With particular, though not exclusive, reference
To the ‘Gospel Standard’,
Strict Baptist denomination.
Second Edition : Revised and Expanded
________________________________________
The Words of the Lord Jesus
Concerning the Traditions of Religious Men
‘Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus],
Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
‘He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ‘Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ‘For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
‘And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.’ Mark 7:5-9.
________________________________________
Chapters in this book:
Part 1
Preface
Introduction
Separation
Principles of Denominationalism
You and Thee
Part 2 (on separate post)
The Gospel Standard Way
Preaching experience
‘What a mercy…’
‘My sheep hear my voice…’
Interlude: ‘The blessing of the LORD.’
‘And ye will not come to me…’
‘But he that doeth…’
‘If thou believest, thou mayest.’
‘Our Father…’
Conclusion : ‘He must increase, but I must decrease.’
Postscript Tyndale’s Marginal Notes
________________________________________
Preface
A lady recently asked me what I thought of women preachers. My reply was that it didn’t matter what I thought, but what the word of God says. I said that we will always try to argue away the clear meaning of scripture – in this case 1 Timothy 2:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 – with our own (unbelieving) reasoning, which is always a dangerous course to take. She then proceeded to do just that by replying with the ‘custom of the day’ argument. In writing this treatise I have tried to counter certain traditions of men with what the word of God says, rather than with what I think; I hope the reader will employ the same mentality.
A few weeks after publishing my first edition I received a letter from someone who said that my style of writing in certain instances ‘was not the way to conduct Christian debate.’ Well, as I have not written to inform the reader what ‘I think’, neither have I sought to ‘debate’. The truth of the gospel was not given for men to debate it, but for it to be asserted, believed and obeyed. I am not interested in ‘discussing’ the truth of God’s word as such, but rather of finding out what it says and, by the grace of God, falling under it. I have had ‘concerns over the traditions of men in denominationalism’ because the word of God is clearly against them. It is not a case of seeking to ‘interpret’ scripture in the light of ‘what we believe’, much less of ignoring it altogether, but of putting our hands over our mouths and submitting to it.
I would first say something regarding the actual title of the piece, and why I have now changed the word ‘concerns’ to ‘contentions’. My original working title was, ‘Why I left the GS’; but when it came time to publish I didn’t want to use such an ‘inflammatory’ title; rather I sought for one more ‘quiet’, mundane even, which perhaps would be easily passed over by the ‘casual’ reader. But my undramatic title has turned out to be most separating; for it seems to be the case that those in the denomination who are unconcerned about their way and traditions have, thus far, either just disagreed with it and dismissed it, or shown little or no interest at all; while with those who perhaps are concerned – at least with certain aspects – there has been more of a ready acceptance and appreciation of what has been written.
This only confirms what I believe the Lord has already shown me from his word; for since publishing I have been greatly encouraged therein. I believe that what I have written has been needful, and that additions – hence this second edition – are legitimate. One morning, shortly after I published, I turned to read the scriptures when I suddenly felt a great sense of dread in doing so. At home we were reading through the book of Ecclesiastes, and I felt fearful to read that morning because I thought I was about to be condemned from the word for being too presumptuous in what I had written; that something I’d written was about to be shown up as being plain wrong, and that I was going to rue the day I’d sent my treatise out. But then I thought, well, nevertheless, I must read the word of God and accept with humility what he was about to show me, pray to learn from my mistakes, and keep my mouth shut in the future. So I read, in not some little fear and trembling. But then we read the words in verses 14-18 of chapter nine, and they came to me like this: there was ‘a poor wise man’ whose ‘wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard’. I thought immediately of the ‘hierarchy’ in the denomination, that by and large what I had written would be rejected, or just ignored. But then followed these words: ‘The words of wise men are heard in quiet’; which seemed to suggest that there would be those in secret who would receive what was written, and that God would make it a blessing to them. Thus I felt encouraged rather than condemned.
A while later I did have some contact with one or two ministers, but wasn’t convinced that they had read my piece other than in a superficial way. I felt frustrated for a while until I picked up William Huntington’s Kingdom of Heaven Taken by Prayer. Having referred to this book in my treatise, I thought I’d read it again. Not long into his account he relates that some had put his previously published Arminian Skeleton to the flames, but that ‘I have done as God commanded Jeremiah to do; that is, I have wrote another’. In this he was referring to king Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 36, who destroyed the roll wherein was written all the words which the LORD had spoken to the prophet against Israel, and against Judah, from the days of Josiah to that present time. We read that he only heard ‘three or four leaves’ read before he took and cut it with his penknife and threw it into the fire. Whereas I hope there are none that have been so violent with my work, I am sure that there will have been some who have just ‘glanced through three or four leaves’ before laying it aside with no more intent of reading it. But what really encouraged me was the last verse of the chapter. After the LORD had told Jeremiah to write all the same words down again, we read that not only did he do so, but that, ‘there were added besides unto them many like words.’
By then I had already decided to write a second, expanded edition; but someone had suggested that I write a new separate work which would compliment what was already produced. But a strange thing had happened. Before printing out my first edition I had read through the whole of it a number of times with no additions or changes that seemed to present themselves to me, so I supposed it to be the right time to publish. All that I felt I wanted to say up till then was said, and I was settled in my mind over it. Moreover I had continually prayed through it, while writing, meditating upon it, and revising it, that the Lord would show me if I was in error on any point before finally sending it out; those who are ready to reject the testimony of the word of God against themselves will always pick up on the merest fault of the human writer to dismiss everything else – be it valid – he has written. But at last I was content in what I had written; it was all in the Lord’s hands and I felt now that I could leave it there; it was finished.
But as soon as I’d sent the original copies out the whole thing started opening up to me again. More thoughts flooded in, extensions to certain sections, and the need to write more of the Lord Jesus began to present themselves; also I realised that more ‘positive’ material was necessary to counterbalance the generally ‘concerning’ tone of the original. I hope I have succeeded in these things without being any less direct.
Thus I have taken it in hand to review and expand my original work. But I have still kept the subject to the fairly narrow remit of exploring the principles of denominationalism – over-against something of what the true church really is – and the specific style of the Gospel Standard gospel presentation with its fruit. But now in the title I have substituted the words ‘contentions against’ for ‘concerns over’, because I now see that none in the scriptures are ever described as being merely concerned about what amounts to the vanity of man’s religion, but are always referred to as out-and-out ‘contenders’ against it. The New Testament exhortation in this regard is to contend, Jude 3, to contend earnestly for the faith, which obviously involves a contention against those things which are opposed to the faith. Also reading through what I have written I discover that I have used this word repeatedly. I am contending against what is, in many respects, plainly a wrong way, and it is right to do so. On the day of judgment the traditions of men will be shown up for what they are, so they must be countered now by all that love the truth.
Upon reading the whole piece some might feel justified in thinking that there is a fair amount of repetition, or that the same conclusions seem to come up again and again. Well, there is one truth, and that truth is the answer to so much deviation from the narrow way. And I believe that what I have tried to articulate in this treatise is quite an elusive way – as I believe the pure gospel is elusive today. Jesus is ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’; and when, in a religious profession, we wander from any of these great assertions of the Saviour, returning to him and to ‘his things’, Phil. 2:21, is the only correction; albeit a hard one in practice. Later in that epistle, 3:1, Paul did say that ‘to write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe’; and safety is my only desire for the reader.
When I originally started writing I had many thoughts on this subject burning in my heart, but wasn’t sure how they were going to be expressed. I suppose I hoped that what was written might cause some change of mind in ministers regarding certain things that were awry, and that there would be some sort of ‘reformation’ in the denomination to bring it back closer to how it was at the beginning – that is, to how it was at the beginning of the church in the First Century, not to how it was at the beginning of the denomination in the 1800s. But it turns out that the actual process of writing over the months has shown me that this is virtually impossible; and I have increasingly realised that the whole system has become so far removed from Christ’s and the apostles’ original teaching on what the church really is, that that simplicity is irrecoverable in a denominational setting. Thus, as the subject has opened up to me, the surprising result has been that I have been more and more separated from the whole concept of ‘chapel’ itself. I am now convinced that Christ’s purpose regarding man-made denominations is not to correct them but to call his people out of them! Thus, sadly, separation is all that has been left to me. I hope the truly exercised reader will be brought, sooner or later, to the same conclusion and experience.
I do trust and hope that the Lord will stir up those who do have concerns – rumbling concerns; even if, until now, they might not have been able to articulate them. There is an ingrained attitude in denominationalism which not only does not question the status quo, but which does not even think of questioning it. This fear to question though does not fully quench the feeling of unease which I believe many do have, but are afraid to pursue. I know from experience how hard it is to dare to question a system you have been brought up in, or a mentality you have imbibed from childhood, and which the respected elders of the denomination have spent their whole lives ‘graciously’ upholding. But we must not fear to hold up what men say – even ‘good’ men – to the light and testimony of scripture; for we must have Jesus’ promised liberty in knowing and walking in the truth; regardless of what the majority say: ‘Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’, John 8:23-36.
I believe that, in seeking to declare the truth of these things, the fear of God has constrained me – writing much of this has made me tremble – and I hope nothing written will prove to be ‘idle’, that is, unprofitable, Matthew 12:36. I have tried to refrain from making absolute statements: obviously I have not been a member of every denomination, neither have I heard every GS minister preach; nor do I know if all the ministers emphasize the things that I have sought to address. Some of what I have written is of a general impression, but most of it is what I have seen and heard both from the pulpit and in the pew, and more importantly, what I believe has been revealed to me from the scriptures.
But let the reader beware. The word of God is very clear regarding the dangers of following the traditions of men, and we who profess the name of the Lord will be called to give an account for what we have done with it. Remember that when we appear before the Judge of all the earth, all our desires to ‘agree to differ’, ‘change the subject’, ‘leave it’, or just to ignore the realities of the truth of God’s word will be taken away; all our chapels, churches, denominational books, magazines and historical documents will have been consumed with fire from heaven; and, stripped of these things, we will appear before the great God who will justify, uphold and vindicate his truth to the horror of many. Please don’t think that you are going to arrive on the day of judgment with your AV in one hand, hymnbook, Psalter, Confessions or Articles in the other, and expect the Almighty to point discretely to some side door with your party’s name on it, allowing you quietly to steal through into glory; for no such door exists: ‘Except a man be born again he cannot see, or enter into, the kingdom of God’; therefore ‘Strive – strive, strive, strive – to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.’ Those are the words of the Lord Jesus.
Scriptural quotations throughout this treatise are from the aforementioned Authorised Version, which I have consistently referred to as ‘Tyndale/AV’; all emphases in italics are mine, and as the scriptures don’t capitalize pronouns that refer to the deity then neither have I. Once or twice I have quoted from William Tyndale’s 1534 edition of his New Testament. Recent study has shown that about 83% of the AV New Testament is Tyndale, so I think it only right to acknowledge him at every possible opportunity! I have also been reading his The Obedience of a Christian Man, and felt that I could have included more quotations from it, as it is so rich, and as much of it is relevant to what I have been writing; but I’ve only done so once in the text. I would urge and encourage the reader to obtain and read both these volumes of the great man.
The hymn numbers quoted throughout are from Gadsby’s Hymns.
Andrew Dibble, July, 2011.
________________________________________
Introduction
Here is a simple scriptural fact: There is but one church; Jesus called it ‘my church’; it is ‘the body of Christ.’ Its members, as a single body, are ‘the out-called’ – the literal meaning of the Greek word ecclesia. Therefore the very word itself describes the nature of the church; and in as far as it goes this is its sole criterion: so if one is not ‘called out’ then one is not part of the body of Christ, and not in his church. As we look a little closer at some simple truths and principles which arise from this assertion, we will begin to discover that none of the denominations in and of themselves can be called the true church, and that the necessary conclusion must be that all of Christ’s sheep that are found in them should come out from among them and be separate.
As to something of my own history, I was involved with the Gospel Standard denomination for around ten years, seven as a member; therefore there was a time when I thought it to be the true church and wholeheartedly embraced its beliefs, ways and traditions. Indeed, in my early days I was very impressed with the style of preaching – I had never heard anything like it before. Here was a ministry which was actually describing the things I’d been experiencing, and it wasn’t long before I began to realise that my spiritual pathway was actually the result of a work of God upon my soul, Philippians 2:13; no other preaching I’d sat under had shown this to be the case.
I also discovered that there was a lot of truth to be found in the professed GS doctrine, and it is not my intention here to doubt that much of what is said from the pulpit is anything but good, right and true. Indeed, I don’t think I’d ever heard ministry which related so specifically to law and gospel, the world, the free offer, the necessity of self-examination, 2 Corinthians 13:5, the need of an inwrought salvation to counter presumption, and of the Spirit’s witness to the same. And I found in many of the hymns – such as John Kent’s, ‘There is a period known to God’, 76, and John Newton’s ‘What think you of Christ? is the test’, 1149 – descriptions, again, of my own experience written in such a lively way, that they far transcended the modern, shallow ‘praise’ hymns and choruses I’d been fed (or not fed) with until then.
Of course as I became more taken up in these things I naturally tried to encourage others to ‘come and hear’ as well, and, before I joined the church, read carefully the Articles of the denomination to see if I could fully agree with them and could, if questioned, defend them from scripture – I wouldn’t have joined until that was the case. At length I did join and gradually became assimilated into the particular GS mentality – of seeing things a certain way, of judging from a certain angle, and of settling into a certain form – the way we do things. Very comfortable.
But I have now left the denomination, for I have come to realise that the style of preaching is ultimately deficient, and the ‘way’ tends toward the mentality of the Pharisee rather than that of the genuine ‘poor sinner’. Rarely does the ministry seem to rise much higher than the stated level of describing ‘experience’; after a while you start to hear the same things over and over again, and the nourishment which you received when it was all new and fresh begins to dry up.1 Unsurprisingly in time you begin to realise the reason for this is that the whole is leavened with the traditions of men – the standing principle that undergirds any denomination – and, in truth, the ministry cannot rise above it, for that is the expected and defining style. These things I have expanded upon in the pages that follow.
As to the word ‘tradition’: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 aside, a tradition is simply a precept, a way, a rule formulated by men which is to be adhered to above everything else; yea, even above the true doctrine of God. Thus in Mark 7 Jesus rebuked the Jews because the obedience and loyalty they should have shown toward ‘the commandment of God’ – which they had first ‘laid aside’, and then outright ‘rejected’ – had been transferred to ‘the tradition of men’; which tradition had become nothing less than a legal requirement. Therefore it is a very dangerous thing, and a soul-damning error unless repented of, to hold to traditions which men originate if, and as, they will usurp in our experience the commandment of God; for we must realise that we cannot hold both.
Therefore tradition is very subtly designed to captivate and enslave the conscience, leading to a life of ‘works’ – there’s your legalism – when the conscience should be captive only to the revealed word and will of God, leading to a walk of ‘faith’; see the ‘post script’. After all, the blood of Christ has purged the consciences of the faithful from dead works – and these works are always ‘dead’ in the sight of God – to serve the living God, Hebrews 9:14. Christ doesn’t set men free from Moses to bind them to men and their traditions, although they may profess to be under a ‘new’ covenant; their new ‘yoke’ and ‘burden’ which are Christ’s, are ‘easy’ and ‘light’, Matthew 11:28-30. How many people think they have ‘a tender conscience in the fear of the Lord’, when in fact what they possess is ‘an enslaved conscience in the fear of men’, which fear has been learned ‘by the precept of men’ from their youth up, Isaiah 29:13. Let the reader examine himself.
But how have the traditions of men come about? I believe they have arisen in the absence of ‘revelation’. Where there is no revelation the traditions of men in religion will arise, for they are the only alternative. Men with a bent for, or an actual profession of religion will seek – often inadvertently – to form that religion based on what they perceive to be the truth and, perhaps more importantly, on what suits them – which will at length become their established tradition – other men doing likewise, but coming up with different forms and traditions. So each group will soon begin to possess their own peculiar traits – or traditions – which will not only define who they are but will distinguish them from all the others. And unless revelation comes the whole will continue and be perpetuated. In fact it is only revelation which can destroy men’s traditions. This is a theme which will be returned to throughout this treatise.
But there is one more absence which gives birth to ‘the commandments and doctrines of men’: Paul wrote, ‘Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh’, Colossians 2:20-23. The traditions of men arise in the absence of being dead with Christ! Listen to the apostle. And where does that leave you?
The reason I have written now is that I have been thinking over my time under the GS ministry, and to a number of phrases which are often repeated but which now make me tremble, and should make the users of them tremble too. The reason is that although they sound spiritual many of them are actually little more than vain repetition. One such phrase is this: ‘Forgive anything thou hast seen amiss in our worship’, or like wording – this being one of the string of petitions uttered in closing a meeting. But what do they think is amiss in their worship? What needs forgiving? As I hope to go on to prove, it is doubtful that they really think there is anything much amiss, otherwise they’d ask the Lord to show them what it is, instead of using this ‘cover-all’ phrase, just in case. But if they did ask, and if God did answer, would any minister and church that prays it fall under it? To my observation all ‘things’ that happen ‘in our worship’ continue as they always have done. But it is my contention that many things are amiss. I don’t remember seeing much evidence that ministers who ask such a thing ever look for or expect that God might show them what is amiss. I wonder how many who ‘pray’ in this way have actually pleaded with the Lord that he would indeed show them what is amiss in the worship of their chapels? If they haven’t, then these words are nothing but taking the name of the Lord in vain, for they are calling upon him with their lips when their hearts are far from the petition itself. But the Lord, who searches the heart, knows those who draw nigh with their lips only. We must never forget that the Pharisees loved to sound very holy in prayer – in the hearing of others – but, said Jesus, they only prayed ‘thus with themselves.’ I believe this ‘petition’ is nothing but vain repetition which goes unheard and unanswered. Again, let them judge the matter themselves.
Another oft-used phrase which, upon reflection, has caused me disquiet of late, is another petition ministers will often use in prayer; this time when requesting blessing for a brother minister: ‘Give him seals to his ministry, and souls for his hire.’ Souls for his hire? What are they saying? Are they hirelings? I would have thought this to be a very unsafe word to use in the light of Jesus’ teaching in John 10.2 One of the characteristics of the hireling, said Jesus, is that he ‘careth not for the sheep’, verse 13; he may very well care for the ‘sheep’ of his denominational fold, as long as they stay within that fold, but, as we shall discover, a denominational fold is not the same as the ‘one fold’ that the good shepherd was speaking of. Also, it has been my experience since I was first awakened to spiritual things, that what the LORD said by Jeremiah is true: that the ‘pastors’, which he has not raised up over the people, at length ‘destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture’, Jeremiah 23:1, causing them to become ‘outcasts’: see below. All this perhaps highlights how thoughtlessly some of these phrases roll off the tongue.
Furthermore I must say that one dreadful thing I began to realise the longer I was in the denomination – and again, I am sure this is characteristic of all denominations – was that parts of the word of God – as constantly being used, quoted and, honestly, turned into clichés – were actually beginning to grate because of their over exposure and misuse. Some verses you heard repeatedly, almost as punctuation to whatever the minister was saying; and the repetition of these verses and words out of the pure and holy word of God really did begin to undermine the glory and purity of those words. Even now certain phrases from scripture still cause me to wince for all the times I’ve heard them slip off GS tongues. What a dreadful state to arrive at when phrases like the following become dulled with over use, and misuse: ‘The chiefest among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely (not even together in the scripture); Unto you therefore which believe he is precious; Sirs, we would see Jesus; Lord, help me; God be merciful to me a sinner; Fear not; Fret not; Sweet, solemn3 and precious…’ etc. Oh, how these wonderful words need rescuing, and how terrible when the word of God is used like this. But I believe that those who take his word upon their lips in such a way, and who use it in the exercise of perpetuating their denominational traditions – although that may not be consciously deliberate – except they repent and put their hands over their mouths, find themselves in a fearful position. Nevertheless, may the Lord have mercy on such.
When the Lord first awakened me to my perilous state of presumption in a false profession with Matthew 7:21-23, and by it stripped me of all the faith, salvation and assurance I thought I had, the cry that he put in my heart, which remains to this day, was, ‘Lord, show me the truth – whatever it is.’ And after much searching and crying to the Lord I received a reply; and the answer came as a voice from heaven: ‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’4 Having left the denomination I can honestly say that I now experience a certain liberty, for there is definite bondage in a system where the traditions of men hold sway; except that the bondage (and the necessary accompanying fear, Proverbs 29:25) is undiscerned as the mentality is totally assimilated into the particular denominational way – and the following is, in part, an explanation of how I have come into this liberty as it pertains, at least, to churches and denominations.
My only concern now is for truth devoid of the traditions of men. I am no longer in a frame of mind which says, Oh well, let’s make the best of what remains in this degenerate age; if one denomination has enough truth then let us just overlook the deficiencies and not worry about looking for a recovery of what was at the beginning; for being in the last days, and not desiring to ‘despise the day of small things’, we must try to be content. But this attitude, although perhaps understandable, is a terrible denial of the power of the Son of God still in our day to realise his original purpose for the church; as well as being a surrender to the long held and cherished traditions of men. But although they be held from one generation to another, bringing, for a time, a pleasing sense of security and solidity; if they cannot be called, in full, ‘the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship’, Acts 2:42, then they are not secure but unsafe, are not solid but unsound, and are in danger of casting their adherents onto the left hand on the day of judgment.
When I joined the denomination I had not long left what they call a General Baptist church: it was a modern, people-friendly, professedly Calvinistic, but practicing Arminian, NIV5, Mission Praise, fun and fellowship church. But as the Lord gradually opened my eyes to the fact that the place was devoid of the Spirit, preached another gospel, and that Christ had not, obviously, sent the then pastor to preach – these realisations dawning through a long and painful process – he set me at liberty and called me out from it. So much for the place I had attended more or less from my youth up. In the period between – about two years – I determined to try and seek further ‘the truth’ without influence from churches or chapels; I read quite widely and continued to seek the Lord to teach me from his word. And then I received another promise: ‘The LORD doth build up Jerusalem; he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel’, Psalm 147:2. The word that struck me so forcibly was ‘outcasts.’ That was me! Alas, joining the GS denomination didn’t turn out to be a fulfilment of that promise, although for a time I thought it was.
The reason for this is simple: the denomination in the present day is not made up of outcasts; for most are born into it, and trained up in it. No doubt some have ‘suffered loss’ because of their adhering to denominational emphasis, belief or tradition; but to suffer loss, and to be an outcast in the scriptural sense, can only be for Christ’s sake, John 9:24-34, 1 Peter 4:14-16. The man born blind, for instance, was ‘cast out’ because the religious professors, blinded by their own traditions and carnal reasoning, would not and could not see and acknowledge Christ and his work; therefore they cast him out because he had been a recipient of it, as they had not! In fact, anyone professing Christianity today, whether they be Strict Baptists, Evangelicals, Arminians, Reformed, Charismatic, Premillennial, etc., so long as they stick fairly closely to ‘what they believe’ will always get some opposition from those who don’t hold the same views – as the ‘letters’ page of any Christian newspaper will show – but it may not necessarily be according to the truth.
So, what is truth? Well, in this we can speak in absolute terms: the truth is Christ. He said, ‘I am the truth.’ Now, fleeing from the religion of men, here is glory. Christ’s very person, his very being is ‘the truth.’ Therefore to know him is to know the truth. Everything outside of him, whether it falls under the description of ‘worldliness’ or ‘religion’, is ‘vanity and lies’. As he is the truth itself then all his words are truth, and true. When he speaks he has the authority to speak of himself saying, ‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you.’ So, when he said, ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time…’ he can then say with equal authority to those scriptures, ‘But I say unto you’; he never having to revert to a ‘Thus saith the LORD’, for he is the LORD! Again, when he says ‘Verily, verily’, he is speaking in his own name. How? Because the Greek word translated ‘verily’ – which means ‘of a truth’ – is ‘Amen’; and in Revelation 3:14 he speaks by that very name, ‘the Amen, the faithful and true witness’! Oh, there is a fulness to Christ as ‘the truth’!
Furthermore, not to know Christ – to be ‘outside Christ’ – is to be in darkness, for he said, ‘I am the light.’ When the psalmist cried, ‘O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles’, Psalm 43:3, he was only pre-echoing Paul’s longings of Philippians 3:7-14: Christ being all the apostle’s, and psalmist’s ‘desire’; cp. Haggai 2:6,7.
Also to be ‘without Christ’ is to be spiritually dead: dead in trespasses and sins; dead to God; dead to life in the Spirit; dead to true faith; dead to any hope or expectation of real life in this world, or in the world to come eternal life. Why? Because Christ is ‘the life’! As John wrote, ‘The life was manifested’, 1 John 1:2. Christ doesn’t just give life, as though it was something apart from himself, but he is the life! All that this world has to offer – to ‘live life to the full’, as they say – without Christ, is just dying a death, vanity and hopelessness. But in Christ, well; there is a blessed ‘simplicity [or, more accurately, a ‘singleness’, as in Luke 11:34] that is in Christ’, the life, the light, the truth. For when the Spirit comes his sole work is to reveal and glorify Christ in the hearts of his people; he being ‘the Spirit of truth’.
When light shines within upon a ‘simple’ unadulterated revelation of the wonderful Person and accomplished work of the Lord Jesus Christ; when the Spirit opens an aspect of the truth as it relates to the doctrine of the Son of God, which is the gospel of Christ, 2 John 9, how one is brought in his own experience to marvel at the grace, mercy and longsuffering of God in Christ towards sinners, and how he begins to realise the length to which professed Christendom, especially in a denominated form, has actually fallen away from this profound simplicity!
Thus if one has a love for the truth – this desire having been planted within by the indwelling of the Spirit of truth – one cannot rest with shortcomings, that is, with the traditions of men. When I began to settle in the denomination one admitted to me that ‘we don’t have the whole truth’, which encouraged me, as I was searching, and am still, for more knowledge of Christ and of him crucified: of what it really means to walk in the way of the cross; of what Paul meant when he wrote that he lived ‘by the faith of the Son of God’, Galatians 2:20; but I found little real desire among them to come into more truth – indeed, how can they, as their very existence is defined by 35 Articles to which they are necessarily bound? – and found rather an entrenched attitude that they have, if not arrived, found enough to distance themselves above most of the rest.
One of the fruits of this attitude of mind is an over-emphasis on outward form, as Mark 7:8. How legalistic things tend to become regarding appearance; that if one conforms, for example, to ‘how we look’, then one is practically half way there. So those that attend chapel and subscribe to all the denominational magazines will regularly hear and read of how they should dress, or not dress, and of what ‘our’ definition of ‘worldliness’ is – although the scriptural definition is much wider, deeper, and fuller than the GS one allows.
To give an example: some years ago we went to Scotland on holiday, and received the standard denominational advice that, as there were no GS chapels north of the border, we should attend the Free Presbyterians as they were ‘the closest to us’. But how are they close to the Gospel Standard churches? In outward form! For not only do they dress like them – their women wear hats6 and don’t wear trousers – they also use the same Bible, keep ‘the Sabbath’, address God as thee and thou, and don’t have televisions. But what about their doctrine? Are they ‘like us’ in that? The law as the rule of life for the believer? The free offer? Duty faith and duty repentance? Progressive sanctification? Baby sprinkling? Same gospel? Well, no, not quite, ‘but they do look the same as us’! O well, that’s all right then. But GS ministers and members won’t ‘sit down’ at the Lord’s table and partake of the elements with them! So where is the ‘unity’? Evidently not in Jesus Christ and him crucified, then; but in outward appearance only. But this is just a new legalism and hypocrisy.
I am sure that some in the denomination will agree with much of what I have written in this treatise, while others will be offended. My hope is that it will not be the style of writing that offends but the truth itself; and that that offence will cause one and another to fall under the plain meaning of scripture; bringing forth true humility, godly sorrow, and repentance, 2 Corinthians 7:8-11. Oh, that what is written might at least cause one or two to stop and think, to seek the Lord and search the scriptures to see whether these things are so, Acts 17:10-12 (note the ‘therefore’ in that passage). Writing this has given me no real pleasure; indeed, I have written out of a great sense of disappointment really, as I verily thought I’d found a spiritual home in the GS. I am aware that these things pertain to real people who will appear on the day of judgment; but we can be sure that however sincerely certain hold the traditions of men it will count for nothing before the Judge of all the earth.
I have thus written in a heartfelt and direct way, and, I admit, not always in the careful, studied and ‘gracious’ language that most are used to, which just causes many over time to become ‘dull of hearing’ anyway. I feel passionately about these things for they have to do with eternity. I see no reason in these last days to tiptoe through the issues: there will be no such ‘diplomatic’ language heard on that day. I know that I have always appreciated straight speaking, even when it hurts – and Jesus’ words to the religious hypocrites of his day were often nothing if not sharp, e.g. Matthew 23; but it is such direct language that has awakened, arrested, convicted and done me good in the long run, Psalm 141:5, Proverbs 27:5,6, Galatians 4:16. Thus, it is for the care of souls, as well as out of a love for the truth that I have written.
May God be pleased to give the increase, and may the Lord Jesus Christ be glorified.
1 The ‘same things’ that I am referring to here are different to Paul’s ‘same things’ of Philippians 3:1 mentioned above – which the context of both will show.
2 It may be that they are referring to Matthew 20:1-16; but in that context it is Christ, the householder, who has ‘hired’ the labourers, cp. 1 Cor. 3:8,9; whereas the modern-day pastor is hired by the people. Thus the order is totally reversed: instead of the Lord providing shepherds for his flock, ‘sheep’ appoint their own shepherds!
3 Although this is one of the most frequently used adjectives in the denomination, yet it is not found even once in the whole of the New Testament!
4 As we shall see in chapter 3, this promise can only be fully realised in context of the unity of the church as gathered.
5 The New Iniquitous Version. Don’t be afraid to call it what it is – ‘corruptible seed’.
6 Although 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 still stands, and was not just the ‘custom’ of the day, there is surely more to ‘head covering’ than merely wearing hats in chapel. Alas for many in the denomination, including the young, a lot of this has degenerated into vanity – a mere fashion parade. Indeed, I was once sitting in chapel and couldn’t even see the pulpit because the woman in front of me had on her head what can only be described as a UFO!
1. Separation
One fruit of the work of God in saving and calling his people is that of separation. This is a great scriptural truth which, in many respects, has disappeared from mainstream ‘Bible-believing’ churches. Ask many professing Christians today what they understand by the word ‘separation’ in relation to ‘the gospel’, ‘the church’ or to ‘the work of God’, and you will probably receive either, a blank look, or an impatient reply about ‘fundamentalists’, ‘bigots’, ‘way out sects’, or ‘those that like to cause division’. Thus among these – and in their churches – ‘separation’, like many other gospel doctrines, has been more or less abandoned in pursuit of the much desired ‘love’ – for love, they reckon, can never divide – or it has been sacrificed to the god ‘ecumenism’, which is designed to break down barriers, dispel differences, and unify all around the one great truth of ‘God’ – whatever they understand God to be. Of course all this is the antithesis of true gospel separation. Nevertheless God has, still does, and will yet work by separation.
In calling his people by his grace God separates them. And this separation is a severance – a complete severance – from former things, so that ‘all things are become new’, 2 Corinthians 5:17. Therefore they are called out of the world: that is, from worldly ways of thinking, reasoning, desiring and living; out of a mentality which pursues self-interest, gain, self-gratification and self-justification, into the way of the cross: the way of self-sacrifice, self-distrust and the mortification of the flesh; out of a life of habitual sinfulness under a law which can only curse, condemn and kill – some ‘rule of life’! – and, at length, out of the outward forms, traditions and laws of men in religion – the purpose of this treatise.
This is all proved by the meaning of the Greek words translated ‘elect’ and ‘church’ in the New Testament. The elect are, literally, the ‘out-chosen’, the church is the ‘out-called’; for to them Christ in time graciously commands, ‘Come unto me’, as they ‘labour and are heavy laden’ under the burden of sin and the rigours of the legal rule. These people are thus in their experience being ‘taught of God’, and ‘drawn of the Father’; being regenerated by the Spirit they are ‘born of God’, are called of, and are thus found coming unto the Son of God seeking a salvation which only he can give; and in this process are granted repentance unto life, and are given the gift of saving faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
This principle of separation was seen and prefigured in the Old Testament in Israel. Here was a nation, one body of people, separated from all other nations because they were God’s people: ‘You only have I known’, Amos 3:2; to these alone pertained ‘the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises…’ Romans 9:4,5. Having long been in bondage in Egypt they were eventually ‘called out’, and going through the Red Sea were visibly separated unto God in the wilderness. Totally severed from all other nations there was not another ‘child of God’ to be found on the face of the earth but in that wilderness. Thus the church – the actual body of Christ called out in the ways shown above – is the only true people of God on the earth today. Yes, there may be many in churches and chapels, pulpit and pew, who profess to be God’s people, for the name of the Lord is often found upon their lips, but if not called out and separated unto God and his Christ – and that miraculously in their own experience; and if they do not find this world a wilderness, void, ultimately, of satisfaction, sustenance, peace and rest – for these things are only to be found in Christ – then they are not members of this true church.
The whole of their calling, which is effectual in its working, is of God from beginning to end. Oh what depth, completeness and liberty there is to be found when, by the grace and irresistible calling of God, one falls under and obeys that wonderful word of the Saviour, ‘Come unto me… and I will give you rest.’ Indeed they must hear, they must come, and they must enter into rest, for, said Jesus, ‘The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live’, John 5:25. The elect hear Christ’s voice, he knows them, he calls them out and separates them, and they follow him. He gives unto them eternal life, and they never perish. And these called are then kept: kept by the power of God through tribulation; through the attacks – sometimes subtle, sometimes vicious – of the evil one; kept through trials and fears; through the risings up of the flesh, and from the power of temptation, which at times seem sure to overwhelm them; kept and delivered from a sometimes hankering back to the imagined ease and satisfaction of the former times of unregeneracy, when none of these things seemed to have been a trial; yea, they are kept through faith unto salvation; a great, full and final salvation which is ready to be revealed in the last time, John 10:27,28; 1 Peter 1:5.
These out-called are therefore described as being ‘sanctified’. This scriptural word means ‘set apart as holy’, for the true worship of God, for his service and glory. To be sanctified – as God sees it – is to be in an absolute state: ‘in Christ’, which is the opposite state to being ‘in sin’, cp. Romans 6:1-3. So in the epistles the called of God are many times referred to as ‘saints’, ‘holy ones’, sanctified in Christ Jesus. Therefore it is worth noting that none of these epistles are addressed ‘to the sinners at…’ Thus Peter is able, according to sound doctrine, to make clear distinction between ‘the righteous’ and ‘the sinner’, 1 Peter 4:17,18; cp. also Psalm 1:5,6.
Again, holiness, by definition, cannot exist by degrees; if one is thought to be, say, ninety-percent holy, then one is actually unholy. A person cannot progressively become ‘more holy’; that is the belief of those who, devoid of faith, live by works; who know nothing of the Christ who is made unto his people sanctification, 1 Corinthians 1:30. This is not to say that there aren’t degrees of spiritual maturity: as John’s ‘little children… young men… and fathers’: or Paul’s ‘babes in Christ’ and ‘spiritual’, 1 Corinthians 3:1; but none of these are to do with attaining by works, but of growing saving knowledge of Christ. By the operation of God, and by faith, the saints ‘grow up into him’, Ephesians 4:11-16, and ‘perfect holiness in the fear of God’, 2 Corinthians 7:1. But as to being in a holy state, as far as God is concerned, the carnal babes and the mature fathers are as holy as each other, all being ‘in Christ’.
This is such a liberating truth for all those striving under some sort of legal rule: whether that rule is a false understanding of what it means to be under the gospel, or whether one suddenly finds himself bound by the yoke of the traditions of religious men. How scarce is preaching which asserts what the children of God are in Christ. How little is understood – is even declared – of how God sees his people as they are found ‘complete in him’, Colossians 2:10, and how, by the Spirit, that truth is a great comfort and encouragement to them amidst all the trials and temptations of the way.
The preaching I was exposed to in the denomination rarely if ever gave us the truth of the gospel from God’s point of view. ‘The gospel of God’ is a declaration of his great accomplished work for his people, and is made up of an abundance of wonderful objective truth stating what they are in his Son. And being objective, as wrought of God by and in Christ, then none of these things initially involve the ‘feelings’ of the people, because they have been a work of God outside of them – largely being wrought at the cross by the Father and the Son – only later to be applied in them – in their experience – by the Holy Spirit. What a wonderful doctrine is ‘the union of Christ and his church’! But more on these things later.
Furthermore, being in Christ God’s people are necessarily a separate people from all those outside of Christ. The exhortation to such is ‘come out from among them and be ye separate’ – whether the ‘them’ are religious or not; and, again, ‘be ye holy’; that is, ‘be ye what ye are in Christ’; for, really, ‘be ye’ is not so much a case of ‘doing’, but of, well, ‘being’. To be separated by God then is to be in this different state than before; but then being found in that state – in Christ – causes them inevitably to be and to live differently than before. How? Because they are now indwelt of the Spirit of God, who thus works in them ‘both the will and also the deed’ (Tyndale) of his good pleasure, Philippians 2:12,13, bringing forth his fruit – the fruit of the Spirit – in them.
Therefore we can tell the separated ones, for they have been fundamentally and irreversibly changed. Those separated unto God are being taught of him in the way of faith, and in the way of the cross. None of these people ‘try’ to change themselves – taking in hand the task of making themselves ‘better Christians’; for it is the Spirit who now continually separates them unto Christ their life; revealing to them more and more in experience the depths of the incurable corruption of the flesh, and of their constantly growing felt need of Christ and his blood to be their only plea before the Father; as a result they ‘grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’, 2 Peter 3:18. This is why we can say that true separation emanates from a work of God within, and not from the outward actions – be they ‘good’ works or even religious forms – of men.
Being led in this way the sanctified ones will necessarily be separated from the things and ways of the world. They will lose their appetite for those things which before so consumed them. Friends, acquaintances and family will not understand why the child of God no longer finds the old interests and amusements fulfilling and will, in the end, just wander off or perhaps even despise their former friend and loved one who has now ‘turned religious’, cp. 1 Peter 4:1-5. But, again, it is not so much that the regenerate person has separated himself from his former ways in some self-righteous ‘holier than thou’ way; nor has he taken on some new legalistic regime of ‘being different’ to his neighbours, so that he naturally stands out from among them, Luke 18:11,12 – which is what denominational affiliation tends to generate – but that it has just happened to him as God has separated him from within, so that he cannot help but turn his back upon his former way of life.
As this work of separation is fundamental to the assurance of salvation, then it is imperative that we see it being wrought in us; for if there is no evidence of such a work then it matters not what we say we believe – even if it is ‘the truth’ – what we confess or profess, what church or party we belong to, how much we give ourselves to ‘the cause of Christ’, etc.: all is presumption. This is why Matthew 7:21-23, when brought home to the heart by the Spirit, proves to be so devastating.
But this work of God in separating his people has not commenced by their experiencing it, as touched on above; for God’s work of separation has been active from eternity itself, long before any were born into this world, or even the world was made. For here we are speaking of ‘the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus’, Ephesians 3:8-12. This is clearly seen in the testimony of the word of God in relation to his work. The doctrine of election and predestination has at its core the work of separation. From all eternity in the mind, purpose and will of God, yet-to-be created mankind was separated into two groups: the elect and the non-elect; the chosen and the reprobate. The first are those saved by the blood of Christ alone; who, by God-given faith, obey the truth of the gospel, and do the will of the Father; who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, honour and immortality; who walk in those good works which God has before ordained that they should walk in them; and who deny themselves and take up the cross of self-sacrifice daily and follow Christ whithersoever he leadeth. The second are the lost; the contentious – those who always argue against truth received by revelation, and are often heard to say things like, ‘Oh, I don’t know about that!’1; those who evidence no real love for the truth, obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘find’2 their lives, love the world, and consistently obey unrighteousness.
We see then on the day of judgment, on the right hand and on the left, the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31-46; the just and the wicked, Matthew 13:47-50; the godly and the unjust, 2 Peter 2:9; those who have done good and those that have done evil, John 5:26-29, all appearing before the Judge of all the earth3. But it is revealed that those on the right hand had manifested such gracious characteristics ultimately because their names had been written in the Lamb’s book of life from all eternity, Revelation 20:11-15, God having thus worked in them faith, salvation and good works, while in the others he had not. They on the right hand had been chosen before as vessels of mercy, while the others had been fitted, as vessels of wrath, for destruction. The first had always been known of God in Christ, ‘and I know them’, while the others had not, ‘I never knew you.’ And the cause of it all was the separation which God had made before the world was, before any were born, ere any had done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. Oh, blessed, secure, trustworthy doctrine! This is the plain testimony of scripture, and we shake our heads and close our ears to these truths at our peril. Those who do oppose such doctrine always do so when they forget one word: ‘That no flesh should glory in his presence.’ Man in an outward religious profession loves to work, and will always, Cain-like, seek to bring an offering to the LORD which emanates from his own rebellious imagination, and not from that which accords with the revealed will of God. Left to himself he will always, in one way or another, seek some glory and merit in the sight of God; but will always be rejected, even with a ‘Lord, Lord!’ upon his lips.
This is why a belief in ‘free will’ is so fundamentally erroneous, and repugnant to all those who truly love and experienced the doctrine of the grace of God. Those happy to exercise their supposed free wills are totally ignorant of the way of salvation, for they are ignorant of their own natures. To think that your independent will has any part to play in your coming to Christ is to be blind to the first principles of the gospel, and to the basic meaning of what it means to be a sinner. For the very nature of man, and the innate desires of man – the two things which control and drive the will – are themselves totally at enmity with God. Not in a thousand years would the will break away from these two masters and ‘go it alone’ to seek after God. The will of man is happily in bondage and servitude to the nature and desires of man that it serves these sinful dictators with relish, always ready to fall under and obey their impulses, which are only to sin, rebel against and disobey anything and everything which emanates from the Light – even if, outwardly, it carries a feigned religious smile, and occupies itself in what it likes to think of as ‘good works’. But once present ‘truth’ to this naturally sinful, lustful, and willful being – especially as it pertains to the absolute sovereignty of God in all things – and the underlying enmity will soon rise up and wipe the shallow smile from off the lips, and will bring forth that rage toward God and his truth; revealing to any one with the Spirit of God that here is the very enemy of God. Yes, at one time in the past they may have ‘given their hearts to Jesus’, or ‘committed themselves to Christ’; and they may now be active members of their local church, but hatred towards God and his truth is in their hearts. Therefore the child of God, born of the Spirit, believing in and trusting wholly the true Jesus, must flee from the churches, chapels and fellowship of such people, for there is no semblance of unity between them; how can there be, for they have a fundamentally different understanding of the nature, desires and will of man, not only from the testimony of scripture, but in their own experience.
But as to the will of man in its relation to salvation and the eternal purpose of God: well, from all eternity the will of man was nowhere to be found; it is only the will of God that has been exercised in the eternal purpose. But wasn’t the will and purpose of God activated when the Almighty, using his foresight, looked ahead into time and saw those who would believe? No. Never. This idea that God saw who would believe in Christ, and then elected them and wrote their names in the book of life, is a belief that, while apparently paying due reverence to God’s omniscience, actually overturns his sovereignty and makes men the authors of their own salvation, placing sovereignty firmly in the hands of the dust of the earth. But that’s blasphemy, the doctrine of the father of lies and rebellion himself; who, among other profane things, said, ‘I will be like the most High’, Isaiah 14:12-15.
Therefore ‘free will’ is just another manifestation of the ancient lie, ‘Ye should be as God’, Genesis 3:4,5 (Tyndale). This is where your free will leads you: casting God off his throne for you to sit there as God, your destiny supposedly in your own hands. But man’s will will never usurp the will of God; the clay is always passive in the hands of the sovereign potter, Romans 9. Writing to the people of God James teaches that God ‘of his own will begat us’, James 1:18. You cannot get much clearer than that. Our will? But ‘it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy’, Romans 9:16 – and neither of those references are taken out of context to make them mean what I want them to mean.
If men were left to their own wills then all would be lost, for men love darkness, and God is light. Men are born in sin and love their natural realm of rebellion: but God is holy. Men love unrighteousness, iniquity, vanity and lies: but God is righteous, true and good. As already seen, in reality man’s will is not free at all – certainly not free to choose the right way – being bound to the nature and lust of man. Our wills are free to live in sin; free to exercise pride, rebellion and self-justification; free to scream to the heavens, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us’; and free to cast ourselves headlong into hell – all of which is called being ‘free from righteousness’, Romans 6:20. But any one who has experienced the miraculous interior work of regeneration, calling, and separation from all these natural realms and delights to God-ward, will never admit to the work having emanated from them. They will all confess to having been wrought upon by Someone outside of themselves, causing them – Ezekiel 36:25-33 – to turn from their wicked ways to seek after God, his salvation and holiness. Oh, our God is the Creator, the Beginner, the Author, the First, indeed, the great Cause of everything in the realm of salvation, and any one who holds to free will and it’s fruit, works, knows nothing of it whatsoever.
One verse proves this point: 1 Corinthians 12:3: ‘No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.’ The indwelling of the Holy Ghost will cause a man to declare that Jesus is the Lord. But the Holy Ghost, being God himself, indwells whom he will – that is, sovereignly; therefore the declaration of the individual is more than just a verbalization of the Lordship of Jesus, as ‘many’ easily manage, Matthew 7:21-23. No, this saying that Jesus is the Lord is the result of a profound work of God within, which has separated the individual unto Christ to such a degree that, whatever the cost, he must declare that Jesus is indeed the Lord.
Well, what does it actually mean to say that Jesus is the Lord? It means to believe and own that he is Sovereign, Lord over all. That all things: salvation, circumstances, and our very lives and eternal destinies, are in his hands to administer and dispense with according to his will, and not ours. To say that Jesus is the Lord is to own him as the only Saviour of sinners; is to look to his blood and sacrifice alone as our only hope of salvation, and not, no, never to works. The Lordship of Christ is absolute, and to say as such is to submit unquestionably to him – no ‘contention’ here. It is to justify him in all his words and actions, to obey all his commandments, and to yield to his will willingly in all the providences that he brings into our lives – no murmuring here; bringing us even to confess that ‘though he slay me, yet will I trust in him’, Job 13:15, ‘nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt’, Matthew 26:39, and, ‘but none of these things move me’, Acts 20:24. Yes, this is a real life confession and not just a ‘letter’ declaration. Now where are such professors today? There can be none who hold the lie of free will in their right hands.
These are all separating truths; truths which God the Holy Spirit reveals to his own and applies in them in their experience; and they can never resist them, must fall under them, embrace them and, at length, be set at wonderful liberty by them!
To see that God has worked by separation, not only from all eternity, but from the very dawn of time, we can look back to the beginning of creation: to the very first day: ‘And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided the light from the darkness, and the light he called Day, and the darkness he called Night.’ Here was the first revelation of God’s work in separating light from darkness – and that, even before man was created and fell! These are diametrically opposed realms which the whole of scripture goes on to reveal in numerous ways both morally and spiritually, e.g. John 1:4,5; 8:12, etc. Presently the nation of Israel, in Abraham, was chosen and separated unto the LORD because of his love toward them and for his covenant made with them; which love and covenant arose solely within the eternal mind, purpose and will of God because he would, cp. Deuteronomy 7:6-8.
The Incarnation too, God manifest in the flesh, the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth – separating doctrine in itself; the teaching and work of Jesus was nothing if not separating, as a reading through of the gospels will show. For whom did Christ die upon the cross? ‘The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.’ Who, savingly, hear his voice? ‘My sheep hear my voice.’ Likewise only these sheep follow him aright: ‘And they follow me.’ Who are they which believe on him with a faith that truly saves? Only the sheep; as to the rest, said Jesus, ‘But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, even as I said unto you4.’ These are not the words of the modern, easy-to-believe-in ‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’: ‘In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him’, Luke 10:21,22. There are many professed Bible-believing Christians who, far from rejoicing with Jesus in these things, vigorously oppose them; nevertheless the Saviour’s separating doctrine continued and multiplied.
Was it not Christ’s teaching of the separation that God made in Israel of old regarding Elijah’s being sent in time of famine to none save a widow woman of Sarepta for sustenance; and of no leper being cleansed in Elisha’s day save Naaman the Syrian, which caused the first anger from the outwardly religious – but inwardly unseparated – Nazarenes towards him, resulting, they had wished, in his death? Luke 4:16-30. It was, and it still is. William Tyndale, a man separated unto God and to the truth of his gospel, and one evidently full of the Spirit of Christ, wrote in his Obedience of man’s ‘natural venom and birth-poison, which moveth the very hearts of us to rebel against the ordinances and will of God.’ And that is true, naturally, of us all, be we religious, apparently spiritual or out-and-out pagan.
But there is one final separation yet to be manifested, to the horror of the ‘many’ in religion – not to say of the world in general – and to the eternal delight of the relative ‘few’. For this world is not going on for ever; there is a ‘last day’ to come, an actual end of this world; when Christ shall appear in the clouds of heaven – that is, he will come with his saints, cp. Hebrews 12:1; when the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised; when there shall be a resurrection of the just, and of the unjust; when Christ himself, the Judge of all the earth, shall separate all mankind into just two groups, whom he calls the sheep and the goats; that is, again, his obedient, believing people, and those who despise his words, his truth, and his actual Lordship and sovereignty – all of which has been outwrought and manifested in their lives. To the one he will say, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father…’, and to the others, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed…’, see texts already alluded to. And this separation will be for ever; for ever and ever; unto the ages of the ages; to all eternity. And it is about to be manifested; just look at, read, and discern the signs of the times in which we live, and see that this day is ‘at hand.’ There just aren’t ‘generations to come’.
Therefore, in the light of all this, how needful it is for the children of God to come under the sound of a separating ministry; indeed, they are the people of God because of a separating ministry. What trumpets need sounding! Ezekiel 33:1-20. In a day when ‘easy-believism’ is rife, where apathy, carelessness and actual, but unperceived, unbelief rule; and further, where denominationalism is long entrenched, in the few that remain; where the ‘reformed faith’ – with so much emphasis on legalism, the antithesis of faith – has in many places replaced ‘the faith of God’s elect’ – which is ‘the faith of Jesus Christ’, Isaiah 42:1; and where light, broad, user-friendly evangelicalism seems to hold sway in a majority of the remaining ‘places of worship’, how needful it is again to have a separating ministry; one which calls God’s people out of the false, the killing letter, and the deceitful religious profession of the many, from the traditions of men, back to how it was at the beginning: back to the ‘singleness that is in Christ.’
But we live in a day when truly separating ministry, and servants of the living God separated and taught of him, are virtually5 nowhere to be found. Well, where are the Jeremiahs among the professed people of God, who in their ministry are rooting out, pulling down, destroying and throwing down false doctrine, worldliness, pride, self-righteousness, ease, and a love of religion in the flesh – in a word, rebellion to God and his word? Jeremiah 1:10. There are many who bypass these things and seek only ‘to build and to plant’, but they are false, and Jesus warned of false prophets ‘which come to you’ in the churches and chapels, Matthew 7:15.
Where are the Elijahs and Isaiahs of old who preached only because God had separated them totally unto himself, and given them all the words that they were to speak, who then spoke those words as though it was the LORD alone before whom they stood devoid, for the moment of speaking, of the fear of men? 1 Kings 17:1, Isaiah 6. Seemingly gone are the men that have evidently been called from heaven by Christ, to be with him, to learn of him by revelation and experience the truth of the gospel, 2 Timothy 2:6, 3:14, to receive direct commandment of him to go and preach this gospel to his people. Indeed, how many that presume to preach today have first spent years in ‘Arabia’ and ‘Damascus’ before any further contact with ‘Jerusalem’, before being sent forth to preach, as Paul? Galatians 1:15-18 – not that ‘Jerusalem’ then sent him! cp. Acts 26:15-18, 13:1-4. Numerous times therefore in his epistles Paul was able boldly and justifiably to introduce himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ ‘by the will of God’, or ‘by the commandment of God our Saviour.’ Such authority! And such authority evidently lacking in the men in our pulpits today, of whatever denominational hue.
But Christ, if he is willing, is still able to raise up men to preach his truth; to call, if not apostles, but preachers, employing the same principles as found in Mark 3:13,14: for Jesus having ascended up on high ‘called unto him whom he would… that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach’ – in that order. And even in these very last days this is what the out-called long for, and what the outcasts pray for.
2. Principles of Denominationalism
‘Is Christ divided?’ Denominations declare, ‘Christ is divided.’
Alas, just about the only separation we can find today – for all that is left in this increasingly ecumenical age – is based on denominational affiliation and party spirit. This is brought about by a cleaving to man-made Confessions or Articles of Faith, or by a rigid letter-adherence to Calvin or Arminius; be they of a Baptist persuasion, Presbyterian, Anglican, Brethren or simply Independent.
Yet in Paul’s list of ‘the works of the flesh’, Galatians 5:19,20, these denominations appear as ‘seditions’ – literally ‘separate factions’, or ‘divisions’, 1 Corinthians 3:3, which have come about through carnality. ‘For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?’ verse 4. Yes, certainly. But what happened to the ‘one accord’ that ye all possessed at the beginning? Well, it is still there among the members of the one true church – who have, and retain, ‘the mind [singular] of Christ’, for Christ is not divided – while others have risen up perverting the gospel by stressing certain of its constituent parts above others: emphases have come to the fore at the expense of the whole of the doctrine, and divisions have resulted; men have been lifted up in the affections of the people whose style of preaching, or slant of interpretation has suited them more than others; all of which has led to the current state of factional, or denominated Christianity. But more on this presently.
All of this goes to show how clean contrary denominations are to the plain teaching of scripture when the nature and manifestation of the separation of the true church on earth in the gospel day is considered. Nevertheless, each of the different denominations and groups – especially those which hold strongly to their own particular history, and to the traditions of their elders – still continue to declare, if not in word, but by their very existence as a separate body, that, ‘yes, we are the true church’, or as some in the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists verily believe, ‘we are the very small remnant still left in the land.’ And indeed this must be their confession, and they are bound to stay true to this belief; for as soon as a group of professing Christian churches form themselves into a denomination, limiting their membership only to those who will sign up to what they believe, then their very existence is a declaration of themselves as the true church, all else being, to a greater or lesser degree, in error and outside the body of Christ.
So if those of the Gospel Standard, for instance, declare their denomination to be the true church – as they must do if they are to stand immutably by their Articles, membership and closed table – what they are in effect saying is that the sheep of the New Testament, the recipients of the Epistles, and the glorified saints as read of in Revelation would all, if they were alive on earth today, be Gospel Standard Strict Baptists! This is undeniable, for their very existence says as much. But such a reasoning taken to its logical conclusion would have to exclude, and even finally condemn (?) men like Huntington, Bunyan, Tyndale, etc., and all the non-GS ‘poets’ they love to quote from the hymnbook. But once allow Berridge, Toplady, Newton, Cowper, et al, into glory and their denominational principles must immediately fall to the ground.
How many genuine brethren have churches and denominations refused the right hand of fellowship over the years because of their wretched traditions! This is not the spirit of the true church of Jesus Christ, and neither is this true separation in the gospel sense; not what the Spirit-born child of God is called into, and not what he can be fed with and sustained by. However scripturally sounding and textually persuasive the declarations of various denominations might seem to be they all, in the final analysis, because of their particular slant, can only be described as being based on ‘the tradition of men’, therefore making their worship ‘vanity’, their heart, in reality, being far from God, Mark 7:5-9. It must be the truth which separates, not our truth.
As a refreshing aside here: I recently read a biography of Toplady and was thrilled to read of an incident which occurred when he was close to death, which revealed a foretaste of glory divine and the simple beauty of the fellowship of the body of Christ; and I include it here for the reader to ponder. Toplady had just finished preaching to his own people for the last time:
‘Then casting his eyes round the building he noticed among the congregation his friends Ryland [Snr.] and Gifford [both Baptist pastors]. ‘I perceive,’ he said, ‘some of my elder brethren in the ministry of another denomination present. The Lord’s Supper is to be administered this morning, and I invite them to come and join with us in commemorating the dying love of the Lord Jesus Christ. When we get to heaven, it will not be known which particular fold we belonged to here. There will then be no mark of distinction. We shall mingle our voices together in one united chorus of praise and thanksgiving. Then why not imitate the celestial company here, and have as much as possible of heaven below, before we arrive at that blissful abode?’ The incident was a deeply affecting one. Many hearts were touched, many eyes welled with tears. The invitation, so heartily given, was as willingly accepted.’
Although Toplady’s use of the word ‘fold’ – and, of course, denomination – is contrary to the truth, John 10:16, yet he was right in spirit. Put into a similar situation what present-day ‘strict’ denominational minister could bring himself, at such an invitation, feebly to wave his man-made articles in the air and say that he would be ‘disciplined’ if he ‘sat down’ with anyone who hadn’t signed up to the same? Only those where bondage to tradition and the fear of men existed to override a love of, a walking in, and a fellowship in the truth of the gospel. Does one really have to be on the point of death – as Toplady was – to see the great truth of the ‘one body’, and walk in it?
Now before the reader comes to the conclusion that I am denying ‘strict communion’, please continue to read carefully; for I do believe in strict communion, but on altogether another footing than the denominational mentality will allow. In the early days of my being awakened, in the mid-1990s, I tried to believe the simple truth that if the Spirit of God dwelt in two people then they, as being taught of him, would ultimately never disagree on any point of the doctrine of Christ. I say I tried to believe it because the church of which I was a member at the time seemed evidently to witness against it, and so often down through the history of the church genuine brethren have so often failed to walk accordingly. How often did I have, and still do have, conversations with other professing Christians which end, ‘Well, we’ll just have to agree to differ on this point.’ But that is a denial of ever being able to arrive at ‘the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace’, Ephesians 4:3-7. Certainly the existence of denominations denies the possibility of this happening, and therefore denies the Spirit’s ability and power to bring it about. Indeed, they say that there can actually be disunity among groups of ‘brethren’ in their various denominations, while not denying that the Spirit is working, albeit, presumably, in a restricted way, in them all! Thus, go into any church or chapel in the land next Sunday and you will hear said, ‘The Lord has been with us!’ But it has rightly been said that if you have two or more denominations, each of which profess to be the right one, then either one is right and all the others are wrong, or they are all wrong! I have come to the conclusion now that the latter is the case.
But further. Not only do denominations deny the Spirit’s ability and power to bring about a manifestation of the true church in our day, devoid of the traditions of men, but they really do not believe that the Lord Jesus can do as he said he would do in Matthew 16:18: ‘I will build my church’ – that is, ‘I will build my one body of the out-called.’ Now that is a statement of intent by the Saviour which does not include the working, opinions or traditions of men to be operated in any way. Christ, independently of the help of men, will, himself, build the church which belongs to him. So, in any given generation, in various localities, Christ, in a present and ongoing work, will, under the preaching of truly sent ministers, be calling out a separated body of people, whom he will gather together as a unified company to show forth his praise; and as we shall see, denominations don’t answer to that.
As it is the Lord, by his Spirit, which does this work of building, then within that body will be raised up all the offices and gifts needful for a local assembly to function according to the commandments, exhortations and order found set forth in the epistles of the New Testament. Well, who else, but to this single called out body, does the reader think the teaching and exhortation of the apostles is addressed? To man made divisions? Surely not! ‘Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to the church at…’ And it is within that one body that true ‘strict communion’ occurs, and nowhere else.
But someone might now be saying, But if all these people are called out of the denominations and gathered together, all you will end up with will be another denomination; and you’ve just said that all denominations are wrong! No. The church is not a denomination, it’s the church! Why is it that people cannot conceive of the existence of the church outside of the denominational system? Denominations aren’t just different ‘sections’ of the church, as some believe.
Again, another might argue here, But you’re seeking the perfect church – and you’ll never find it!’ And that charge betrays a denial that Christ can do what he said he would do! Has the professing church grown so lethargic, so careless, and so comfortable within it’s various parties? Yes, it has. Has the mentality been so benighted and captivated by the idea that ‘only gathered around Articles or Confessions’, and what’s more, ‘only in chapel’ – or church, ‘only on a Sunday’, ‘only on pews’, ‘only from a pulpit’, etc. can the church be found and exist? Yes, it has. Well, that’s not what Christ said he would build.
Again, the reply might come, Well, if you want to take such an extreme stance, then what you’ll end up with will be just a handful of people in any given place, totally separated from all appearance of organised ‘religion’ and order. No, there will be order within this company which Christ has assembled because they are gathered in the unity of the Spirit, all made willing and desirous to maintain that order and unity, sensitive to the Spirit’s leading, and humbly submitting to the Lordship and authority of Jesus Christ; and yes, in this proud and contentious age you may only get down to ‘two or three gathering together in Christ’s name’ – just as he made provision for in that promise which concludes, ‘there will I be in the midst of them’!
Am I aiming too high, and expecting too much? No, I am not. I am believing the Saviour! I do believe that the Lord can cut through the traditions and ‘chapel-only’ mentality of men, and still fulfil his word regarding his body. I can look for nothing less; and now desire to be gathered in no other way.
I suppose that years ago, in the mists of my primitive understanding – or was it clear-thinking simplicity? – before being drawn into an established denominational setting, I was beginning to come to the conclusions alluded to above: that as in the days of Noah there was only one ark, and that if you were in that ark you were safe from the judgment, then surely now there can only be one church, one body of Christ, which should in theory and, indeed, in practice, be manifest and known: a gathering made up solely of those called of God into ‘fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ’, by the Spirit; indwelt of him, worshipping God in Spirit and in truth, devoid of the traditions and commandments of men.
Well, did Noah’s sons build their own arks because they each disagreed with their father – and with one another – regarding the design or structure of certain aspects of the ark? – as if the instructions of God for the building of the vessel were open to interpretation! No. Then neither has Christ’s description and teaching of what his church is been given as some basic blueprint for various groups of Christians to do with it what they will. The true and complete character of his church has been revealed from the beginning, and there is no scriptural evidence to cause one to suppose that it shouldn’t remain so till the end. This is why I now believe that denominations don’t answer to how it was at the beginning; for, after all, Noah did build one ark, and Christ did say that he would build his church, not the churches.
Another reason why the separation manifested in denominationalism is alien to how it was at the beginning is because of the simple fact that you will not find Paul writing to various divisions in the early church; to the Baptists at Philippi, to the Presbyterians at Thessalonica or to the Established Church at Rome, but only ‘to the church’ at Corinth, or ‘to the saints’ at Ephesus. One might say that this is a redundant argument, because as the church was unified at the beginning, there were no denominations. But it is not true that all who professed Christ in that first century were of one accord. They certainly were at the very beginning – just read the opening chapters of Acts; but it was not many years before there appeared the legalistic Judaisers which began to trouble the churches; before there arose others who liked to have the pre-eminence, who drew men after themselves; and before there were found those who were well content with a form of godliness, only without the power; and no doubt these all generated their own groups. Thus by the close of the apostolic age we find John writing, among other things, that some ‘went out from us’ – the ‘us’ being the one true church – being thus manifest as apostates, having the spirit of very antichrist. And because of this he constantly referred his readers back to ‘that which was from the beginning’, as the only answer and hope for recovery, 1 John.
But despite these things, and through it all, as we’ve said, there remained only one church – all breakaway groups, meetings or denominations being counted as false. And the ‘articles and rules’ of that one true church was from the beginning, is all the way through – despite the splits and schisms – and will be to the end, the whole of the doctrine of Christ, the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship; or, in a word, the gospel of Christ as it was revealed in and from the beginning. And as far as the Saviour is concerned – regardless of what men think, and regardless of what they do ‘solemnly’ in his name – that is the only doctrine, and the only church which remains today; being made up of ‘the outcasts of Israel’, Psalm 147:2; the only one to which the epistles, for example, are addressed. Now, where is that church today? I defy any one to say that his denomination answers to it, or that he even cares.
Something which springs from all this is a mentality which sees buildings as being vitally important. We must have a place to go and worship – a place we call ‘the church’, or ‘the house of God’. But those who are brought to look solely for the work of God begin to see through all this and, regardless of place, long for what is genuinely the assembling of the saints. For as soon as things become ‘outward’ the Spirit is in danger of being lost. Was this not the reason Stephen got into trouble with certain members of the synagogue? To their legal ears and reasoning he was ‘speaking blasphemous words against this holy place’, the temple – not to mention against their law! ‘For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs6 which Moses delivered us’, Acts 6:8-14. This was only a repetition of the false accusation which the Lord Jesus had suffered before like-minded men on the night of his arrest, Matthew 26:59-61. But Stephen would never have taught that, because he knew that his Lord had been speaking of the temple of his body being destroyed by them in crucifixion, and not of him pulling down their temple made with hands, John 2:18-22.
This then was the reason for Stephen’s long answer which ended with his alluding to words of Solomon, and quoting Isaiah their prophet: ‘Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hands made all these things?’ Acts 7:48-50. Their answer, of course, was, Yes, we will build a house with our hands, and expect the most High to come and dwell therein; for we have our customs, traditions and outward forms: this is our fundamental ethos: we will have our ‘chapel religion’. But this is the mentality which brought forth Stephen’s famous cutting reply, which reply still sounds against all who will call their sanctified bricks and mortar ‘the house of God’, or, ‘the house of prayer’: ‘Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost…’ etc. But how were they resisting the Holy Ghost? Because Stephen was ‘full of the Holy Ghost’ as he spoke these words! Stephen was preaching the new covenant not the old. Legalism and outward forms of worship belonged to the old; ‘in spirit and in truth’ belongs to the new: so they of the old stoned him; for, ‘when they heard these things, their hearts clave asunder, and they gnashed on him with their teeth’ (Tyndale). Stephen, then, was truly ‘a sheep in the midst of wolves.’ O reader; don’t stop your ears to these things.
As to the roots of the Gospel Standard denomination, there is no doubt that in the early nineteenth century many were called by God’s grace under the preaching of William Gadsby and others, and that a number of assemblies of God’s people were formed as a result. But after a while among those who chose to designate themselves ‘Strict and Particular Baptists’ – which name only emphases certain aspects of the whole doctrine of the gospel: strict communion, particular redemption, and baptism of believers by immersion: so no ‘fulness’ admissible from the start – a contention arose regarding the eternal Sonship of Christ which was necessarily and ably defended by J.C. Philpot in the relatively new Gospel Standard Magazine, and eventually many of the chapels which held to the right view on the issue – a fundamental scriptural doctrine sure enough – ‘gathered round’ the Gospel Standard, and anon a denomination was formed.
But the trouble is that when a group of churches separate and form an association – even though the separation was brought about by a right contending for truth – and then starts writing its own rules and articles of faith, what they are in essence trying to do is to capture a moment of blessing for all time. They are trying to encapsulate a genuine work of the Spirit and fashion a system around it thinking to perpetuate that work for generations to come. But God doesn’t work like that. For eventually the power in the ministry fades, as the ministers raised up at that time and for that time pass away, and all that is left is a mere semblance of what was formed at the beginning – phrases and all – while many in succeeding generations fail to realise that the blessing has been withdrawn.
And so I believe it is with the Gospel Standard. If William Gadsby or one of his hearers were to walk into a GS chapel today I am sure that externally they would see little change from their day: the same Bible is used – and rightly so; the same, or slightly expanded hymnbook is in use; there is mostly the same atmosphere of quiet ‘reverence’, God is still addressed as thee and thou – again, rightly so, and (vanity aside) the people seem generally conservative in dress and relatively unworldly. But it is all form! And yet, this form is held as being vitally important in the present day denomination; for there are many who do think that if the form is right then the blessing must follow, reversing, in principle, 1 Samuel 16:7.
There is a phrase often used among them (as well as among others) which, when used in the above context, is terribly God-limiting in reality and yet sounds so right: ‘the means of grace’. The means of grace are God’s means by which he bestows his grace. These ‘means’ are ‘by Jesus Christ and him crucified’, ‘by the Spirit’, ‘in the will of God’, ‘by the word’, ‘by hearing his voice’, ‘through preaching by sent preachers’. But in the denomination – although none would disagree with those definitions – the phrase has actually come to mean, basically, in chapel on a Sunday or at the prayer meeting or preaching service mid-week. So if you don’t ‘go to chapel’ and sit under the preaching of one of ‘the Lord’s servants’, or at least hear a ‘read sermon’ by one of the Lord’s servants of old, then you are unlikely to receive a blessing. This is why you must go to chapel, and why everyone does go to chapel. The young people are urged never to ‘leave chapel and go out into the world’ – as so often failure to attend chapel equates with being worldly. Thus there ensues an early learnt, accepted, unthinking and unquestioning adherence to this O so subtle spirit of bondage. If you don’t go to chapel God won’t meet with you, and won’t bless you, as you fail to attend ‘the means of grace.’ Yes, and I’ve heard it not only implied but specifically stated from the pulpit as well. How near this mentality is to the superstitions of Rome I leave the thinking reader to ponder.7
But it is just not true that God only meets with his people ‘in chapel’ at service times, as scripture and experience testify, and which this mentality seems to suggest. O the blessedness of being set free to experience the truth of what Jesus prophesied to the woman at the well: once and for all he sounded the death-knell to ecclesiastical buildings and to times and days, when he said, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father… But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth’, John 4:21-24. See how in his doctrine Jesus is saying that in the New Testament day, brought in by the shedding of his blood and the giving of the Spirit, being found ‘on this mountain’ or ‘at Jerusalem’ will be irrelevant as places where the children of God will worship, receive saving knowledge, and have communion with their heavenly Father. The Samaritans worshipped they knew not what on their mountain, the Jews drew nigh unto the God of their fathers with their lips and all things outward at the temple in Jerusalem, but it was all soon to be swept away. So now when people build a chapel, ‘sanctify’ it, and call it nothing less than ‘the house of God’, they are denying Jesus’ words and resurrecting worship again ‘at Jerusalem’. When they call their church the place they ‘go to worship’, they revert to outward forms, like what Paul called, ‘the Jews’ religion’, Galatians 1:13,14. As soon as a building is designated ‘the place where God meets with his people’ a mentality arises which causes them to understand that the Almighty God, who inhabits eternity, has to deign to come and visit them in that place, which they call ‘the church’ – but which he never so calls – thereby making the church a physical place and the only ‘proper’ setting for ‘worship’; but Christ and his apostles call the members of his body the ‘lively stones’ which themselves make up the church, Jesus Christ himself – not some lump of stone laid at a solemn ceremony – being the chief cornerstone. Thus the children of God don’t ‘go to church’, but gather as the church.
This is further proved by remembering that when Jesus spoke of ‘destroying this temple’ in John 2, he was speaking ‘of the temple of his body’, verse 21. Therefore Paul, fully understanding of Christ’s doctrine, could address the church, ‘ye are the temple’, cp. 1 Corinthians 3:16,17, 2 Corinthians 6:16. And as the church is made up solely of these ‘living stones’ then the idea of a mixed company of saved and unsaved people meeting together in chapel – as ‘members of the church and congregation’ – is alien to the scriptural testimony of what Christ’s body, the ecclesia, as gathered, really is. Oh, the out-called, as the body and church of Jesus Christ, are a spiritual not a carnal people, and where two or three of them are gathered together and in his name – those being the only valid ‘places’ to be found – there the Saviour has promised to be in the midst of them, no matter where, physically, they are; Hebrews 10:25, Matthew 18:20.
Whereas it is true that the Lord Jesus and his apostles went into the synagogues to minister, teach and reason from the scriptures, it is also true that the majority of those who frequented ‘synagogue’ turned out to be ignorant of, or even out-and-out enemies of the truth, and of the faith of God’s elect – as it remains today; so it wasn’t long before the Master and those he sent to preach were cast out as being far too separating in their ministry, and far too dismissive of men’s traditions. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John collectively testify that Jesus mostly taught while he was ‘without’: from a ship, in a mountain, as he walked, in the house, by the way, and yes, in the temple. It was at a wedding feast – where there was an abundance of wine – that Jesus once manifested forth his glory to his disciples, who believed on him, John 2:1-11. Read through the Book of Acts also to see the same things.
Experience, too, confirms that Christ’s sheep hear his voice in many places that are not furnished with pulpit, pews, wood panelling and coloured baize, while dressed in their ‘Sunday best.’ While it is true that the Lord has spoken to this sheep on the rare occasion while in chapel – and that usually under the public reading of his word – the vast majority of times it has been in my own home, or while speaking ‘together’ with other of the Lord’s people. I have heard the voice of the Son of God while in my car, in bed, at work in the garden, walking down the stairs, while poring over his word seeking of him his truth or will, and under the preaching and writing of those God truly sent to preach. Which all goes to show that he is not limited to time and place, or to our dress and posture. Indeed he speaks to those who seek him with the whole heart, to those who ask of him and plead with him to reveal himself and his truth.
Now none of this is to deny the need for the people of God to come together to hear the preaching of the gospel, for as we shall see in the next chapter, much of the Spirit’s teaching is for the body of Christ as gathered; but to hear the gospel aright one must hear one sent to preach it, Romans 10:13-15. But my contention is that the vast majority of men in our pulpits today are not sent to preach it; if they were how could they, without compromising, continue so long in churches, chapels and denominations which hold so firmly to men’s traditions? For one fruit of a truly sent ministry is determined opposition and persecution from religious professors. Just look at the Old Testament prophets who truly had a ‘thus saith the Lord’ for Israel or Judah; what happened to them when they delivered their message faithfully? More often than not they were hunted down, imprisoned, thrown into dungeons… etc. And what of the NT apostles? When they preached in the synagogues did the Jews smile nicely, shake their hands, put some money in the box and go home? No. Because Christ had sent them to preach the gospel, the result was that so often they had to run for their lives; Jesus, after all, had said that the synagogues would be places of scourging for the disciples! Matthew 10:16,17.
So if the Lord did send a man to preach today ‘among the churches’, we would expect to find – and that not before too long – a trail of destruction, confusion and enmity toward the truth of the gospel, as it split congregations asunder, separating the sheep from the goats. When Paul preached the gospel of Christ, which was totally against the traditions of men, he never compromised – especially to the legalists who delighted in outward form – and was as a result hounded from place to place, often beaten and even stoned. But no established denominational minister today experiences anything like that; for he preaches a gospel marked by slant, over-emphasis and separation based on party lines, which necessarily causes him to compromise on certain aspects of the truth – whether consciously or not – so that he will be well received among his own people, whether they are regenerated or not; hardly a sheep in the midst of wolves! But when a man stands up to preach, then woe unto him when all men speak well of him, Luke 6:26.
Thus we can justly conclude that, among the men who preach in a denominational setting today, very few actually preach and expound the word of God itself – other than in the letter. What they do do – and I ask the reader to listen carefully when you are next in chapel – is expound their beliefs using the scriptures to back them up. I actually heard one minister say that he ‘tries to preach the gospel according to the Thirty-five Articles’! And, again, this must be the case; for as soon as we hear the scriptures speak independently of any preconceived notions, then our traditions begin to tumble. For constantly iterating ‘what we believe’ in chapel is not ‘the means of grace’: the blood of the new covenant and the gospel of Christ, which declares it, is the Saviour’s ‘means of grace’.
So, in the absence of this, what we are left with today are multitudes of people going to ‘a place of worship’ – the place where God meets with them – and they listen to a man they believe to be sent of God to preach the gospel, who, as he usually isn’t sent, preaches something far short of the whole of the doctrine of Christ; but, to them, this is the church, this is the gospel, these are the ministers, and what they have is the truth, the Spirit and salvation. But they haven’t! They, at best, have a form of godliness, but not the reality of it. And if anyone is, at this moment, shaking their heads, tutting, and saying, ‘I don’t know about that!’, then I beg you to open your Bibles, look up the references, prove all things, and fall under the plain meaning of the word of God instead of contending against it. Cast away what you think and find out what God thinks and the Spirit reveals.
In reality though the principles and spirit of denominationalism is actually very attractive to the natural man, for it places people in a big ‘family’, engenders a sense of ‘security’ within that family, and is why, I believe, so many are caught in these things, or happily embrace them. And although it would be wrong to say that elect souls cannot be found within these groupings, and that the Lord does not graciously meet with his people despite the fact that they are among them, I feel persuaded that they cannot remain part of them, for when enough light has entered the soul they cannot help but perceive the importance of the status quo for the necessary continuance of the denomination, that they must eventually be called out.
A denomination, then, by definition cannot change, that is, receive further light, or discover and amend unscriptural slant or deficiency in its long-held traditions, for that would destroy it. This is the reason why any one who does start to have ‘concerns’ is either trained to put the thoughts out of their mind immediately, or is told that ‘it’s probably better just to leave it’, as ‘this is the way it has always been.’ And anyway, who is going to want to be the one that causes a split, or brings trouble to the ancient and steady ark? If a minister started to be troubled in his conscience, having received further light, and as a result began to feel a certain bondage in the pulpit, because of the expectation that he continue to conform to the denominational image, will he want to be the one to speak out and potentially break things up? Does he want his name to go into the annals of the history of the denomination as being the one that ‘caused all that trouble’? – not that there is much ‘history’ left to be written. As the answer is usually in the negative then he will either have to come to terms with the realisation that the denomination will remain a static body with its feet firmly grounded in the reason for its formation, and keep quiet, or he will have to speak out and face the consequences – which will be that, sooner or later, he will have to leave, which will cost.
Apart from tradition and the fear of man, a denomination has another built-in way of securing self-preservation; and that is natural generation. It is not, and indeed cannot be maintained from one generation to another solely by the Lord adding to its numbers by regeneration. And this is proved simply by walking into many churches or chapels of a long established denomination today; for therein you will more likely than not find two, perhaps three generations of families; children have been born and brought up ‘to chapel’, have met and married within the denomination, and brought forth the next generation. And the startling discovery is that the vast majority of these people – of whichever generation they belong to – will likely still be unregenerate; and, in principle, there is no reason to exclude occupants of the pulpits from that assertion either. Well, how many in the pews have any spiritual conversation, and show that they are genuinely seeking the salvation of their souls? My experience is that the vast majority have nothing much to say, apart from to pass on any new bit of chapel news! Judge ye yourselves; examine your own hearts in these things in the light of the coming day of judgment; look in the mirror and at least be honest!
As most that are found in the denomination are life-long attendants, then it will soon be realised that relatively few ‘come in from outside’; but those that do – if they stay – will quite quickly assimilate the ways, mentality, phraseology, and slant of that denomination; as is what happened to me. The ministry within a denomination is produced likewise. Their ministers are usually of their own stock, raised and steeped in their particular tradition, having absorbed all that is needed to sound right to the ears of the congregations; add a ‘felt calling’ to the ministry, go before the ‘membership’, who, persuaded by presentation, right emphasis and perhaps lineage find the ministry acceptable and, lo and behold, the traditions of men are maintained, many are deceived, both in as well as outside the pulpits, and the people love it so. Worse still, is that it is all done professedly ‘in the will of the Lord’, having been solemnly prayed over, it having apparently been confirmed by various words of scripture which have come to one and another, seemingly confirming the spiritual validity of all that has taken place. But for all that an unscriptural form continues. For it is Christ that sends, not churches; and never once in the witness of the New Testament was the church called upon to approve the Saviour’s calling by a vote! – there being no such thing as ‘democracy’ in the early, Spirit-filled church.8
This can be proved if we look in a little more detail at something alluded to earlier: the sending forth of Barnabas and Saul from Antioch, Acts 13:1-4. Nowhere in the text do we read of these two men approaching the Pastor or deacons saying, ‘We feel called to preach’; the church then hearing them ‘speak on a text’ to test whether their exercise was genuine or not. No. As ‘certain prophets and teachers’ in the church, named in verse 1, ‘ministered to the Lord and fasted’ – presumably their stated and regular exercise – not the church, nor the men themselves, but ‘the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them’ – and called, as we have seen, over many years. And the church’s response? Simply, ‘And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.’ Thus it could be recorded: ‘So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost’, and by no one else. In this, as well as in so much else in denominationalism, the traditions, thoughts and unscriptural actions and self-asserted authority of men have robbed the people of God, as gathered, of the simplicity of how it was at the beginning.
These then are the main principles of denominational separation which exist today. But it is not the separation, I believe, that the scriptures speak of, and which God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost performs. Hence my conclusion: The only thing for God’s people now to do is to separate themselves from these things – if there was a truly sent minister among them, he would separate them himself, Acts 19:8,9 – seek the Lord that he might truly gather them solely unto himself, and be prepared to be ‘cast out’ from denominated Christendom – which they surely will be – from rotting and sinking man-made arks, and from men and their traditions.
3. You and Thee
One thing for which the churches of any denomination should be commended – and this is definitely so with the Gospel Standard – is use of the Tyndale/Authorised Version of the scriptures. This is potentially very beneficial, for it is an accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek which allows the reader to differentiate between ‘you’ singular and ‘you’ plural: both original languages make the distinction and it is a very important one.
I say that it is potentially very beneficial to have this version if the distinctions are brought out and applied. But, alas, among the vast majority I suspect the distinction is not noticed – indeed, how can it be in those places which have abandoned this version that God has singularly honoured, and by which the Saviour speaks into the heart, for one of the modern versions, like the New King James, which have done away with ‘all the thees and thous’. But it is a great wickedness to hide the distinction which the Holy Spirit has made, and indeed, which the Lord Jesus made in his teaching and discourses. This is all very relevant to the issue at hand; namely, the particular slant of the Gospel Standard message. But we will come to this presently.
Reading through the scriptures we find the words you, ye, your and yours, thee, thou, thy and thine used constantly. But the translator’s use of the supposedly archaic thee, thou, thy and thine is not just to make the language sound holy and elevated, nor to turn the Bible into good poetical sounding literature, but because of the need to translate accurately. For uniformly you, ye, your and yours are plural, while thee, thou, thy and thine are singular. This is why it is proper to address God as ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ and not ‘you’, for he is one. Strictly speaking to address God in this way is not being reverent as such – all individuals are ‘thee’, even Satan, Matt. 4:10 – it is being accurate.
To give an example where this distinction is made we could turn again to John chapter 4 where Jesus is speaking with the woman at the well. At one point he says to her, ‘Go, call thy husband, and come hither’: ‘thy’ is singular. As the conversation continues the woman brings in the subject of ‘our fathers’ who worshipped in this mountain; to which Jesus replies, ‘The hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what…’. Now, although Jesus is still speaking to the woman, yet he is referring not only to her but also to all her people: ‘ye’ is plural. She then makes reference to the coming Messiah who ‘will tell us all things.’ But Jesus doesn’t reply to the ‘us’ in her statement but to her individually: ‘I that speak unto thee am he’: ‘thee’ is singular. Once we recognise these differences we suddenly start to see all kinds of nuances in Jesus’ discourses, and, indeed, throughout the whole of the Book. Compare, for instance, the subtle changes between thee, ye and you in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1-12, and also throughout the Sermon on the Mount.
The one example the promoters of the Tyndale/AV always seem to give in relation to this – but which is usually misquoted by preachers – is Luke 22:31,32. Here Jesus is speaking to Simon, but is referring to all the disciples. It is more often than not quoted as, ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee…’ But Jesus didn’t say ‘thee’ three times because he wasn’t referring just to Peter but to all the disciples. So he said, Satan hath desired to have you – plural – that he may sift you, this company of disciples, as wheat; which he did; Judas was sifted out. Jesus then said, but I have prayed for thee specifically Peter, not, but I have prayed for you – Jesus never prayed for Judas – that thy faith fail not – which it didn’t; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren – which he did: Jesus’ prayers always being answered.
For another example of this we could go to 1 Corinthians 12:21. Here Paul is writing of the body of Christ and the members thereof. Notice in this verse the singular ‘thee’ where the eye is referring to the hand, and the plural ‘you’ when the head is addressing the feet.
Numerous examples could be given to show how many verses of scripture are misapplied because this important distinction between ‘you’ and ‘thee’ is missed. I remember once, years ago, when a man appeared before the church of which I was a member, thinking he was being called to the ministry, that the verse given to encourage him to wait a bit longer was Luke 24:49, ‘tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.’ By now the reader will realise that that word was inappropriate, for Jesus was addressing his disciples as a company, ‘ye’, and not an individual, ‘thou’. Some might say that this is all being very picky and is unimportant: not if one has the insatiable desire to walk in the truth, as expressed by Jesus in praying to his Father: John 17:17. For recognising the distinction between the singular and plural aids profoundly our understanding and application of scripture.
Take the epistles of Paul to the various churches; the words thee and thou appear comparatively rarely, while you and your are everywhere. Why? Because the apostle is writing to the body, the church, which, although made up of individuals, is always addressed as a company, and the teaching and exhortations contained in their epistles apply to them as a body, in their union to Christ their head and in relation to one another. But when we turn to Timothy and Titus, for instance, it is all thee and thou, for these personal epistles are not addressed to the church but specifically to ministers. Therefore individual Christians ‘in the pew’ cannot rightly apply exhortations or specific promises found therein to themselves; likewise they cannot glean for themselves individually from the epistles to the churches words, exhortations and promises which pertain primarily to the body of Christ in one place as unified. In the light of this read carefully Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
To give another example of this. The words of the Lord Jesus that have been in my mind recently have been these: ‘Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth’, John 16:13. Very often individual Christians will take this word and understand that the Spirit will come to them, and will guide them into all truth; but Jesus here is not teaching this. He is speaking specifically to his disciples as a body, that they, as such, in assembly, corporately, as indwelt of the Spirit, will be guided into all truth by the Spirit. Therefore there is a certain aspect of the work of the Spirit which applies especially to the body when gathered – that they will be guided into all truth – which does not apply to the individual Christian. Although each member of the body does obviously receive revelation of the Father, as Matthew 16:17, it is not the Spirit’s work to guide any one member in particular into all truth. A hand, a foot, or an eye, for instance, independently, can never expect to receive a complete revelation of the truth. But the body can – that is, ‘you’ can. And I believe this, as well as being a gloriously elevated theme, is a very important distinction; and one which causes me severely to question much of the application of scripture made in the preaching in churches and chapels today, and especially in the GS chapels.
The reason I say this is that because, more or less, the whole tenor of the preaching in the Gospel Standard denomination is focused on the individual, and rarely, if ever, upon the body. In fact I would go as far as to say that the GS ministry does not encourage the hearers to think corporately at all; the general mentality being centered on me, me, me: ‘Am I going to get a word?’ ‘Is my experience going to be traced out?’ ‘Oh, it was all for me!’ And if a verse like ‘Fear not little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ is quoted or preached from, it always seems to be applied to individuals – individuals waiting for God to bestow upon them in their feelings his ‘good pleasure’; but it was spoken to ‘you’ the flock!
This selfish or self-centered attitude, encouraged greatly by the excessive introspection of the hymnbook9, is the antithesis of the very idea of ‘gathered together.’ In effect it annuls every you, your and ye with the related doctrine expounded in any given place. If a verse containing ‘you’ is interpreted to apply only to the individual, then that scripture is wrongly handled and the proper meaning of the verse is lost. Worse still is the resultant deception one is under if they think the Lord has spoken such a word to them personally, without making reference to any one else, when the fact is that the Spirit cannot and does not misapply his word at all.
With this in mind let us look at a few more examples from scripture. Peter’s First epistle chapter two, for example, is all addressed to ‘ye’. In verse five Peter describes them as ‘lively stones’ who ‘are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.’ These things apply to them as a body – a house isn’t made of a single stone, but of stones; in fact a house cannot appear until many stones are incorporated together; individual stones are relatively useless until they are gathered; then you have a house, and an holy priesthood, from which spiritual sacrifices can be offered up, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; cp. Hebrews 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15.
Again a few verses of Romans 12 teach the necessity of thinking as a body and not just personally; ‘For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another’, verse 3-6, cp. the whole chapter. Indeed, isn’t the mind of God in the New Testament primarily towards the body, the church? Jesus said, ‘I will build my church’; Luke records, ‘the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.’ Here the emphasis is on the body, how it is being built up, yes, of individuals, but the whole mentality is corporate, ‘members one of another’; cp. also Hebrews 2:11-13.
Peter again writes, ‘But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy’, etc. Again the language is in the plural, ‘ye’, and applies to men as gathered, 1 Peter 2. Reference is made later in the same chapter to Christ, ‘who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree’, reminding us of the good shepherd who gave his life for the sheep – for all of them; he being the one ‘who loved the church, and gave himself for it’; being made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Therefore ‘ye are all one in Christ Jesus’, Galatians 3:28.
In 1 Peter 5, which I read just this morning in Tyndale’s version, we read in verse 5, ‘Submit yourselves every man one to another, knit yourselves together in lowliness of mind.’ But how can a company of people ‘knit themselves together’ when they are all thinking of their own personal experience! Nevertheless the doctrine of the gospel continues to exhort corporately: ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus’, Philippians 2:5.
‘Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you’, 2 Corinthians 13:11. ‘Peace be unto you’, John 20:19,21,27. You, you, you, not thee, thee, thee! Such language of unity; of all being one, and of the one body, the true ‘house of God’ – as opposed to ‘chapel’ – being the place where God has promised to ‘dwell’, and to meet with his people, Psalm 132:13-16, Acts 7:44-49.
This is spoken of plainly by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. These are verses so often used to exhort individual Christians to be separate from the world, but again the exhortation applies much higher. The body itself, ‘the temple of the living God’, no less, is to be manifestly otherworldly, yea, separate from the very way of the world in all its aspects. After all, Paul is quoting from Leviticus in verse 16 and Isaiah in verse 17, which refer to the nation of Israel of old who were God’s peculiar and separate people on the earth. Moses, in Deuteronomy 7:6, referring in this instance to the people in the singular, thee – emphasising their absolute unity – says that they are ‘an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’ Then, after thus referring to the people en masse as one body, he addresses them in the plural, ‘you’, in the following two verses, indicating that the body is made up of individuals, but again addressing them only in relation to one another, cp. Exodus 20.
Such is the scriptural revelation regarding the church as a body, and how the writers seek constantly to encourage this mentality of thinking corporately. But it is all lost when the ministry focuses merely on the individual being encouraged to look just to his own personal experience and blessings which, in his limited mind, are his be-all and end-all. How low, earthly even, all this is; but how lofty and heavenly the doctrine of the New Testament is regarding the ‘ye’! Just read Ephesians 2: not a ‘thee’ in sight! But how elusive this is today.
One could go on, and plead in the face of the denomination: Where in the preaching is ‘exhort one another daily’? Where is the ‘Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works’? Where is the ‘Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ’? ‘Let brotherly love continue.’ ‘By this’ – and this alone – ‘shall all men know that ye are my disciples…’. By what? That ye all go to chapel? That one and another can speak of a few ‘spot and places’ where they feel the Lord has been made precious to their souls? Very nice, I’m sure; but no – ‘by this… if ye have love one to another’, John 13:35.
We are not saved for ourselves, nor for our own personal experiences! If we were, what a poor, little, self-centered, self-indulgent salvation it would be. No, we are saved for Christ’s sake. Was Eve created for her own benefit or for Adam’s? Is the church, the body of Christ, created for its own glory and salvation, or for ‘the last Adam’? Assuredly ‘all things were created by him, and for him’, Colossians 1:16. ‘For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen’, Romans 11:36. We are saved and placed in the body to show forth his praise. Indeed, ‘I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake’, 1 John 2:12. We are saved and called to glorify our Head, not to wallow in our blessings. We are called out and separated to serve our God. This was shown when, time and again, the LORD, by Moses, commanded Pharaoh to ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me’, Exodus 7:16, etc. We are created anew and set at liberty, at last, to worship the Father corporately in Spirit and in truth; to be set free from self, and to tell of what Christ has done for us, the church. We are sanctified to be part of this wonderful body, to look out and away from self to and for others; this is, after all, what 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 is all about. Yea, 1 Corinthians 13, we are called to love one another.
Why did Christ give apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? ‘For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man…’ Ephesians 4:11-13. And taking up Tyndale again in verses 15 and 16: ‘But let us follow the truth in love, and in all things grow in him which is the head, that is to say Christ, in whom all the body is coupled and knit together in every joint wherewith one ministereth to another (according to the operation as every part hath his measure) and increaseth the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.’ Again, this is all infinitely above and beyond merely going to chapel, with each sitting there his own little spiritual island. Oh, just read the New Testament for yourselves!
Before I came into contact with the denomination I used to wonder and marvel at, truly believe in, fully expect and long to experience in the way of faith the ‘abundance’ so much spoken of and, indeed, promised by the Lord Jesus in his doctrine. But after ten years of being exposed – especially in later years – to an over emphasis of ‘we faintly trust thy word’, ‘little hope’, ‘shouldn’t presume’, ‘help thou mine unbelief’, ‘Oh that we knew’, ‘marks of grace I cannot show’, ‘a departed Saviour’, etc. they now almost seem unobtainable, and perversely, even unbelievable! Another good reason to flee from it. What! These words of the Lord, yea, promises to his people, unbelievable? Far too high to ‘attain to’? Way out of our reach and expectation with an indwelling Spirit? Surely not:
‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.’ Christ ‘hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.’ ‘I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’ ‘I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.’
‘If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.’ ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.’ ‘The gospel of Christ… it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’, etc. It is not a faithful ministry – it is not a gospel ministry – which robs the saints of entering into these things. My desire is to know them and walk in them. But I’m afraid the ‘ye’ so often referred to in these verses cannot be gathered and survive under a ‘little’ GS ministry. And it is evident that they will not experience these things until they are separated from these places by Christ himself, and then, of him, gathered together unto him.
O to be gathered! That there might be found a company wherein the corporate testimony is, ‘did not our heart (singular) burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?’, Luke 24:32, cp. John 14:1, etc. That Jesus himself might gather his people together, teach them, and fulfil all the wonderful promises he spoke of in John chapters 13-17; which, of course, he must and will do.
But, alas, we must come back down to earth again. Having discovered something of the unity of thought which should be evident among the professed people of God, we now ask: Is this the unity actually manifested in the GS chapels? Generally speaking, I don’t think it is. There is a unity but for the most part it is very shallow, formal and far inferior to that which is revealed and encouraged in the scriptures – well, are you mindful of the body when you’re in chapel?
One symptom of this is that there is no corporate ‘Amen’ at the end of prayers. I found this silence most disconcerting when I first experienced it, but it is indicative of this lack of a corporate mentality, even in the meetings! And the reason they don’t say ‘Amen’? I believe I was told once that it was because all the other churches, like the Church of England, readily do; the inference being that ‘we’re not like them, are we?’ But if true this exposes nothing but the spirit of the Pharisee, Luke 18:11, the spirit which dwells at the very heart of denominationalism. Nevertheless the doctrine of Christ stands: ‘When ye pray… After this manner… Amen’, Matthew 6:7-13.
So what ‘unity’ can be found in the chapels? Primarily there are two ways in which unity is manifested. One is at ‘the Lord’s table’. Once a month the ‘members of the church’ ‘sit down’ together. But the union is first and foremost based on denominational affiliation, all having signed up to ‘what we believe.’ How much spiritual fellowship one has with another in ‘real life’ I don’t know: but my experience is, not much. Even their own J.C. Philpot confessed to feeling more unity of spirit with some who were never at the table than with many that were.
The second form of unity is physical – they are all there in the same place, at chapel, week by week, at the same time. In a way this can be likened to being found at a bus stop. There are a number of people ‘gathered together’ at the bus stop. Why? Is it because they love one another and desire to be together? Is it because they care for each other and long for mutual fellowship and to build one another up? Hardly! They are there as individuals hoping for the bus to come and take them to their own destination: and they would be there regardless of whether or not any of the others were present. And so, generally, it is at chapel. Many are there to get their blessing – their present ‘destination’. They are listening out or waiting for their special word or manifestation, and it will be unrelated to anyone else’s – as each traveller’s destination will be irrelevant to the other, the religion of each being very personal. But the trouble is that for most the bus never comes! But, O well, I must still wait at the bus stop according to the time on the timetable, because it may come one day, and how terrible it would be if I wasn’t there when it did! Remember, we must all attend ‘the means of grace.’
I realised I was still caught up in this mentality when, after having left the chapel of which I had been a member, I still used to travel some miles to one or two other chapels in the denomination, but only irregularly when certain ministers were preaching who I thought were worth hearing. But increasingly I used to ask myself, Why am I going today? Is it to meet with the people; to join in spiritual union and seek to converse about the things of the Lord, the mutual trials of the narrowness of the way, the blessings of a life of faith; to encourage one another, indeed, to worship the Father together? Or is it just because ‘this is what we do every Sunday, it’s chapel time, and anyway, Mr. So-and-so is preaching today, and he’s better than the rest’? I wished it was for the former reason, but, alas, in the end it was for the latter, of course. Just vanity then. I was going for what I hoped I was going to ‘get’, and, after shaking a few hands and exchanging pleasantries, drive all the way home again. But that’s not the church of Jesus Christ ‘gathered together’; these are not ‘the outcasts of Israel’ in spiritual and longed for assembly. This is just formal, dead religion; and I’m not interested in being ‘religious’ any more; for, by the grace of God, Christ is my life, not just the central figure of my professed set of beliefs! – so I’ve more or less – well, altogether now – stopped going. Some might say, ‘But this is no reason to abandon them; why not continue to attend somewhere regardless, and seek to encourage spiritual fellowship.’ What! for two minutes after the service when people are edging to get home? The mentality is not for that way of ‘meeting together.’ For most, chapel is a bus stop, and individuals congregate at a bus stop.
This brings us, of necessity, to consider something of the actual state of the chapels today. Isn’t it the professed woe of the denominational hierarchy that the Spirit is withheld; that there is little or no power in the ministry; and that ‘few signs follow the preached word’,10 etc.? Well, if that is the case – and each minister that professes such things will have to answer this, sooner or later – then what are they doing remaining in the pulpits, if the presence and the power of the Lord has more or less departed; for by their own confession, the Lord obviously is not speaking through them! And what is anyone with a hunger to meet together with others of the body of Christ to hear the voice of the Son of God doing going to such places and sitting under such impotent ministers anyway?
I used to notice how the blame for this lack of power in the ministry was always said to rest somewhere other than with the pulpit: the fault lay either with the Spirit – no less! – for withholding the power; or with the people in the pew: either because of their lack of prayer, or for their overmuch worldliness; but never was it suggested that the fault lay with the ministers; no question that the reason for such barrenness in the churches was because there were unsent, prayerless, or even worldly minded men in the pulpits; no, well, they are untouchable – someone will now quote Psalm 105:15, but out of context. But if it were the case that the fault lay in the pulpit, then they would have to admit to being play-actors – or as the Greek has it, ‘hypocrites’ – and that in Jesus’ name too! But this would never be admitted, and it would almost be thought blasphemy to suggest it. But what is left, then? Men in the pulpits mostly unanointed11, and people in the pews hoping, at best, for a mere ‘crumb’ from time to time, with the Spirit of God professedly withheld. But it would be better that men were honest before the Lord, and would put their hands over their mouths, rather than continue to ‘run’ in this way, Jeremiah 23:21.
Oh, what a grief all this is to the scattered members of the body of Christ. It is no wonder some just leave – or would leave, if they had the courage. But it is a simple fact that if the ministry isn’t feeding the sheep, then the sheep must wander from these false shepherds – hirelings – by whom the Lord obviously is not speaking. And what a condemnation this is to those ministers; for they are in danger of being called by Christ on that day ‘goats’, because for all their knowledge of scriptural texts, the sheep are not being fed – the true interpretation, by the way, of Matthew 25:41,42, etc. But how the true sheep long for something real, something lively – vital – in the assembly. They are fed up with merely ‘going to chapel’, and all that entails. They want the Lord!: his presence, his ministers preaching the doctrine of Christ in the power of the Spirit – as sent.
How fed up I became in the end of hearing about me in the sermons. So much malady described: the unbelief, the darkness, the fear, the doubt, the tribulation. But I know the malady! I carry it around with me every day! The corruption of the flesh, the vain imaginations, the forgetfulness of heavenly things, the forgetfulness of the closet, the lethargy, the murmuring; but I want to hear of the remedy, as already accomplished! There is no hope in merely recognising the malady, all our hope is in the remedy – in Christ himself. Imagine if you went to the doctor with terrible pains, and he just sat there describing what the pains were, and how they must be making you feel: it wouldn’t be long before you’d start crying to him, ‘The remedy! Just give me the remedy!’ So let us hear less of our dismal experience of self, and more of ‘Jesus Christ, and him crucified’. But the truth is that I’ve rarely heard this word expounded, applied, or even understood in anything close to its fulness in any preaching I’ve sat under these past twenty years. Oh, how these things make me weep.
Furthermore, the sheep of Christ wonder where this part of the apostle’s doctrine has gone: ‘When ye come together, every one of you hath…’ 1 Corinthians 14:26. I’m not talking about turning ‘charismatic’, nor am I advocating ‘sharing sessions’; but I’m looking for that gathering together of the out-called, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, who, distributing to every man severally as he will, brings forth those fruits of his presence and work in the assembly: the edification of the body, and the mutual encouragement and building up of one another – all according to the ‘order’ that the apostle in his doctrine constantly insists upon.
But so often my experience has been the opposite. This indulgent ‘it’s only me and the Lord’ mentality militates against the whole idea of there being a body. There was a man in one of the chapels I used to attend who I tried, on more than one occasion, to draw alongside and encourage in the way; to which his ultimate reply was, ‘I don’t take encouragement from any but the Lord himself’! So Paul was wrong in his doctrine, was he? One member of the body can say to another, ‘I have no need of thee.’ More than once I’ve tried to talk to a minister after a service to comment favourably on something he’d said which had helped me, and which might have given rise to some ‘fellowship’ between us; but except for a few instances mostly they would have little or nothing to say in reply; or, on one occasion, the minister just shrugged his shoulders, and with a rough grunt, said, ‘It’s nothing to do with me’, and walked off! So the man was not ‘the Lord’s messenger in the Lord’s message’ after all. But this is not at all conducive to being found in Romans 1:11,12 – on either side!
Before we look more specifically at some of the phraseology employed in the GS ministry, with its fruit, the question must be asked in the light of all the above: So where can one realise true spiritual unity – the unity of the Spirit – if much of the unity that is apparent in the chapels and denominations is based on little more than Articles, Confessions, traditions and physical attendance? Well, outside of them, of course! If one starts to perceive the great depth and wonder of Christ’s purpose for his body (as revealed in the Version12 which retains all the thees and thous), and begins to expose the awful shallowness and falseness of the ‘unity’ which is sought and tenaciously held on to in many of the churches and denominations, then one will soon find himself an outcast, cp. Luke 6:22,23; but then will he be in a position to be gathered truly in God’s revealed and true unity, called Jerusalem and Israel, Psalm 147:2. For I verily believe that promise to be sure: ‘The LORD doth build up Jerusalem; he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.’
But where are the people who long for these things? – those for whom meeting once or twice a week in the formal and staid setting of chapel is just not good enough. Even if those gatherings were more ‘alive’, still they could not wait till the next scheduled meeting to be with other of the Lord’s people. These are like they which drank in Paul’s doctrine; who between the regular meetings in the synagogues – and after he was kicked out of them – were there when he went ‘from house to house’, exhaustively teaching, preaching, travailing – often with tears – and testifying to the gospel of his Lord Jesus Christ.
What hunger there was in the early church! Even the death of a young man in a meeting where Paul was ‘long preaching’ didn’t prevent him from continuing all night, nor they from listening! Acts 20:7-11. Why would ‘continuing daily’ be so frowned upon today amongst the vast majority of professors? Because most are comfortable with keeping their religion at arm’s length in their chapels; being, for the rest of the week, more or less, ‘conformed to this world.’ Thus very few seem to be seeking something more real; few seem discontent with what they practice; and few have much time for anything more. An hour and a half sitting mute once or twice on a Sunday is adequate, thank you. Which all goes to show that the living Christ cannot be in the midst of them – for all their using of his name.
Likewise, where are the ministers who would be prepared – who are even on the look out – to meet with these starving sheep in their homes, as often as they desired to gather, to teach them and expound the scriptures, that they might grow thereby; in a word, to feed these sheep? There are no ministers with the same desirous spirit as Paul to accomplish these things today. O beware, all you preachers who are content to feed the people with so many husks of denominational tradition, but who leave the Lord’s wandering sheep famished, just letting them go: you will each surely receive your reward from the hand of him you so presumptuously say has sent you to preach, who never left his flock to starve as you do; for Jesus, on behalf of his own, will say to ‘ye’ all on that day – so there’s a great mass of them – ‘I was hungered, and ye gave me no meat’, Matthew 25:41,42.
_________
Gospel Standard Strict Baptists 