The Things which shall be Hereafter (Rev 1:19)’. It is a subject which is spoken of extensively in scripture but is often misunderstood. Two important points:
The notes here are largely from ‘The Scroll of Time’ by John Ashton Savage (Originally A.S. Rouse, 1893. Available from Chapter Two UK or Bible Truth USA) and various papers from J N Darby.
Plenty has been written, and there have been best seller works dramatising these happenings (e.g Hal Lindsey – this Late Great Planet Earth (Zondervan, 1970) – Amazon. Here are just a few notes.
Thank God you and I will not be there!
| King James Version | Darby Version |
| Daniel 12:1 | |
| And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book | And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of distress, such as never was since there was a nation until that time. And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that is found written in the book.
|
| Jeremiah 30:7 | |
| Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. | Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. |
| Matthew 24:21 | |
| For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. | For then shall there be great tribulation, such as has not been from [the] beginning of [the] world until now, nor ever shall be; |
Some argue that the tribulation is past. It occurred when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in AD70. Others would say that the Old Testament references were fulfilled in BC175 when Artitarchus Epiphanes set up an altar to Jupiter in the temple. These were serious happenings, and many Jews were slain at those time.
There have been arguments that Daniel’s prophecy referred to 70 weeks (of years) i.e.490 years which would point to the crucifixion of Jesus, and He saying that this generation would not pass till these things had been accomplished.
This overlooks two things though:
Many things which happen now might be regarded as signs that the tribulation is imminent. Examples:
However, we should not rely too much on these. The future is in God’s hands and what is to come will not happen until the church has been raptured
Three personages will dominate the world – the trinity of evil, forcing obedience. Their subjects will have the mark of the beast.
In Matt 24:22 it says, ‘Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved’ – one can deduce that nuclear bombs will be used – see Rev 16:8, 9:18, Zech 14:12)
In spite of everything going on, God will have His testimony on earth
There is no evidence, rather the contrary, that any hearts are turned to God by this testimony
At the point when all forces will be united against God and the holy city, God will send His angel, and Satan will be bound for 1000 years. (Rev 20:2)
We have the millennium. Contrary to popular belief, we shall not be with Christ on the earth. We are a heavenly family – we reign OVER the earth – Rev 5:10
This is our prospect – and our hope. Is it yours?
Yours in Christ
Sosthenes
May 2017
keep your feet in the narrow way, and your heart as large as you can. It is of no use trying to make fellowship if it is not real; you can’t shake oil and water together: they will soon separate again
I must apologise for the lack of activity on ADOSS during the past few weeks. Many readers will know the reason for this. I now have a backlog of articles and subjects, and a desire to catch up if the Lord allows me to.
Latitudinarianism is a word which has popped up recently among the Christians with whom I break bread. When I saw the word, I had to look it up in the dictionary. Wikipedia[1] describes Latitudinarian as ‘a pejorative (contemptible) term applied to a group of 16th-century English theologians who believed in conforming to official Church of England practices but who felt that matters of doctrine, liturgical practice, and ecclesiastical organization were of relatively little importance’. That is what they claimed. However, Richard Hooker, one of the main 16th century latitudinarians taught[2]
None of us should have any problems here. There may be some things that this man held that we might not agree with now, but it seems as if the accusation was used by the church leadership to challenge anybody who did not accede implicitly to their authority.
I decided to look it up in J N Darby’s writings. It is referred to extensively in one part of Darby’s long letter to James Kelley (1839), who criticised Darby’s schismatic action in leaving the Established Church. Kelley accused Darby[3] of latitudinarianism because of his refusal to embrace an organised church into which one could be baptised, and the lack of outward unity in accepting persons from Anglican, Baptist and even Quaker backgrounds.
Mr Darby contested that from whatever background persons had come from, they should not be excluded if they accepted the gospel fully, and were desirous of leaving organised sectarian religion. He quoted the scripture ‘Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (Phil 3:15-16).
Darby then criticised the Established Church itself of latitudinarianism in its association with the world in relation to the then modern thinking. He cited supporting atheism and infidelity in schools as well as the careless admission of many unconverted persons to communion. We could add many other things to the list now. At the same time, there were narrow sectarianism of rules and forms, persecuting persons who do not conform – accusing them of, yes, latitudinarianism.
What was needed was balance. Elsewhere, I found a reading in Edinburgh, J N Darby on The Camp and the Body of Christ (Notes and Jottings p 37).
A person who was seeking fellowship should have the Spirit of Christ and be walking according to it. There is liberty to meet outside of the recognised denominations (the worldly camp[4]). For true Christian fellowship we need to lay hold of the fact that we have a heavenly calling, and cannot have part with clerical systems.
When we meet people we go as far as we can with them, but we cannot have part in their system. If we meet a clergyman we converse with him as a Christian, not as a clergyman. In short, keep your feet in the narrow way, and your heart as large as you can. It is of no use trying to make fellowship if it is not real; you can’t shake oil and water together: they will soon separate again.
I recommend your reading the whole note of the reading – it is not long.
Greetings in our Lord
Sosthenes
[1] See Wikipedia article on ‘Latitudinarian’
[2] Hooker – Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie 1594
[3] The claims of the Church of England considered; being the close of a correspondence between the Rev. James Kelly, of Stillogan, Ireland, and J. N. Darby. Collected Writings Vol 14 (Ecclesiastical 3) pp 176-242
[4] Technically the camp refers to Israel. We can apply it to professing earthly Christendom.